How learning style affects evidence-based medicine:a survey study

BACKGROUND: Learning styles determine how people manage new information. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves the management of information in clinical practice. As a consequence, the way in which a person uses EBM can be related to his or her learning style. In order to tailor EBM education to the individual learner, this study aims to determine whether there is a relationship between an individual's learning style and EBM competence (knowledge/skills, attitude, behaviour). METHODS: In 2008, we conducted a survey among 140 novice GP trainees in order to assess their EBM competence and learning styles (Accommodator, Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, or mixed learning style). RESULTS: The trainees' EBM knowledge/skills (scale 0-15; mean 6.8; 95%CI 6.4-7.2) were adequate and their attitudes towards EBM (scale 0-100; mean 63; 95%CI 61.3-64.3) were positive. We found no relationship between their knowledge/skills or attitudes and their learning styles (p = 0.21; p = 0.19). Of the trainees, 40% used guidelines to answer clinical questions and 55% agreed that the use of guidelines is the most appropriate way of applying EBM in general practice. Trainees preferred using evidence from summaries to using evidence from single studies. There were no differences in medical decision-making or in EBM use (p = 0.59) for the various learning styles. However, we did find a link between having an Accommodating or Converging learning style and making greater use of intuition. Moreover, trainees with different learning styles expressed different ideas about the optimal use of EBM in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: We found that EBM knowledge/skills and EBM attitudes did not differ with respect to the learning styles of GP trainees. However, we did find differences relating to the use of intuition and the trainees' ideas regarding the use of evidence in decision-making

Homocysteine levels and treatment effect in the prospective study of pravastatin in the elderly at risk

Objectives: To assess the effect of preventive pravastatin treatment on coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in older persons at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stratified according to plasma levels of homocysteine.<p></p> Design: A post hoc subanalysis in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER), started in 1997, which is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a mean follow-up of 3.2 years.<p></p> Setting: Primary care setting in two of the three PROSPER study sites (Netherlands and Scotland).<p></p> Participants: Individuals (n = 3,522, aged 70–82, 1,765 male) with a history of or risk factors for CVD were ranked in three groups depending on baseline homocysteine level, sex, and study site.<p></p> Intervention: Pravastatin (40 mg) versus placebo.<p></p> Measurements: Fatal and nonfatal CHD and mortality.<p></p> Results: In the placebo group, participants with a high homocysteine level (n = 588) had a 1.8 higher risk (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2–2.5, P = .001) of fatal and nonfatal CHD than those with a low homocysteine level (n = 597). The absolute risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal CHD with pravastatin treatment was 1.6% (95% CI = −1.6 to 4.7%) in the low homocysteine group and 6.7% (95% CI = 2.7–10.7%) in the high homocysteine group (difference 5.2%, 95% CI = 0.11–10.3, P = .046). Therefore, the number needed to treat (NNT) with pravastatin for 3.2 years for benefit related to fatal and nonfatal CHD events was 14.8 (95% CI = 9.3–36.6) for high homocysteine and 64.5 (95% CI = 21.4–∞) for low homocysteine.<p></p> Conclusion: In older persons at risk of CVD, those with high homocysteine are at highest risk for fatal and nonfatal CHD. With pravastatin treatment, this group has the highest absolute risk reduction and the lowest NNT to prevent fatal and nonfatal CHD.<p></p&gt

Understanding deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medication: a Q-methodology study in patients

Patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk potentially use preventive cardiovascular medication unnecessarily. Our aim was to identify various viewpoints and beliefs concerning the preventive CVD management of patients with low CVD risk using preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, we investigated whether certain viewpoints were related to a preference for deprescription or the continuation of preventive cardiovascular medication

Risk stratification and treatment effect of statins in secondary cardiovascular prevention in old age: additive value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide

Background To date, no validated risk scores exist for prediction of recurrence risk or potential treatment effect for older people with a history of a cardiovascular event. Therefore, we assessed predictive values for recurrent cardiovascular disease of models with age and sex, traditional cardiovascular risk markers, and ‘SMART risk score’, all with and without addition of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Treatment effect of pravastatin was assessed across low and high risk groups identified by the best performing models. Design and methods Post-hoc analysis in 2348 participants (age 70–82 years) with a history of cardiovascular disease within the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) study. Composite endpoint was a recurrent cardiovascular event/cardiovascular mortality. Results The models with age and sex, traditional risk markers and SMART risk score had comparable predictive values (area under the curve (AUC) 0.58, 0.61 and 0.59, respectively). Addition of NT-proBNP to these models improved AUCs with 0.07 (p for difference ((pdiff)) = 0.003), 0.05 (pdiff = 0.009) and 0.06 (pdiff < 0.001), respectively. For the model with age, sex and NT-proBNP, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint in pravastatin users compared with placebo was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.49–0.90) for those in the highest third of predicted risk and 0.91 (0.57–1.46) in the lowest third, number needed to treat 12 and 115 (pdiff = 0.038) respectively. Conclusion In secondary cardiovascular prevention in old age addition of NT-proBNP improves prediction of recurrent cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality and treatment effect of pravastatin. A minimal model including age, sex and NT-proBNP predicts as accurately as complex risk models including NT-proBNP

Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular risk in the PROspective study of pravastatin in the elderly at risk (PROSPER)

Variability in blood pressure predicts cardiovascular disease in young- and middle-aged subjects, but relevant data for older individuals are sparse. We analysed data from the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) study of 5804 participants aged 70–82 years with a history of, or risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (standard deviation) was determined using a minimum of five measurements over 1 year; an inception cohort of 4819 subjects had subsequent in-trial 3 years follow-up; longer-term follow-up (mean 7.1 years) was available for 1808 subjects. Higher systolic blood pressure variability independently predicted long-term follow-up vascular and total mortality (hazard ratio per 5 mmHg increase in standard deviation of systolic blood pressure = 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.4; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.2, respectively). Variability in diastolic blood pressure associated with increased risk for coronary events (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2–1.8 for each 5 mmHg increase), heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.8) and vascular (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.7) and total mortality (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.5), all in long-term follow-up. Pulse pressure variability was associated with increased stroke risk (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.0–1.4 for each 5 mmHg increase), vascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.0–1.3) and total mortality (hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 1.0–1.2), all in long-term follow-up. All associations were independent of respective mean blood pressure levels, age, gender, in-trial treatment group (pravastatin or placebo) and prior vascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Our observations suggest variability in diastolic blood pressure is more strongly associated with vascular or total mortality than is systolic pressure variability in older high-risk subjects

Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest

Background In patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest without ST‐segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost‐prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND‐36 and collected at 12‐month follow‐up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (β, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894–1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND‐36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857

Sex differences in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation:A COACT trial substudy

Background: Whether sex is associated with outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is unclear. Objectives: This study examined sex differences in survival in patients with OHCA without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: Using data from the randomized controlled Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial, the primary point of interest was sex differences in OHCA-related one-year survival. Secondary points of interest included the benefit of immediate coronary angiography compared to delayed angiography until after neurologic recovery, angiographic and clinical outcomes. Results: In total, 522 patients (79.1% men) were included. Overall one-year survival was 59.6% in women and 63.4% in men (HR 1.18; 95% CI: 0.761.81;p = 0.47). No cardiovascular risk factors were found that modified survival. Women less often had significant coronary artery disease (CAD) (37.0% vs. 71.3%; p < 0.001), but when present, they had a worse prognosis than women without CAD (HR 3.06; 95% CI 1.31-7.19; p = 0.01). This was not the case for men (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67-1.65; p = 0.83). In both sexes, immediate coronary angiography did not improve one-year survival compared to delayed angiography (women, odds ratio (OR) 0.87; 95% CI 0.58-1.30;p = 0.49; vs. men, OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45-2.09; p = 0.93). Conclusion: In OHCA patients without STEMI, we found no sex differences in overall one-year survival. Women less often had significant CAD, but when CAD was present they had worse survival than women without CAD. This was not the case for men. Both sexes did not benefit from a strategy of immediate coronary angiography as compared to delayed strategy with respect to one-year survival

Data on sex differences in one-year outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation

Sex differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients are increasingly recognized. Although it has been found that post-resuscitated women are less likely to have significant coronary artery disease (CAD) than men, data on follow-up in these patients are limited. Data for this data in brief article was obtained as a part of the randomized controlled Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-segment elevation (COACT) trial. The data supplements the manuscript "Sex differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation: A COACT trial substudy" were it was found that women were less likely to have significant CAD including chronic total occlusions, and had worse survival when CAD was present. The dataset presented in this paper describes sex differences on interventions, implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks and hospitalizations due to heart failure during one-year follow-up in patients successfully resuscitated after OHCA. Data was derived through a telephone interview at one year with the patient or general practitioner. Patients in this randomized dataset reflects a homogenous study population, which can be valuable to further build on research regarding long-term sex differences and to further improve cardiac care. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc