ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vestibular rehabilitation is a safe and effective exercise-based treatment for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms. However, it is underused in general practice. Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (Vertigo Training), which has proven to be effective as well, was developed to increase uptake. We now aim to improve the quality of care for patients with vestibular symptoms by carrying out a nationwide implementation of Vertigo Training. We will evaluate the effect of this implementation on primary care. METHODS: Our implementation study consists of three successive phases: 1) We will perform a retrospective observational cohort study and a qualitative interview study to evaluate the current management of patients with vestibular symptoms in primary care, in particular anti-vertigo drug prescriptions, and identify areas for improvement. We will use the results of this phase to tailor our implementation strategy to the needs of general practitioners (GPs) and patients. 2) This phase entails the implementation of Vertigo Training using a multicomponent implementation strategy, containing: guideline adaptations; marketing strategy; pharmacotherapeutic audit and feedback meetings; education; clinical decision support; and local champions. 3) In this phase, we will evaluate the effect of the implementation in three ways. a. Interrupted time series. We will use routine primary care data from adult patients with vestibular symptoms to compare the number of GP consultations for vestibular symptoms, referrals for vestibular rehabilitation, prescriptions for anti-vertigo drugs, and referrals to physiotherapy and secondary care before and after implementation. b. Prospective observational cohort study. We will extract data from Vertigo Training to investigate the usage and the characteristics of participants. We will also determine whether these characteristics are associated with successful treatment. c. Qualitative interview study. We will conduct interviews with GPs to explore their experiences with the implementation. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies to evaluate the effect of a nationwide implementation of an innovative treatment on Dutch primary care. Implementation strategies have been researched before, but it remains unclear which ones are the most effective and under what conditions. We therefore expect to gain relevant insights for future projects that aim to implement innovations in primary care.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the clinical relevance of postcarotid endarterectomy hypertension (PEH) by investigating the effect of PEH on hospital length of stay (LOS) and by investigating short-term and long-term complications of PEH. In addition, risk factors for PEH were determined. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed. Demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes of 192 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy were evaluated. Outcomes were compared between patients with PEH and patients without PEH. PEH was defined as an acute systolic blood pressure (SBP) rise >170 mm Hg or persistent SBP >150 mm Hg on the ward and leading to the consultation of an internist. The overall survival and event-free survival were compared using a Kaplan-Meier analysis and a Cox regression analysis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors for PEH. RESULTS: PEH developed in 44 of 192 patients (25%). Preoperative hypertension (SBP >150 mm Hg) was determined to be a risk factor for PEH (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-6.9). Hospital LOS was prolonged in patients with PEH compared with patients without PEH (median LOS of 5 days vs 3 days, respectively; P < .001). No difference in the occurrence of ischemic neurologic events or rebleeding during hospitalization was observed (P = .58 and P = .72, respectively). Cardiovascular and ischemic neurologic events during follow-up did not occur more often in patients with PEH than in patients without PEH (P = .46). There was no difference in mortality between the PEH and non-PEH groups (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.6-4.3). The same applies to the event-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.4-1.7). Combined event-free survival for stroke and myocardial infarction was 92% (95% CI, 87%-97%) at 2 years for patients without PEH and 86% (95% CI, 74%-98%) at 2 years for patients with PEH (P = .25). Event-free survival for mortality was 90% (95% CI, 85%-96%) at 2 years for patients without PEH and 94% (95% CI, 86%-100%) at 2 years for patients with PEH (P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PEH had a significant increase in hospital LOS. However, adverse short-term and long-term events did not occur more often in patients with PEH. High preoperative SBP was identified as a risk factor for PEH; no other demographic and clinical variables were associated with PEH.
