Evidence of the Association between Nurse Staffing Levels and Patient and Nurses’ Outcomes in Acute Care Hospitals across Japan: A Scoping Review

We aimed to summarize the evidence of an association between nurse staffing and nursing sensitivity outcomes in Japanese hospitals. A scoping review was conducted and reported following the PRISMA-SR 2020 statement. The ICHUSHI and CiNii databases were searched for published articles written in Japanese and PubMed and CINAHL for those written in English. Out of the 15 included studies, all observational studies, 3 were written in Japanese and the others in English. The nurse staffing level measures were grouped into three categories: patient-to-nurse ratio, nursing hours per patient day, and nurse-to-bed ratio. The outcome measures were grouped into three categories: patient outcome, nursing care quality reported by nurses, and nurse outcome/nursing care quality. Some studies reported that the nursing staff increasingly favored positive patient outcome. Conversely, the findings regarding failure to rescue, in-hospital fracture, and post-operative complications were inconsistent. Although some studies indicated that more nurse staffing was favored toward better patient and nurse outcomes, due to the sparse accumulation of studies and heterogeneity among the findings, it is difficult to draw robust conclusions between nurse staffing level and outcomes in Japanese acute care hospitals

Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Previous Myocardial Infarction and Mild Diabetes Mellitus Following Treatment With Pioglitazone

Background: Secondary prevention in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is critically important to prevent ischaemic heart failure and reduce social burden. Pioglitazone improves vascular dysfunction and prevents coronary atherosclerosis, mainly via anti-inflammatory and antiatherogenic effects by enhancing adiponectin production in addition to antihyperglycemic effects, thus suggesting that pioglitazone attenuates cardiovascular events in patients with mild (HbA1c levels < 6·5%) diabetes mellitus (DM). Therefore, we evaluated the effects of pioglitazone on cardiovascular events in patients with both previous MI and mild DM. Methods: In this multicentre, prospective, randomised, open, blinded-endpoint trial, we randomly assigned 630 patients with mild DM with a history of MI to undergo either DM therapy with (pioglitazone group) or without (control group) pioglitazone. DM was diagnosed using the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, and mild DM was defined if HbA1c level was <6·5%. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalisation caused by acute MI, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation (including percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiac bypass surgery), and stroke. Findings: HbA1C levels were 5·9 and 5·8% (p = 0·71) at baseline and 6·0 and 5·8% (p < 0·01) at 2 years for the control and pioglitazone groups, respectively.The primary endpoint was observed in 14·2% and 14·1% patients in the control and pioglitazone groups during two years (95% confidential interval (CI):0.662–1·526, p = 0·98), respectively; the incidence of MI and cerebral infarction was 0·3% and 2·2% (95%CI: 0·786–32·415, p = 0·09) and 1·0% and 0·3% (95%CI: 0·051–3·662, p = 0·44), respectively. Post-hoc analyses of the 7-year observation period showed that these trends were comparable (21·9% and 19·2% in the control and pioglitazone groups, 95%CI: 0.618–1·237, p = 0·45). Interpretation: Pioglitazone could not reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with mild DM and previous MI. Keywords: Myocardial infarction, Diabetes mellitus, Pioglitazone, Blood glucose-lowering, Cardiovascular events, PROBE stud

A Survey of Empirical Results on Program Slicing

International audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding