Isolated Tricuspid Valve Surgery for Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) adversely affects long-term survival; however, isolated tricuspid valve (TV) surgery has been rarely performed due to high operative mortality. In addition, the previous literature included heterogeneous TR etiologies. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate early and long-term outcomes of isolated TV surgery for functional TR. METHODS: An electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies. Baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, and clinical outcomes were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included seven studies. Pooled analyses showed that 68% (35, 89) of patients had preoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter, and 58% (11, 94) had a history of left-sided valve surgery. Seventy-three percent (65, 80) of patients had at least one physical exam finding of right-sided heart failure, and 57% (44, 69) were in New York Heart Association class III or IV. TV replacement was more common than repair. In TV replacement, bioprosthetic valve (39%, 13, 74) was more common than mechanical prosthesis (22%, 18, 26). The early mortality rate was 7%. Twenty percent of patients required a permanent pacemaker postoperatively. The overall 1- and 5-year survival rates were 84.5 and 69.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: More than half of the patients who underwent isolated TV surgery for functional TR had undergone left-sided valve surgery and had significant heart failure symptoms at the time of surgery. Further studies on the surgical indication for concomitant TV surgery at the time of left-sided valve surgery and the appropriate timing of surgery for isolated functional TR are needed to improve survival.

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS: A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with oligometastatic cancers: a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly being used to treat oligometastatic cancers, but high-level evidence to provide a basis for policy making is scarce. Additional evidence from a real-world setting is required. We present the results of a national study of patients with extracranial oligometastases undergoing SABR, representing the largest dataset, to our knowledge, on outcomes in this population so far. METHODS: In 2015, National Health Service (NHS) England launched a Commissioning through Evaluation scheme that funded a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study of patients with solid cancer and extracranial oligometastases treated with SABR. Prescribed doses ranged from 24-60 Gy administered in three to eight fractions. The study was done at 17 NHS radiotherapy centres in England. Patients were eligible for the scheme if aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary carcinoma (excluding haematological malignancies), one to three extracranial metastatic lesions, a disease-free interval from primary tumour development to metastases of longer than 6 months (with the exception of synchronous colorectal liver metastases), a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. The primary outcome was overall survival at 1 year and 2 years from the start of SABR treatment. The study is now completed. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2015, and Jan 30, 2019, 1422 patients were recruited from 17 hospitals in England. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR 62-76), and the most common primary tumour was prostate cancer (406 [28·6%] patients). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 6-23). Overall survival was 92·3% (95% CI 90·5-93·9) at 1 year and 79·2% (76·0-82·1) at 2 years. The most common grade 3 adverse event was fatigue (28 [2·0%] of 1422 patients) and the most common serious (grade 4) event was increased liver enzymes (nine [0·6%]). Notreatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with extracranial oligometastatic cancer, use of SABR was associated with high overall survival and low toxicity. 'The study findings complement existing evidence from a randomised, phase 2 trial, and represent high-level, real-world evidence supporting the use of SABR in this patient cohort, with a phase 3 randomised, controlled trial to confirm these findings underway. Based on the selection criteria in this study, SABR was commissioned by NHS England in March, 2020, as a treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. FUNDING: NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation scheme.

