BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015
Precision medicine to improve use of bleeding avoidance strategies and reduce bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: prospective cohort study before and after implementation of personalized bleeding risks.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spertus John A, Decker Carole, Gialde Elizabeth, Jones Philip G, McNulty Edward J, Bach Richard, Chhatriwalla Adnan K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether prospective bleeding risk estimates for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention could improve the use of bleeding avoidance strategies and reduce bleeding.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study comparing the use of bleeding avoidance strategies and bleeding rates before and after implementation of prospective risk stratification for peri-procedural bleeding.
SETTING: Nine hospitals in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for indications other than primary reperfusion for ST elevation myocardial infarction.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of bleeding avoidance strategies, including bivalirudin, radial approach, and vascular closure devices, and peri-procedural bleeding rates, stratified by bleeding risk. Observed changes were adjusted for changes observed in a pool of 1135 hospitals without access to pre-procedural risk stratification. Hospital level and physician level variability in use of bleeding avoidance strategies was examined.
RESULTS: In a comparison of 7408 pre-intervention procedures with 3529 post-intervention procedures, use of bleeding avoidance strategies within intervention sites increased with pre-procedural risk stratification (odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 2.27), particularly among higher risk patients (2.03, 1.58 to 2.61; 1.41, 1.09 to 1.83 in low risk patients, after adjustment for control sites; P for interaction = 0.05). Bleeding rates within intervention sites were significantly lower after implementation of risk stratification (1.0% v 1.7%; odds ratio 0.56, 0.40 to 0.78; 0.62, 0.44 to 0.87, after adjustment); the reduction in bleeding was greatest in high risk patients. Marked variability in use of bleeding avoidance strategies was observed across sites and physicians, both before and after implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: Prospective provision of individualized bleeding risk estimates was associated with increased use of bleeding avoidance strategies and lower bleeding rates. Marked variability between providers highlights an important opportunity to improve the consistency, safety, and quality of care. Study registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01383382.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study comparing the use of bleeding avoidance strategies and bleeding rates before and after implementation of prospective risk stratification for peri-procedural bleeding.
SETTING: Nine hospitals in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for indications other than primary reperfusion for ST elevation myocardial infarction.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of bleeding avoidance strategies, including bivalirudin, radial approach, and vascular closure devices, and peri-procedural bleeding rates, stratified by bleeding risk. Observed changes were adjusted for changes observed in a pool of 1135 hospitals without access to pre-procedural risk stratification. Hospital level and physician level variability in use of bleeding avoidance strategies was examined.
RESULTS: In a comparison of 7408 pre-intervention procedures with 3529 post-intervention procedures, use of bleeding avoidance strategies within intervention sites increased with pre-procedural risk stratification (odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 2.27), particularly among higher risk patients (2.03, 1.58 to 2.61; 1.41, 1.09 to 1.83 in low risk patients, after adjustment for control sites; P for interaction = 0.05). Bleeding rates within intervention sites were significantly lower after implementation of risk stratification (1.0% v 1.7%; odds ratio 0.56, 0.40 to 0.78; 0.62, 0.44 to 0.87, after adjustment); the reduction in bleeding was greatest in high risk patients. Marked variability in use of bleeding avoidance strategies was observed across sites and physicians, both before and after implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: Prospective provision of individualized bleeding risk estimates was associated with increased use of bleeding avoidance strategies and lower bleeding rates. Marked variability between providers highlights an important opportunity to improve the consistency, safety, and quality of care. Study registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01383382.