Assessment of Coronary Stenoses for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the different methods to determine the significance of coronary stenoses in the catheterization laboratory is lacking. We aimed to compare all available methods guiding the decision to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until October 5, 2023. We included trials that randomized patients with greater than 30% stenoses who were considered for PCI and reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 15 trials with 16,333 participants with a mean weighted follow-up of 34 months. The trials contained a median of 49.3% (interquartile range: 32.6%, 100%) acute coronary syndrome participants. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with coronary angiography (CA) (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.82, high certainty), fractional flow reserve (FFR) (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92, moderate certainty), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82, moderate certainty), and ranked first for MACE (88.1% probability of being the best). FFR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, moderate certainty) and iFR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28, moderate certainty) likely did not decrease the risk of MACE compared with CA. Intravascular imaging may not be associated with a significant decrease in MACE compared with CA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17, low certainty) when used to guide the decision to perform PCI. In conclusion, a decision to perform PCI based on QFR was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with CA, FFR, and iFR in a mixed stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndrome population. These hypothesis-generating findings should be validated in large, randomized, head-to-head trials.

Development and validation of an international preoperative risk assessment model for postoperative delirium.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent complication in older adults, characterised by disturbances in attention, awareness and cognition, and associated with prolonged hospitalisation, poor functional recovery, cognitive decline, long-term dementia and increased mortality. Early identification of patients at risk of POD can considerably aid prevention. METHODS: We have developed a preoperative POD risk prediction algorithm using data from eight studies identified during a systematic review and providing individual-level data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used for predictor selection and internal validation of the final penalised logistic regression model. The external validation used data from university hospitals in Switzerland and Germany. RESULTS: Development included 2,250 surgical (excluding cardiac and intracranial) patients 60 years of age or older, 444 of whom developed POD. The final model included age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, history of delirium, cognitive impairment, medications, optional C-reactive protein (CRP), surgical risk and whether the operation is a laparotomy/thoracotomy. At internal validation, the algorithm had an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) with CRP and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) without CRP. The external validation consisted of 359 patients, 87 of whom developed POD. The external validation yielded an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm is named PIPRA (Pre-Interventional Preventive Risk Assessment), has European conformity (ce) certification, is available at http://pipra.ch/ and is accepted for clinical use. It can be used to optimise patient care and prioritise interventions for vulnerable patients and presents an effective way to implement POD prevention strategies in clinical practice.

GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings.

OBJECTIVE: To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance. RESULTS: Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating. CONCLUSION: GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.

Comparative Analysis of Impairment Ratings From the 5th to 6th Editions of the AMA Guides.

OBJECTIVE: The association of American Medical Association's (AMA) Guides edition with impairment ratings is uncertain. METHODS: We used data from a consecutive sample of 249 injured workers referred for an independent evaluation 10 months before and after assessors switched from the 5th to the 6th edition of the AMA Guides. RESULTS: The median whole person impairment rating was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 4 to 14) for 131 claimants assessed with the 5th edition of the Guides, and 4.0% (IQR: 2 to 8) for 118 claimants assessed with the 6th edition (P-value for difference: 0.002). Multivariable analysis showed a 36.4% relative reduction (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2% to 57.3%) in impairment rating with the 6th edition of the Guides versus the 5th edition. CONCLUSIONS: The 6th edition of the AMA Guides provides systematically lower impairment ratings for injured workers than the 5th edition.

Procedure costs associated with the use of Harmonic devices compared to conventional techniques in various surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As compared to conventional techniques, recent meta-analyses have reported cost savings with Harmonic devices; however, only in thyroidectomy. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the costs associated with Harmonic devices versus conventional techniques across a range of surgical procedures. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to October 01, 2016 without language restrictions to identify randomized controlled trials comparing Harmonic devices to conventional techniques and reporting procedure costs (operating time plus operating equipment/consumables/device costs). Costs were pooled using the ratio of geometric means, and a random effects model was applied. Sensitivity analyses varying statistical methods, number of included studies, and cost outcomes were completed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 561 and 540 participants had procedures performed with Harmonic devices and conventional methods, respectively, with procedures including gastrectomy, thyroidectomy, colectomy, cholecystectomy, Nissen fundoplication, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. As compared to conventional methods, Harmonic devices reduced total procedure costs by 8.7% (p=0.029), resulting in an absolute reduction of US$227.77 from mean conventional technique costs, derived primarily from a reduction in operating time costs. When operating time costs, excluding operating equipment/consumables/device costs, were analyzed, costs were reduced by $544 per procedure with the use of Harmonic devices. The results from all sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost reductions with Harmonic devices. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that despite a higher device cost, Harmonic devices provide a statistically significant reduction in procedure costs, derived primarily from a reduction in operating time costs, across surgical procedures. In addition to functionality benefits, Harmonic devices may represent a potentially cost saving method to reduce overall hospital resource use. Future research should focus on potential costs and benefits from use of Harmonic devices in procedures not covered here.

The projection of burden of disease in Islamic Republic of Iran to 2025.

OBJECTIVE: Iran as a developing country is in the transition phase, which might have a big impact on the Burden of Disease and Injury (BOD). This study aims to estimate Burden of Disease and Injury (BOD) in Iran up to 2025 due to four broad cause groups using Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY). METHODS: The impacts of demographic and epidemiological changes on BOD (DemBOD and EpiBOD) were assessed separately. We estimated DemBOD in nine scenarios, using different projections for life expectancy and total fertility rate. EpiBOD was modeled in two scenarios as a proportion of DemBOD, based on the extracted parameters from an international study. FINDINGS: The BOD is projected to increase from 14.3 million in 2003 to 19.4 million in 2025 (95% uncertainty interval: 16.8, 21.9), which shows an overall increase of 35.3%. Non-communicable diseases (12.7 million DALY, 66.0%), injuries (4.6 million DALY, 24.0%), and communicable diseases, except HIV/AIDS (1.8 million DALY, 9%) will be the leading causes of losing healthy life. Under the most likely scenario, the maximum increase in disease burden due to DemBOD is projected to be observed in HIV/AIDS and Non-communicable diseases (63.9 and 62.4%, respectively) and due to EpiBOD in HIV/AIDS (319.5%). CONCLUSION: It seems that in the following decades, BOD will have a sharp increase in Iran, mainly due to DemBOD. It seems that communicable diseases (except HIV/AIDS) will have less contribution, and especially non-communicable diseases will play a more significant role.