Overview: Japanese guidelines for myocardial revascularization to treat stable ischemic heart disease 2012

Since its introduction in the early 1970s, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has become an established surgical treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), first clinically applied in 1977, was promoted as an alternative to CABG during the mid-1980s. Along with the nationwide expansion of PCI, the ratio of PCI to CABG has exceeded 6–7:1. The Japanese Circulation Society (JCS) published “Guidelines on elective coronary intervention, including coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for ischemic heart disease in 2000” and “Guidelines on the selection of bypass conduits and operative procedures in coronary artery bypass grafting for ischemic heart disease”. The society intended to revise these guidelines in 2010 and to issue two new guidelines specific either to PCI or CABG. They also planned to issue joint guidelines for myocardial revascularization and PCI/CABG, which are primary indications for patients with stable CAD, especially with those with more complex left main trunk disease and/or multi-vessel disease. The scientific committee of JCS established the “Council for myocardial revascularization” that consisted of experts including interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and physicians specialized in diabetes or nephrology selected by medical and surgical societies. After over 10 rounds of meetings, the Council prepared primary guidelines for myocardial revascularization to treat stable CAD, PCI/CABG. These guidelines consist of (1) Statements about myocardial revascularization, (2) Interpretation of the statements and (3) Indications for PCI/CABG including a table.     

Adherence to transition guidelines in European paediatric nephrology units

Background

There is increasing focus on the problems involved in the transition and transfer of young adult patients from paediatric to adult renal units. This situation was addressed by the 2011 International Pediatric Nephrology Association/International Society of Nephrology (IPNA/ISN) Consensus Statement on transition.

Methods

We performed a survey of transition practices of 15 paediatric nephrology units across Europe 2 years after publication of the consensus statement.

Results

Two thirds of units were aware of the guidelines, and one third had integrated them into their transition practice. Forty-seven per cent of units transfer five or fewer patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 per year to a median of five adult centres, with higher numbers of CKD stages 2–4 patients. Seventy-three per cent of units were required by the hospital or government to transfer patients by a certain age. Eighty per cent of units commenced transition planning after the patient turned 15 years of age and usually within 1–2 years of the compulsory transfer age. Forty-seven per cent of units used a transition or transfer clinic. Prominent barriers to effective transition were patient and parent attachment to the paediatric unit and difficulty in allowing the young person to perform self-care.

Conclusions

Whereas awareness of the consensus statement is suboptimal, it has had some impact on practice. Adult nephrologists receive transferred patients infrequently, and the process of transition is introduced too late by paediatricians. Government- and hospital-driven age-based transfer policies distract focus from the achievement of competencies in self care. Variable use of transition clinics, written patient information and support groups is probably due to economic and human-resource limitations. The consensus statement provides a standard for evolving and evaluating transition policies jointly agreed upon by paediatric and adult units.     

Lack of adherence to the national guidelines on the prevention of rheumatic fever.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the extent to which current practices for the secondary prevention of rheumatic fever (RF) in Cape Town adhere to those outlined in the national guidelines on the primary prevention and prophylaxis of RF and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) for health professionals at primary level. METHODS: A combination of qualitative tools was used to evaluate the four priority issues identified in the guidelines as fundamental elements of a comprehensive programme for the secondary prophylaxis of RF/RHD: (i) health education and promotion; (ii) case detection of RF and RHD; (iii) secondary prophylaxis every 3-4 weeks at primary level; and (iv) notification of acute rheumatic fever (ARF). The qualitative tools included parent/child interviews of cases diagnosed with ARF in the Cape metropole area during the period 1999-2003; a physician questionnaire focused on awareness and adherence to the national guidelines; and a review of the records on acute rheumatic fever notification in the Cape metropole area from 1999 to 2003. RESULTS: The evaluation revealed four key findings. First, patient knowledge on the disease was almost non-existent. Despite this lack of knowledge, adherence to secondary prophylactic treatment was good. Second, the physicians most likely to encounter a case of rheumatic fever were least likely to be aware of and to comply with the national guideline. Third, the guidelines do not clearly state how increased detection of ARF will be achieved. Finally, the RF notification system is dysfunctional, with discrepancies in the reporting of cases at hospital, city and provincial levels. CONCLUSIONS: Since the publication of the national guidelines in 1997, little progress has been made towards achieving the implementation of a comprehensive programme for the secondary prevention of RF/RHD.     

A national survey of instrument sharpening guidelines

Most orthopaedic procedures involve high-speed tools, which can cause thermal necrosis of bone. Blunt instruments are likely to generate more heat, thereby increasing the chances of thermal necrosis. This could greatly compromise the outcome of even the best prosthesis in good surgical hands. In today's age a lot of emphasis is laid on high performance and longevity of the implant. Therefore, it is worthwhile that we consider the relevance and importance of instrument sharpening. We carried out a survey across hospitals in UK to find out whether they follow any guidelines or protocol with regards to instrument sharpening.Upto 75% of hospitals did not follow any guideline or policy, while 20% of hospitals carried out some sort of quality checks on instruments. This implies that there could be a significant risk of suboptimal outcome due to unnecessary osteonecrosis that can affect most operative orthopaedic interventions, particularly joint arthroplasties. Blunt instruments are too common in orthopaedic theatres and this problem needs to be addressed. Our study brings to light the fact that there seems to be no consensus on this issue and there is theoretically a significant risk of suboptimal outcome because of unnecessary osteonecrosis. This potentially may affect the long and short-term results even in good hands and with excellent prosthesis (cemented or uncemented).     

Compliance of dutch orthopedic departments with national guidelines on thromboprophylaxis

All 110 Dutch orthopedic departments were sent a survey on perioperative thromboprophylaxis protocols, and 79% responded. After hip and knee replacements, all used pharmacological thromboprophylaxis: a low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in 87% of departments, which was most often combined with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). LMWH was usually started preoperatively (91%). After discharge, VKAs were mostly prescribed (79%) for at least 6 weeks, and often for 3 months. 17% of departments used LMWH for 6 weeks, whereas in only 3% no post-discharge prophylaxis was given.

In day-care surgery, including arthroscopies, 58% use LMWH and in short-stay surgery 80% administer LMWH during the hospital stay. Because of lack of conclusive evidence for day-care surgery, the national guidelines cannot support pharmacological prophylaxis in this setting.

In general, Dutch orthopedic departments comply poorly with the national guidelines on extended thromboprophylaxis for hip and knee replacement surgery, which recommends postoperative LMWH for 6 weeks. They are divided in the use of pharmacological prophylaxis in day-care surgery.     

From guidelines to standards of care for open tibial fractures

IntroductionThe standards for the management of open fractures of the lower limb published by the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic surgeons (BAPRAS) and British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were introduced to improve the treatment received by patients after open injury to the lower limb. These Standards were released after BAPRAS/BOA published Guidelines for the management of open tibial fractures.MethodsWe wished to determine the impact of these Standards upon the surgical management of open tibial fractures by comparing patients admitted to an orthoplastic centre in the 45 months concluding December 2009 (the Guidelines era) with those admitted during 2011 (the Standards era). Surgical procedures required during the first 30 days and 12 months after injury were determined. Cases were divided into ‘directly admitted patients’ (DAP) and ‘transferred patients’ (TP). Standards-era patients were divided further into those who had surgery exclusively at the orthoplastic centre (orthoplastic patients (OPP)) and those transferred after surgery (TASP).ResultsThe number of TP trebled in frequency in the Standards era, 25% of whom were transferred before surgery. Significantly fewer surgical procedures were required for DAP and OPP groups compared with TP (and TASP) groups in both eras (Mann–Whitney U-test, p=0.05). DAP and OPP groups during the Standards era underwent the fewest procedures, with the vast majority of cases treated with two or fewer procedures in the first 12 months (88% and 80%, respectively, compared with 61% in the Guidelines era). In the Guidelines era, 44% of TP cases and in the Standards era 39% of TP and 29% of TASP groups underwent two or fewer procedures.Approximately two-thirds of open tibial fractures managed in our orthoplastic centre were patients transferred after surgery. The greatest impact of the Standards was evident for those who underwent surgery exclusively in the orthoplastic centre, reflecting a more deliberate combined strategy.ConclusionThese findings vindicate the Standards as well as mandating reorganisation and resourcing of orthoplastic services to ensure immediate transfer and early combined surgery. By increasing the capacity to deal with time-dependent initial surgery, the surgical burden that the patient must endure, and which the service must provide, are reduced.     

