Assessing the Effectiveness of a Primary Care Provider Office-Based Intervention for Increasing Organ Donor Registration Rates in Two New York State Counties.

Introduction: Despite strong public support, organ donor registration rates (RR) continue to lag while need only grows. In the United States, the traditional registration site is the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), however Primary care provider (PCP) offices have been considered as alternate locations for increasing RR. Methods: Twelve PCP offices across 2 New York Counties were subjected to a control week where participants received only a registration opportunity and an intervention week with the addition of a motivational poster and informational brochure. Zip code level sociodemographic data were obtained for each site. RR from the DMV over the same period served as historical control. Results: There were 1292 participants in the control phase and 1099 in the experimental phase. New registration rate for the control was 33.8% (289/897); experimental phase 7.88% (61/769); DMV registration 21.02% (1902/9050). The intervention was associated with a significant decrease in registrations (OR 0.181 (95% CI 0.135-0.244, P < 0.001)). Offices were clustered based on sociodemographic factors and regressed in 2 clusters. Lower educational attainment was associated with lower registration in the first but not second cluster (OR = 0.948 (0.923-0.974, P < 0.001)). Conclusions: This study provided evidence that PCP offices were a feasible site for organ donor registration and calls into question the efficacy of written materials-only interventions for increasing organ donor RR. It reiterated the negative effect of lower educational attainment on registration and suggested future studies focus on more active methods of engagement.

An Analytical Mobile App for Shared Decision Making About Prenatal Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about prenatal screening to assess the risk of genetic conditions such as Down syndrome are complex and should be well informed. Moreover, the number of available tests is increasing. Shared decision making (SDM) about testing could be facilitated by decision aids powered by mobile technology. OBJECTIVE: In this mixed methods study, we aim to (1) assess women's needs and preferences regarding using an app for considering prenatal screening, (2) develop a decision model using the analytical hierarchy process, and (3) develop an analytical app and assess its usability and usefulness. METHODS: In phase 1, we will assess the needs of 90 pregnant women and their partners (if available). We will identify eligible participants in 3 clinical sites (a midwife-led birthing center, a family practice clinic, and an obstetrician-led hospital-based clinic) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada. Using semistructured interviews, we will assess participants' attitudes toward mobile apps for decision making about health, their current use of apps for health purposes, and their expectations of an app for prenatal testing decisions. Self-administered questionnaires will collect sociodemographic information, intentions to use an app for prenatal testing, and perceived importance of decision criteria. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In phase 2, we will develop a decision model using the AHP whereby users can assign relative importance to criteria when deciding between options. We will validate the model with potential users and a multidisciplinary team of patients, family physicians, primary care researchers, decision sciences experts, engineers, and experts in SDM, genetics, and bioethics. In phase 3, we will develop a prototype of the app using the results of the first 2 phases, pilot test its usefulness and usability among a sample of 15 pregnant women and their partners (if available), and improve it through 3 iterations. Data will be collected with a self-administered questionnaire. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Recruitment for phase 1 will begin in 2019. We expect results to be available in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will result in a validated analytical app that will provide pregnant women and their partners with up-to-date information about prenatal screening options and their risks and benefits. It will help them clarify their values and enable them to weigh the options to make informed choices consistent with their preferences and values before meeting face-to-face with their health care professional. The app will be easy to update with the latest information and will provide women with a user-friendly experience using their smartphones or tablets. This study and the resulting app will contribute to high-quality SDM between pregnant women and their health care team. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13321.

Treatments for Stage IV Colon Cancer and Overall Survival.

BACKGROUND: The role of primary tumor resection (PTR) for asymptomatic stage IV colon cancer with unresectable metastases remains unclear. Increasingly there has been a trend away from resection. The aim of this study was to examine trends in the treatment of stage IV colon cancers, impact of different treatments on long-term mortality, and factors associated with receipt of postoperative chemotherapy. METHODS: The 2006-2012 National Cancer Data Base was queried for stage IV colon cancer patients. Treatments were grouped into PTR and chemotherapy, PTR only, chemotherapy only, and no treatment. A descriptive analysis was performed examining patient and hospital characteristics associated with different treatments. A Cox regression analysis was used to assess the adjusted effect of different treatments on long-term survival. A multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with postoperative chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 31,310 patients, who met inclusion criteria, 22% of the patients underwent PTR and chemotherapy, 37.5% received chemotherapy only, 11.9% underwent PTR, and 28.6% received no treatment. Patients who received no treatment had the highest hazard of death at 1, 3, and 5 y, followed by PTR only, and chemotherapy only compared with PTR combined with chemotherapy. Patients who were older and had more comorbidities were less likely to receive postoperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Primary tumor resection in conjunction with postoperative chemotherapy among stage IV colon cancer patients with unresectable metastases was associated with a long-term survival benefit compared with other treatment options. Efforts should be made to increase the use of postoperative chemotherapy where feasible.

Harnessing Expert Judgment to Support Clinical Decisions When the Evidence Base Is Weak.

PURPOSE: In the process of developing an evidence-based decision dashboard to support treatment decisions for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, we found that the clinical evidence base is insufficient to provide high-quality comparative outcome data. We therefore sought to determine if clinically acceptable outcome estimates could be created using a modified version of the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF), a formal method for eliciting judgments regarding probability distributions of expected decision outcomes. METHODS: We asked a panel of 3 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, and 2 medical oncologists to estimate the probabilities of 11 treatment outcomes based on their clinical experience and an annotated evidence summary. The estimates were elicited using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing a self-guided, adapted version of the SHELF Roulette method distributed via email. We created combined outcome estimates by taking the mean values of the panel members' upper and lower 95% bounds for each outcome. The combined estimates were then distributed via email to the panel for final approval. RESULTS: Eight of the 9 responses were judged to be correct applications of the SHELF method and included in the combined outcome estimates. The final set of outcome estimates was unanimously accepted by the clinician panel members and used to create a decision dashboard suitable for clinical use and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Many important health care decisions need to be made in situations where the evidence base is inadequate. Use of a formal protocol for eliciting expert judgments is feasible and can be used to promote evidence-based practice by providing a powerful tool to facilitate the combination of professional judgment with research evidence and patient preferences to guide clinical decisions.

A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options.

BACKGROUND: Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task. OBJECTIVE: To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient's preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option. METHODS: This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option. RESULTS: Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients' preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.

The Feasibility of Sophisticated Multicriteria Support for Clinical Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are well-suited to serve as the foundation for clinical decision support systems. To do so, however, they need to be appropriate for use in busy clinical settings. We compared decision-making processes and outcomes of patient-level analyses done with a range of multicriteria methods that vary in ease of use and intensity of decision support, 2 factors that could affect their ease of implementation into practice. METHODS: We conducted a series of Internet surveys to compare the effects of 5 multicriteria methods that differ in user interface and required user input format on decisions regarding selection of a preferred method for lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study sample consisted of members of an online Internet panel maintained by Fluidsurveys, an Internet survey company. Study outcomes were changes in preferred option, decision confidence, preparation for decision making, the Values Clarification and Decisional Uncertainty subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale, and method ease of use. RESULTS: The frequency of changes in the preferred option ranged from 9% to 38%, P < 0.001, and rose progressively as the level of decision support provided by the MCDM method increased. The proportion of respondents who rated the method as easy ranged from 57% to 79% and differed significantly among MCDM methods, P = 0.003, but was not consistently related to intensity of decision support or ease of use. CONCLUSION: Decision support based on MCDM methods is not necessarily limited by decreases in ease of use. This result suggests that it is possible to develop decision support tools using sophisticated multicriteria techniques suitable for use in routine clinical care settings.

Depression partially mediated the relationship between basic psychological needs and quality of life among people living with HIV.

Few studies have examined the relationship between basic psychological needs (BPN), depression and quality of life (QOL) in people living with HIV (PLWH). This cross-sectional study (N = 65; 37% females, 37% Caucasian, mean age = 55 ± 6 years, mean CD4 count = 668 ± 368 cells/mm3, average duration of HIV = 18 ± 4 years) found that BPN frustration was related with lower QOL. The strength of this relationship was reduced after controlling for depression. This suggests that depression partially mediated the relationship between BPN and QOL. BPN and depression may be specific targets for psychosocial interventions aimed at improving QOL in PLWH to promote successful aging.

Does patient time spent viewing computer-tailored colorectal cancer screening materials predict patient-reported discussion of screening with providers?

The main aim is to examine whether patients' viewing time on information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before a primary care physician (PCP) visit is associated with discussion of screening options during the visit. We analyzed data from a multi-center randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) to activate patients to undergo CRC screening, deployed in primary care offices immediately before a visit. We employed usage time information stored in the IMCP to examine the association of patient time spent using the program with patient-reported discussion of screening during the visit, adjusting for previous CRC screening recommendation and reading speed.On average, patients spent 33 minutes on the program. In adjusted analyses, 30 minutes spent using the program was associated with a 41% increase in the odds of the patient having a discussion with their PCP (1.04, 1.59, 95% CI). In a separate analysis of the tailoring modules; the modules encouraging adherence to the tailored screening recommendation and discussion with the patient's PCP yielded significant results. Other predictors of screening discussion included better self-reported physical health and increased patient activation. Time spent on the program predicted greater patient-physician discussion of screening during a linked visit.Usage time information gathered automatically by IMCPs offers promise for objectively assessing patient engagement around a topic and predicting likelihood of discussion between patients and their clinician.

Feasibility of Early Palliative Care Consultation for Children With High-Risk Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer suffer significant morbidity throughout therapy and often face an uncertain prognosis. Because palliative care teams can provide an additional layer of support with symptom management and communication, we conducted a prospective study assessing the feasibility of early palliative care consultation for children with high-risk malignancies. PROCEDURE: This study was part of a larger prospective study examining the impact of early palliative care consultation. Children were eligible if they were <22 years old and had a high-risk malignancy, recurrence, or required hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Data were collected from the medical record on diagnosis, days to consultation, acceptability of consultation to family/staff, and overall survival. Feasibility was defined as enrollment of >75% of eligible patients, palliative care consultation within 1 month of eligibility, and patient/family satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty of 25 (80%) eligible patients were approached and received a palliative care consultation at initial diagnosis (7), recurrence (12), or time of HSCT (1). Median age of the children was 5 years (0.1-20 years). Median time from new diagnosis/recurrence to consultation was 12 days (2-180 days); 17 (85%) received the consultation within 30 days. Eleven (55%) of the 20 children died. Median time of consultation prior to death was 128 days (10-648 days). Ten of the 11 (91%) received their consultation >30 days prior to death. No families or oncologists declined an early consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Early palliative care consultation is feasible for children with high-risk cancer and is acceptable to children, families, and pediatric oncologists.

Should Health Numeracy Be Assessed Objectively or Subjectively?

INTRODUCTION: Because current evidence suggests that numeracy affects how people make decisions, it is an important factor to account for in studies assessing the effectiveness of medical decision support interventions. Subjective and objective numeracy assessment methods are available that vary in theoretical background, skills assessed, known relationship with decision making skills, and ease of implementation. The best way to use these tools to assess numeracy when conducting medical decision-making research is currently unknown. METHODS: We conducted Internet surveys comparing numeracy assessments obtained using the subjective numeracy scale (SNS) and 5 objective numeracy scales. Each study participant completed the SNS and 1 objective numeracy measure. Following each assessment, participants indicated willingness to repeat the assessment and rated its user acceptability. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 78%, resulting in a total sample size of 673. Spearman correlations between the SNS and the objective numeracy measures ranged from 0.19 to 0.44. Acceptability assessments for the short form of the Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument and the SNS did not differ significantly. The other objective scales all had lower acceptability ratings than the SNS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that objective and subjective numeracy scales measure related but distinct constructs. Due to current uncertainty regarding which construct is more likely to influence the effectiveness of decision support interventions, these findings warrant further investigation to determine the proper use of objective versus subjective numeracy assessments in medical decision-making research. Pending additional information, a reasonable approach is to measure both objective and subjective numeracy so that the full range of actual and perceived numeracy skills can be taken into account.

Cost-Effectiveness of Extended Duration Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in High Risk Urological Oncology Surgical Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Major urological oncology surgery carries a significant risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism events, resulting in major morbidity, possible mortality and substantial costs. We determined the incremental cost-effectiveness for in-hospital and low molecular weight heparin extended duration prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention in patients at high risk following major urological oncology surgery. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed to compare inpatient hospital costs, venous thromboembolism incidence within 365 days and outcomes associated with extended duration prophylaxis for 4 prophylaxis strategies. The 4 strategies grouped by protocol adherence were 1) per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis with extended duration prophylaxis in 88 cases, 2) per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis without extended duration prophylaxis in 42, 3) not per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis with extended duration prophylaxis in 80 and 4) not per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis without extended duration prophylaxis in 99. Between June 2011 and March 2014, 707 patients underwent major urological oncology surgery. Using the Caprini risk score 309 patients were at high risk. RESULTS: The group 1 strategy was the dominant (most effective) strategy when the probability of preventing venous thromboembolism with extended duration prophylaxis was greater than 80%. Effectiveness for preventing venous thromboembolism was most influenced by the group 2 venous thromboembolism incidence rate. Costs in group 1 vs group 2 were calculated at $1,531 vs $1,563. Using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to compare groups 1 and 2, which were the 2 groups with the closest costs and effectiveness, an overall cost savings of $1,390 per patient was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with competing strategies in-hospital and extended duration prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention in patients at high risk undergoing major urological oncology surgery is effective to prevent venous thromboembolism and it is cost saving.

