A Multicenter Evaluation of Adherence to 4 Major Elements of the Baveno Guidelines and Outcomes for Patients With Acute Variceal Hemorrhage.

GOALS: To determine the rate of and outcomes associated with guideline adherence in the care of acute variceal hemorrhage (AVH). BACKGROUND: Four major elements of high-quality care for AVH defined by the Baveno consensus (VI) include timely endoscopy (≤12 h), antibiotics, and somatostatin analogs before endoscopy and band ligation as primary therapy for esophageal varices. STUDY: We retrospectively evaluated 239 consecutive admissions of 211 patients with AVH admitted to 2 centers in Massachusetts from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcome was 6-week mortality; secondary outcomes included treatment failure (shock, hemoglobin drop by 3 g/dL, hematemesis, death ≤5 d), length of stay, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Guideline adherence was variable: endoscopy ≤12 hours (79.9%), antibiotics (84.9%), band ligation (78.7%), and somatostatin analogs (90.8%). However, only 150 (62.8%) received care that was adherent to all indicated criteria. The 6-week mortality rate was 22.6%. Treatment failure occurred in 50 (21.0%) admissions. Among the 198 patients who survived to discharge, 41 (20.7%) were readmitted within 30 days. Octreotide before endoscopy was associated with a reduction in 30-day readmission (18.4% vs. 42.1%; P=0.03), whereas banding of esophageal varices was associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure (15.0% vs. 50.0%; P≤0.001). However, adherence to quality metrics did not significantly reduce the risk of death within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to quality metrics may not reduce the risk of mortality but could improve secondary outcomes of AVH. Variation in practice should be addressed through quality improvement interventions.

Thrombosis in a bleeding disorder: case of thromboembolism in factor VII deficiency.

Congenital factor VII deficiency (FVIID) is a rare disorder with a wide range of bleeding manifestations. The disorder does not protect patients against occurrence of thrombosis, and deep vein thrombosis can occur in the setting of surgery and recombinant factor VIIa replacement.

Open access colonoscopy: Critical appraisal of indications, quality metrics and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of cost containment and measurement of value, screening for colon cancer represents a clear target for better accountability. Bundling payment is a real possibility and will likely have to rely on open-access colonoscopy (OAC). OAC is a method to allow patients to undergo endoscopy without prior evaluation by a gastroenterologist. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the indications and outcomes among patients scheduled for OAC or traditional colonoscopy at a tertiary medical center. We hypothesized that outcomes in OAC patients would be similar to those from traditional referral modes. METHOD: Using a standardized data abstraction form, we documented indications for colonoscopy, clinical outcomes (complications, emergency room visits, phone calls), and compliance with quality indicators (QI) in a random sample of 1000 patients who underwent an outpatient colonoscopy at an academic medical center in 2013. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between two cohorts: OAC vs. patients who were scheduled after previous evaluation by a gastroenterologist or physician assistant or non-open access colonoscopy (NOAC). RESULTS: Patients in the OAC group were more likely to be male, non-Hispanic, to be privately insured, and to have screening (vs. diagnostic) indication. However they were significantly less likely than those in the NOAC group to have a procedure performed once scheduled, (45.5% vs. 66.9%, p<0.001), due to no-show (24/178 or 13.5% vs. 60/822 or 7.3%), cancellation (56/178 or 31.5 vs. 156/822 or 19.0%), and non-compliance (9/178 or 5.1% vs. 20/822 or 2.4%). There were no clinically meaningful differences between groups with respect to outcomes such as polyp detection (35.6% OE vs. 39.5% NOE, p=0.54), postoperative call to GI practice (5.5% vs. 2.5%, p=0.41), or QI metrics such as documentation of prep quality (99.8% vs. 98.8%, p=0.24). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing OAC are more likely to have a screening colonoscopy but with overall similar clinical outcomes and compliance with QI to patients scheduled as NOAC. OAC remains handicapped by high cancellation and no-show rates.

Long-term outcomes of elders discharged on antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Despite limited evidence of efficacy, antipsychotics (APs) are commonly used to treat delirium. There has been little research on the long-term outcomes of patients who are started on APs in the hospital. METHODS: Using a previously described retrospective cohort of 300 elders (≥65 years old) who were newly prescribed APs while hospitalized between October 1, 2012 and September 31, 2013, we examined the 1-year outcomes of patients alive at the time of discharge. We examined number of readmissions, reasons for readmission, duration of AP therapy, use of other sedating medications, and incidence of readmission. We used the National Death Index to describe 1-year mortality and then created a multivariable model to identify predictors of 1-year mortality. RESULTS: The 260 patients discharged alive from their index admissions had a 1-year mortality rate of 29% (75/260). Of the 146/260 patients discharged on APs, 60 (41%) patients experienced at least 1 readmission. At the time of first readmission, 65% of patients were still taking the same APs on which they had been discharged. Eighteen patients received new APs during the readmission hospitalizations. Predictors of death at 1 year included discharge to postacute facilities after index admission (odds ratio [OR]: 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-4.73, P = 0.03) and QT interval prolongation >500 ms during index admission (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.34-8.67, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating an AP in the hospital is likely to result in long-term use of these medications. Patients who received an AP during a hospitalization were at high risk of death in the following year. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:550-555. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.