Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures. METHODS: Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs. RESULTS: The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.

The cost of work-related stress to society: A systematic review.

A systematic review of the available evidence examining the cost of work-related stress (WRS) would yield important insights into the magnitude of this social phenomenon. The objective of this review was to collate, extract, and synthesize economic evaluations of the cost of WRS to society. A research protocol was developed. Included cost-of-illness (COI) studies estimated the cost of WRS at a societal level, and were published in English, French or German. Searches were carried out in ingentaconnect, EBSCO, JSTOR, Science Direct, Web of Knowledge, Google, and Google scholar. Included studies were assessed against 10 COI quality assessment criteria. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. These originated from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the EU-15. The total estimated cost of WRS was observed to be considerable and ranged substantially from US$221.13 million to $187 billion. Productivity related losses were observed to proportionally contribute the majority of the total cost of WRS (between 70 to 90%), with health care and medical costs constituting the remaining 10 to 30%. The evidence reviewed here suggests a sizable financial burden imposed by WRS on society. The observed range of cost estimates was understood to be attributable to variations in definitions of WRS; the number and type of costs estimated; and, in how production loss was estimated. It is postulated that the cost estimates identified by this review are likely conservative because of narrow definitions of WRS and the exclusion of diverse range of cost components. (PsycINFO Database Record

Publicly reported provider outcomes: the concerns of cardiac surgeons in a single-payer system.

BACKGROUND: Provider outcomes reports are an important part of quality improvement efforts. The positive and negative impact of such reports on the delivery of care has not been extensively explored. METHODS: A survey of Ontario cardiac surgeons was performed in September 2003 to understand their concerns regarding performance reports. The questionnaire addressed the use of evidence-based practices, the impact of public-provider profiling on clinical practice and the improvement of current report cards. The survey was conducted with the distribution of a fiscal 2000/2001 cardiac surgery report card. RESULTS: There was a 95% (52 of 55 cardiac surgeons) survey response rate, of which 80% were high-volume surgeons with a case volume of more than 200 cases per year. Seventy-four per cent of surgeons had more than five years of experience. The majority of surgeons believed that performance reports influenced cardiologist referrals (84%) and patient choices (80%). A minority (48%) of surgeons believed that the reporting of inhospital mortality was very or extremely useful, but a majority (83%) believed mortality rates indicated the relative performance of a cardiac surgeon. The majority of surgeons believed that routine upcoding of data (84%) and inadequate risk adjustment (75%) were weaknesses of present performance reports. Surgeons were divided regarding whether the institutional performance should continue to be publicly reported (51% agreed with public reporting). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-payer system, performance reports breed provider concerns similar to those seen in market-driven systems including high-risk patient avoidance and upcoding of data. Regardless, providers recognize that institutional performance reports, irrespective of public or confidential reporting, are important in continuous quality improvement.