Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Predictors of inhospital mortality following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Insights from a single-centre consecutive case series.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has a poor prognosis despite bystander resuscitation and rapid transfer to hospital. Optimal management of patients after arrival to hospital continues to be contentious, especially the timing of emergency coronary angiography±revascularisation. Robust predictors of inhospital outcome would be of clinical value for initial decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who presented to a university hospital following OHCA over a 70-month period (2008-2013). Patients were identified from the emergency department electronic patient registration and coding system. For those patients who underwent emergency percutaneous coronary intervention, details were crosschecked with national databases. RESULTS: We identified 350 consecutive patients who were brought to our hospital following OHCA. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for >20 min was achieved either before arrival or inhospital in 196 individuals. From the 350 subjects, 114 (32.6%) survived to hospital discharge. When sustained ROSC was achieved, either before or inhospital, survival to discharge was 58.2% (114 of 196). Non-shockable rhythm, absence of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 'downtime' >15 min and initial pH ≤7.11 were predictors of inhospital death. 12% patients who underwent angiography in the presence of ST elevation had no acute coronary occlusion. 21% patients with acute coronary occlusion at angiography did not have ST elevation. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of patients with OHCA, those who achieve ROSC had a survival-to-discharge rate of 58.2%. We identified four predictors of inhospital death, which are readily available at the time of patient presentation. Reliance on ST elevation to decide about coronary angiography and revascularisation may be flawed. More data are required.

Implementing workplace-based assessment across the medical specialties in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and feasibility of assessing the performance of medical specialist registrars (SpRs) using three methods: the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX), directly observed procedural skills (DOPS) and multi-source feedback (MSF) to help inform annual decisions about the outcome of SpR training. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study and generalisability analysis based on the application of these assessment methods and the resulting data. A total of 230 SpRs (from 17 specialties) in 58 UK hospitals took part from 2003 to 2004. Main outcome measures included: time taken for each assessment, and variance component analysis of mean scores and derivation of 95% confidence intervals for individual doctors' scores based on the standard error of measurement. Responses to direct questions on questionnaires were analysed, as were the themes emerging from open-comment responses. RESULTS: The methods can provide reliable scores with appropriate sampling. In our sample, all trainees who completed the number of assessments recommended by the Royal Colleges of Physicians had scores that were 95% certain to be better than unsatisfactory. The mean time taken to complete the mini-CEX (including feedback) was 25 minutes. The DOPS required the duration of the procedure being assessed plus an additional third of this time for feedback. The mean time required for each rater to complete his or her MSF form was 6 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to evaluate the use of comprehensive workplace assessment across the medical specialties in the UK. The methods are feasible to conduct and can make reliable distinctions between doctors' performances. With adaptation, they may be appropriate for assessing the workplace performance of other grades and specialties of doctor. This may be helpful in informing foundation assessment.

Renal artery sympathetic denervation: observations from the UK experience.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) may lower blood pressure (BP); however, it is unclear whether medication changes may be confounding results. Furthermore, limited data exist on pattern of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) response-particularly in those prescribed aldosterone antagonists at the time of RDN. METHODS: We examined all patients treated with RDN for treatment-resistant hypertension in 18 UK centres. RESULTS: Results from 253 patients treated with five technologies are shown. Pre-procedural mean office BP (OBP) was 185/102 mmHg (SD 26/19; n = 253) and mean daytime ABP was 170/98 mmHg (SD 22/16; n = 186). Median number of antihypertensive drugs was 5.0: 96 % ACEi/ARB; 86 % thiazide/loop diuretic and 55 % aldosterone antagonist. OBP, available in 90 % at 11 months follow-up, was 163/93 mmHg (reduction of 22/9 mmHg). ABP, available in 70 % at 8.5 months follow-up, was 158/91 mmHg (fall of 12/7 mmHg). Mean drug changes post RDN were: 0.36 drugs added, 0.91 withdrawn. Dose changes appeared neutral. Quartile analysis by starting ABP showed mean reductions in systolic ABP after RDN of: 0.4; 6.5; 14.5 and 22.1 mmHg, respectively (p < 0.001 for trend). Use of aldosterone antagonist did not predict response (p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: In 253 patients treated with RDN, office BP fell by 22/9 mmHg. Ambulatory BP fell by 12/7 mmHg, though little response was seen in the lowermost quartile of starting blood pressure. Fall in BP was not explained by medication changes and aldosterone antagonist use did not affect response.

Under-diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of medical treatment in patients with coronary artery disease may be suboptimal. Our intention was to review the medical treatment of these patients in the light of current evidence. METHODS: One hundred ninety six consecutive patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease attending a tertiary centre for day case cardiac catheterisation were assessed. Fasting blood samples were sent for glucose and cholesterol. The results of coronary angiography and left ventriculography and any changes in medications were noted. RESULT: One hundred eighty two patients (93%) had fasting blood samples taken. The management of cholesterol in patients with coronary artery disease has improved since 1994. We have demonstrated the benefit of taking fasting blood samples in patients attending for day case angiography: 10% of non-diabetics actually had fasting blood glucose levels of greater than 7.0 mmol/l. All of these newly diagnosed diabetics had coronary artery disease. A further 9% of non-diabetics had impaired fasting glycaemia; 69% had coronary artery disease and 8% had left ventricular dysfunction. Among patients with coronary artery disease, there was a statistically significant increase on most categories of medications on discharge compared to admission. For those with left ventricular dysfunction, there was a statistically significant increase in the use of Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Diabetes mellitus is under-diagnosed in patients with coronary heart disease. They are at higher risk of coronary artery disease and therefore need intensive management. Testing all patients attending for day case cardiac catheterisation for fasting glucose would enable diagnosis and initiation of treatment of a high-risk group.