Derivation and Validation of a Novel Risk Score to Predict Overcorrection of Severe Hyponatremia: The Severe Hyponatremia Overcorrection Risk (SHOR) Score.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Osmotic demyelination syndrome is the most concerning complication of severe hyponatremia, occurring with an overly rapid rate of serum sodium correction. There are limited clinical tools to aid in identifying individuals at high risk of overcorrection with severe hyponatremia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We identified all patients who presented to a tertiary-care hospital emergency department in Ottawa, Canada (catchment area 1.2 million) between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2015, with serum sodium (corrected for glucose levels) <116 mmol/L. Overcorrection was determined using 14 published criteria. Latent class analysis measured the independent association of baseline factors with a consensus overcorrection status on the basis of the 14 criteria, and was summarized as a risk score, which was validated in two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 623 patients presented with severe hyponatremia (mean initial value 112 mmol/L; SD 3.2). The prevalence of no, unlikely, possible, and definite overcorrection was 72%, 4%, 10%, and 14%, respectively. Overcorrection was independently associated with decreased level of consciousness (2 points), vomiting (2 points), severe hypokalemia (1 point), hypotonic urine (4 points), volume overload (-5 points), chest tumor (-5 points), patient age (-1 point per decade, over 50 years), and initial sodium level (<110 mmol/L: 4 points; 110-111 mmol/L: 2 points; 112-113 mmol/L: 1 point). These points were summed to create the Severe Hyponatremic Overcorrection Risk (SHOR) score, which was significantly associated with overcorrection status (Spearman correlation 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.49) and was discriminating (average dichotomized c-statistic 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 0.81). The internal (n=119) and external (n=95) validation cohorts had significantly greater use of desmopressin, which was significantly associated with the SHOR score. The SHOR score was significantly associated with overcorrection status in the internal (P<0.001) but not external (P=0.39) validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with severe hyponatremia, overcorrection was common and predictable using baseline information. Further external validation of the SHOR is required before generalized use.

Reduction in Unnecessary Red Blood Cell Folate Testing by Restricting Computerized Physician Order Entry in the Electronic Health Record.

PURPOSE: The red blood cell (RBC) folate test is a laboratory test with limited clinical utility. Previous attempts to reduce physician ordering of unnecessary laboratory tests, including folate levels, have resulted in only modest success. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and impacts of restricting RBC folate ordering in the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study that took place from January 2010 to December 2016 at a large academic healthcare network in Toronto, Canada. All inpatients and outpatients who underwent at least 1 RBC folate or vitamin B12 test during the study period were included. Ordering an RBC folate test was restricted to clinicians in gastroenterology and hematology. The option to order the test was removed from other physicians' computerized order entry screens in the EHR in June 2013. RESULTS: RBC folate testing decreased by 94.4% during the study, from a mean of 493.0 ± 48.0 tests per month prior to intervention to 27.6 ± 10.3 tests per month after intervention (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Restricting RBC folate ordering in the EHR resulted in a large and sustained reduction in RBC folate testing. Significant cost savings, estimated at more than a quarter of a million Canadian dollars over 3 years, were achieved. There was no significant clinical impact of the intervention on the diagnosis of folate deficiency.

Missed Opportunity to Deprescribe: Docusate for Constipation in Medical Inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions provide an opportunity to deprescribe ineffective medications and reduce pill burden. Docusate sodium is a stool softener that is frequently prescribed to treat constipation despite poor evidence for efficacy, thus providing a good target for deprescription. The aims of this study were to characterize rates of use and discontinuation of docusate among internal medicine inpatients, as well as use of other laxatives. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study over 1 year on all patients admitted to internal medicine at 2 urban academic hospitals to determine rates of docusate use. We also evaluated laxative and opioid medication use on a random sample of 500 inpatients who received docusate to characterize patterns of prescription and deprescription. RESULTS: Fifteen percent (1169/7581) of all admitted patients received 1 or more doses of docusate. Among our random sample, 53% (238/452) received docusate before admission, and only 13% (31/238) had docusate deprescribed. Among patients not receiving docusate before admission, 33.2% (71/214) received a new prescription for docusate on discharge. Patients receiving opioids were frequently prescribed no laxatives or given docusate monotherapy (28%, 51/185). CONCLUSIONS: Docusate was frequently prescribed to medical inpatients despite its known ineffectiveness, with low deprescription and high numbers of new prescriptions. Docusate use was common even among patients at high risk of constipation. One third of patients not receiving docusate before admission were prescribed docusate on discharge, potentially exacerbating polypharmacy. Among patients already receiving docusate, 80% had it continued on discharge, indicating significant missed opportunities for deprescribing. Given the availability of effective alternatives, our results suggest that quality-improvement initiatives are needed to promote evidence-based laxative use in hospitalized patients.