European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines on contrast media application

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review covers the European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines for safe use of contrast media of importance for referring urologists. RECENT FINDINGS: During the recent years contrast medium-induced nephropathy has become a hot topic. It is of importance to reduce its incidence. First of all, the patients at risk should be identified prior to the administration of a contrast medium, so that appropriate measures can be taken. Before intravenous administration of an iodinated agent but not before gadolinium-based and ultrasound agents, all patients should be questioned about the potential renal dysfunction at the time of referral, and only those who answer affirmative to at least one question should have their serum creatinine level determined. Before intraarterial injection, the serum creatinine should always be measured. In case of an abnormal level, another imaging procedure should be considered. If impossible, hydration should be instituted and administration of nephrotoxic drugs should be stopped. After administration, delayed reactions such as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, thyreotoxicosis, skin rash, etc. may be seen. Interaction with isotope studies and biochemical analysis occurs too. SUMMARY: The awareness regarding the potential adverse reactions due to contrast media and the necessary precautions to be taken are of utmost importance both for radiologists and referring physicians. This is the only way to reduce their incidence.     

Preoperative beta-blocker use: impact of national guidelines on clinical practice

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if recommendations regarding perioperative beta-blocker therapy were followed by an increase in the number of eligible presurgical patients receiving beta-blockers and the number achieving the recommended heart rate (HR <60 beats per minute [bpm]). DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Tertiary-care teaching hospital. MEASUREMENTS: The records of all 718 patients who underwent elective vascular surgery or coronary artery bypass grafting between January 2001 and March 2002 (pre-guideline) and those who did so between April 2002 and September 2003 (post-guideline) were reviewed. Percentage of eligible patients who received beta-blockers preoperatively and the target HR achieved in pre-guideline versus post-guideline patients were recorded. Differences were assessed using the unpaired t test and chi2 analysis. A P value of less than 0.05 is reported. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty percent of the post-guideline patients in the vascular surgery group were receiving beta-blockers at the time of preanesthetic evaluation versus 48% of pre-guideline patients (P = nonsignificant [NS]). Mean HR in the vascular surgery post-guideline beta-blocker group (70 +/- 14 bpm) was higher than in the pre-guideline beta-blocker group (65 +/- 11 bpm) (P < 0.01). Only 22% of those vascular surgery patients in the post-guideline group who were taking beta-blockers achieved the target HR of less than 60 bpm versus 29% of the vascular surgery patients taking beta-blockers in the pre-guideline group (P = NS). In the coronary artery bypass grafting group, 80% of post-guideline patients received beta-blocker before anesthesia assessment versus 75% of pre-guideline patients (P = NS). Mean HR in the post-guideline beta-blocker group (67 +/- 15 bpm) was similar to the pre-guideline beta-blocker group (64 +/- 13 bpm) (P = NS). Only 28% of the post-guideline patients who were receiving beta-blockers achieved the target HR of less than 60 bpm, which was not significantly different from the 17% achieved in the pre-guideline group (P = NS). CONCLUSION: At our institution, preoperative beta-blocker use was not significantly changed by publication of the recommendations.