Efficacy and safety of outpatient cardiac catheterization

Outpatient cardiac catheterization has become the standard in our laboratory. The only exclusion for outpatient study is current hospitalization for cardiac symptoms. Thus, any patient well enough to be at home is studied on an outpatient basis. We reviewed our experience on 4,094 diagnostic studies of which 3,537 (86%) were done on a same-day basis. The complication rates were generally lower than in published series with a mortality of 0.05%. There were no admissions for late bleeding. Ninety-seven percent of the procedures were done by the percutaneous technique utilizing 7-French catheters. Patients were heparinized, and protamine was not used. The low complication rate is to a large extent due to meticulous postoperative care by critical care nurses in an outpatient observation unit contiguous to the laboratory. Outpatient cardiac catheterization is a safe, cost-saving approach applicable to a large majority of cardiac patients.     

A cross-over evaluation of different methods and devices to measure blood pressure in type 1 diabetic patients with nephropathy

BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetic patients with nephropathy, tight blood pressure control has been shown to prevent the progression of the disease. Up until now, self-monitoring, ambulatory and office blood pressure values have not been compared in these patients. Thus, we have evaluated blood pressure values obtained in the office by a physician and at home by self-monitoring with those measured under ambulatory conditions in these patients. Additionally, for blood pressure self-monitoring, three different devices (the sphygmomanometer, upper-arm oscillometer and wrist oscillometer) were compared. METHODS: Twenty-one treated hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients [age 45+/-9 years, duration of diabetes 33+/-12 years (mean+/-SD)] with overt diabetic nephropathy participated in this study. At both baseline and the end of the study, daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement was performed. Office blood pressure was measured at baseline. Additionally, all the patients measured their blood pressure over a 3-week period using each of the three different devices, in random order, for 1 week. RESULTS: The mean office blood pressure values (135+/-21/85+/-12mmHg) were higher than both the ambulatory (131+/-23/80+/-12, P<0.05) and self-monitoring values (130+/-14/78+/-10; P<0.05 for systolic and P<0.02 for diastolic values). The difference between the ambulatory and self-monitoring values were not statistically significant. Diastolic blood pressure values measured with the oscillometric wrist device showed a trend towards higher values when compared to those measured with the sphygmomanometer and with the oscillometric upper-arm device (P=0.065 for diastolic values). CONCLUSION: Office blood pressure measurements may over-estimate blood pressure in patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. Because the oscillometric wrist device tends to over-estimate diastolic values, upper-arm devices should be preferred for blood pressure self-monitoring in these patients.     

Validation and improvement of a predictive model for treatment outcome in patients with temporomandibular disorders

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether it was possible to improve individual prediction of treatment outcome in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) through continuous quality improvement registrations and implementation of changes in clinical routines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All 5777 patients referred to a specialist clinic for stomatognathic physiology; 2187 TMD patients started treatment. The patients were divided into Muscle or Mainly TMJ symptom groups. Actual treatment outcome was predicted as Good or Dubious based on patient history and clinical findings. The degree of improvement of initial symptoms was graded using a numeric rating scale 0-100. Improvement in initial complaints of 50% or more was judged as a clinically important difference (CID); 989 patients (76%) completed treatment 1992-1998 (Sample 1) and 769 (86%) treatment 1999-2004 (Sample 2). RESULTS: For patients with Muscle symptoms in Sample 1, CID was reached by 90% of those predicted Good and by 56% of those predicted Dubious. In Sample 2, the figures were Good 93% and Dubious 57%. In subgroup Mainly TMJ symptoms, CID was reached by 94% of those predicted Good and by 88% if predicted Dubious in Sample 1. In Sample 2, the figures were the same for those predicted Good, i.e. 94%, and Dubious, 73%. CONCLUSION: Continuous quality improvement registrations and implementation of changes in clinical routines improved the ability to predict individually the actual treatment outcome between patients predicted Good or Dubious, respectively. Rheumatic disease turned out not to be a negative predictor for treatment outcome.