Validity of Using Japanese Administrative Data to Identify Inpatients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Referencing the COMMAND VTE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening in-hospital complication. Recently, several studies have reported the clinical characteristics of PE among Japanese patients using the diagnostic procedure combination (DPC)/per diem payment system database. However, the validity of PE identification algorithms for Japanese administrative data is not yet clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of using DPC data to identify acute PE inpatients. METHODS: The reference standard was symptomatic/asymptomatic PE patients included in the COntemporary ManageMent AND outcomes in patients with Venous ThromboEmbolism (COMMAND VTE) registry, which is a cohort study of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients in Japan. The validation cohort included all patients discharged from the six hospitals included in both the registry and DPC database. The identification algorithms comprised diagnosis, anticoagulation therapy, thrombolysis therapy, and inferior vena cava filter placement. Each algorithm's sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 43.4% of the validation cohort was female, with a mean age of 67.3 years. The diagnosis-based algorithm showed a sensitivity of 90.2% (222/246; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85.8-93.6%), a specificity of 99.8% (228,485/229,027; 95% CI, 99.7-99.8%), a PPV of 29.1% (222/764; 95% CI, 25.9-32.4%) and an NPV of 99.9% (228,485/229,509; 95% CI, 99.9-99.9%) for identifying symptomatic/asymptomatic PE. Additionally, 94.6% (159/168; 95% CI, 90.1-97.5%) of symptomatic PE patients were identified using the diagnosis-based algorithm. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis-based algorithm may be a relatively sensitive method for identifying acute PE inpatients in the Japanese DPC database.

Hemodynamic Monitoring Using a Pulmonary Artery Catheter Versus the Vigileo/FloTrac System during Elective Cardiac Surgery Based on Real-world Data in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The controversy concerning the benefits of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-based hemodynamic monitoring in cardiac surgeries has not been adequately addressed. This study aims to compare the all-cause mortality between the PAC with venous oxygen saturation monitoring and the Vigileo/FloTrac (FloTrac) system with central venous oxygen saturation monitoring in cardiac surgeries. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective study includes adult patients who underwent elective cardiac surgeries between April 2010 and October 2014, based on the Japanese health insurance claims database. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Propensity scores (PS) were used to adjust for the confounding factors. Treatment effects were estimated using multivariable logistic regression analysis, including PS. RESULTS: A total of 5,838 patients were included in this study. The crude 30-day mortality rates were 2.4% (8/334) and 1.7% (96/5,504) in the FloTrac and PAC groups, respectively. After PS matching, the ORs for 30-day all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality after PAC placement (vs. FloTrac) were 0.36 (95% CI: 0.05-2.37; p = 0.28) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.16-2.20; p = 0.43), respectively. The amount of dobutamine was larger in the PAC group (281 ± 31 mg vs 155 ± 19 mg; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the amounts of other inotropes, the volume of fluids, or blood transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: The association between PAC (with venous oxygen saturation monitoring) and mortality in patients who underwent elective cardiac surgeries was unclear compared to FloTrac (with central venous oxygen saturation monitoring). Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the benefits of PAC-specific hemodynamic parameters in this population.

Correction to: Prophylactic sivelestat for esophagectomy and in-hospital mortality: a propensity score-matched analysis of claims database.

In the original version of the article, the Tables 2 and 3 was published incorrectly. The correct version of Tables 2 and 3 are given below.

Prophylactic sivelestat for esophagectomy and in-hospital mortality: a propensity score-matched analysis of claims database.

PURPOSE: Transthoracic esophagectomy is an invasive surgery, and the excessive surgical stress produces inflammatory cytokines, which provoke acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Sivelestat sodium hydrate-a selective neutrophil elastase inhibitor-is used to treat or prevent ARDS in patients undergoing esophagectomy, although clear evidence is lacking. We investigated the benefits and risk of prophylactic sivelestat. METHODS: This retrospective study used an administrative claims database in Japan. Adult patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy from 2010 to 2016 were identified and divided into a prophylactic sivelestat use group and a non-prophylactic use group that included both non-users and therapeutic users. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality, and a secondary outcome included the proportion of ARDS. We used 1:1 propensity score matching. For sensitivity analyses, we conducted a 1:2 propensity score matching analysis and several analyses with various patient inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 3391 patients with esophagectomy, 621 received prophylactic sivelestat. On unadjusted analysis, the sivelestat group had a higher proportion of in-hospital mortality (5.3% vs. 2.9%) compared with the control group. We created a matched cohort of 615 pairs, whose baseline characteristics were well balanced. On adjusted analysis using propensity score matching, prophylactic sivelestat administration was not associated with decreased in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-2.88], ARDS rate (aOR 1.25; 95% CI 0.49-3.17). The findings were also consistent with other sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Because mortality and postoperative complications were similar, our findings do not support prophylactic sivelestat administration for patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Utilization of arterial pulse waveform analysis during non-cardiac surgery in Japan: a retrospective observational study using a nationwide claims database.

Arterial pulse waveform analysis (APWA) is used for cardiac output monitoring. However, data on the frequency of and patient characteristics for specialized pressure transducer for APWA (S-APWA) use are lacking. We retrospectively identified 175,201 patients aged 18 years or older, who underwent non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia with an arterial catheter from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016. We extracted data on patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical and anesthesia characteristics, and hospital characteristics. Among the full study cohort, 24,605 (14.0%) patients were monitored using S-APWA. Further, the use of S-APWA was higher in patients undergoing high-risk surgery than in those undergoing low-risk surgery [high vs low: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76-2.15, moderate vs low: aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01-1.22] and those with more comorbidities than in those with less comorbidities (high vs low: aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.42-1.56, moderate vs low: aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.20-1.31). S-APWA use was significantly associated with both surgery risk and patients' comorbidities. In conclusion, our study may provide a benchmark for future studies related to the appropriate use of S-APWA.

Pregabalin Prescription for Neuropathic Pain and Fibromyalgia: A Descriptive Study Using Administrative Database in Japan.

Objective: To assess dose, characteristics, and coprescribed analgesics in patients newly prescribed pregabalin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in Japan. Methods: Based on the medical and prescription information present in the Medical Data Vision database, we analyzed the initial and maximum daily doses, prescription period, coprescribed analgesics, and neuropathic pain-related disorders of patients newly prescribed pregabalin between 01 July 2010 and 31 December 2013. Results: A total of 45,331 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 48.7% men) were newly prescribed pregabalin during this period. The mean initial and maximum daily doses were 97.3 mg and 127.8 mg, respectively, and decreased yearly. The duration of the prescription period was 111.9 (mean) and 53 (median) days, and the frequently coprescribed analgesics included NSAIDs, opioids, and Neurotropin®. About one half of the patients had spinal disorders. Conclusion: In Japan during the period examined, the number of newly prescribed pregabalin users increased, but the initial and maximum daily doses decreased yearly after pregabalin went on the market. The maximum daily dose in Japan was lower than those reported in the USA and Europe. These differences might be associated with patient age and physical status and with anxiety about possible adverse events.