Coronary artery bypass graft surgery and primary percutaneous coronary intervention choices in patients with similar coronary anatomy: A computer-based simulation examines the sex gap.

BACKGROUND: Sex differences (or a 'sex gap') exist in the rates of cardiac revascularization. It was evaluated whether physician preference contributes to this difference. OBJECTIVES: To obtain information on how cardiac specialists manage male and female patients being evaluated for coronary artery disease. METHODS: A computer-based patient simulation program was developed. Six sex-matched clinical vignettes (three pairs) with uninterpreted coronary angiograms were shown to specialists, who were blinded to the purpose of the study. The sex-matched scenarios were balanced with respect to symptoms, comorbidities and coronary anatomy. Physicians were surveyed on management and rationale. RESULTS: Fifty physicians were surveyed, consisting mainly of cardiologists from tertiary cardiac centres in Ontario. Among the three sexmatched pairs, the frequencies at which percutaneous coronary intervention (including drug-eluting stents), bypass surgery and medical therapy were chosen did not differ across sexes. The means for men and women, respectively, were 47% and 50% for percutaneous coronary intervention, 32% and 26% for bypass surgery, and 21% and 24% for medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the present pilot study, cardiac specialists chose similar rates of medical, interventional and surgical procedures independent of a patient's sex. Although large registry trials show that sex differences in management exist, the present data suggest that cardiac specialist preference is less likely to be a factor if coronary angiography was performed. Further research is required to explore the causes of sex discrepancies in cardiac care.

Reconcilable differences: correcting medication errors at hospital admission and discharge.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors at the time of hospital admission and discharge are common and can lead to preventable adverse drug events. The objective of this study was to describe the potential impact of a medication reconciliation process to identify and rectify medication errors at the time of hospital admission and discharge. METHODS: Sixty randomly selected patients were prospectively enrolled at the time of admission to a Canadian community hospital. At admission, patients' medication orders were compared with pre-admission medication use based on medication vials and interviews with patients, caregivers, and/or outpatient healthcare providers. At discharge, pre-admission and in-patient medications were compared with discharge orders and written instructions. All variances were discussed with the prescribing physician and classified as intended or unintended; unintended variances were considered to be medication errors. An internist classified the clinical importance of each unintended variance. RESULTS: Overall, 60% (95% CI 48 to 72) of patients had at least one unintended variance and 18% (95% CI 9 to 28) had at least one clinically important unintended variance. None of the variances had been detected by usual clinical practice before reconciliation was conducted. Of the 20 clinically important variances, 75% (95% CI 56 to 94) were intercepted by medication reconciliation before patients were harmed. DISCUSSION: Unintended medication variances at the time of hospital admission and discharge are common and clinically important. The medication reconciliation process identified and addressed most of these unintended variances before harm occurred. In this small study, medication reconciliation was a useful method for identifying and rectifying medication errors at times of transition. Reconciliation warrants broader evaluation.