Neurocognitive Changes after Sustained Ketamine Administration in Children with Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Ketamine has received attention recently as an agent for chronic pain. There are concerns, however, regarding the neurocognitive changes patients might experience after ketamine exposure. METHODS: This prospective, uncontrolled study describes the neurocognitive functioning of 11 children with chronic pain before and after 2 weeks of daily oral ketamine exposure. Neurocognitive assessment was performed at baseline, Week 2, and Week 14. We hypothesized that there would be declines in neurocognitive scores at either Week 2 or Week 14. RESULTS: No decline in neurocognitive function was detected in the children investigated. Mean scores for tests measuring executive function and memory were improved at Weeks 2 and 14 compared to baseline. DISCUSSION: This study did not detect any decline in neurocognitive scores in a small number of children exposed to 2 weeks of oral ketamine therapy. Randomized, controlled studies of the neurocognitive effects of ketamine in children are recommended to further investigate these preliminary findings.

Decision Aids: The Effect of Labeling Options on Patient Choices and Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Conscious and unconscious biases can influence how people interpret new information and make decisions. Current standards for creating decision aids, however, do not address this issue. METHOD: Using a 2×2 factorial design, we developed surveys that contained a decision scenario (involving a choice between aspirin or a statin drug to lower risk of heart attack) and a decision aid. Each aid presented identical information about reduction in heart attack risk and likelihood of a major side effect. They differed in whether the options were labeled and the amount of decisional guidance: information only (a balance sheet) versus information plus values clarification (a multicriteria decision analysis). We sent the surveys to members of 2 Internet survey panels. After using the decision aid, participants indicated their preferred medication. Those using a multicriteria decision aid also judged differences in the comparative outcome data provided for the 2 options and the relative importance of achieving benefits versus avoiding risks in making the decision. RESULTS: The study sample size was 536. Participants using decision aids with unlabeled options were more likely to choose a statin: 56% versus 25% (P < 0.001). The type of decision aid made no difference. This effect persisted after adjustment for differences in survey company, age, gender, education level, health literacy, and numeracy. Participants using unlabeled decision aids were also more likely to interpret the data presented as favoring a statin with regard to both treatment benefits and risk of side effects (P ≤ 0.01). There were no significant differences in decision priorities (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Identifying the options in patient decision aids can influence patient preferences and change how they interpret comparative outcome data.

Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility and utility of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted an AHP with nine diabetes experts using structured interviews to rank add-on therapies (to metformin) for type 2 diabetes. During the AHP, participants compared treatment alternatives relative to eight outcomes (hemoglobin A1c-lowering and seven potential harms) and the relative importance of the different outcomes. The AHP model and instrument were pre-tested and pilot-tested prior to use. Results were discussed and an evaluation of the AHP was conducted during a group session. We conducted the quantitative analysis using Expert Choice software with the ideal mode to determine the priority of treatment alternatives. RESULTS: Participants judged exenatide to be the best add-on therapy followed by sitagliptin, sulfonylureas, and then pioglitazone. Maximizing benefit was judged 21% more important than minimizing harm. Minimizing severe hypoglycemia was judged to be the most important harm to avoid. Exenatide was the best overall alternative if the importance of minimizing harms was prioritized completely over maximizing benefits. Participants reported that the AHP improved transparency, consistency, and an understanding of others' perspectives and agreed that the results reflected the views of the group. CONCLUSIONS: The AHP is feasible and useful to make decisions about diabetes medications. Future studies which incorporate stakeholder preferences should evaluate other decision contexts, objectives, and treatments.

Balance Sheets Versus Decision Dashboards to Support Patient Treatment Choices: A Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing recognition of the importance of involving patients in preference-driven healthcare decisions has highlighted the need to develop practical strategies to implement patient-centered shared decision-making. The use of tabular balance sheets to support clinical decision-making is well established. More recent evidence suggests that graphic, interactive decision dashboards can help people derive deeper a understanding of information within a specific decision context. We therefore conducted a non-randomized trial comparing the effects of adding an interactive dashboard to a static tabular balance sheet on patient decision-making. METHODS: The study population consisted of members of the ResearchMatch registry who volunteered to participate in a study of medical decision-making. Two separate surveys were conducted: one in the control group and one in the intervention group. All participants were instructed to imagine they were newly diagnosed with a chronic illness and were asked to choose between three hypothetical drug treatments, which varied with regard to effectiveness, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost. Both groups made an initial treatment choice after reviewing a balance sheet. After a brief "washout" period, members of the control group made a second treatment choice after reviewing the balance sheet again, while intervention group members made a second treatment choice after reviewing an interactive decision dashboard containing the same information. After both choices, participants rated their degree of confidence in their choice on a 1 to 10 scale. RESULTS: Members of the dashboard intervention group were more likely to change their choice of preferred drug (10.2 versus 7.5%; p = 0.054) and had a larger increase in decision confidence than the control group (0.67 versus 0.075; p < 0.03). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in decisional conflict or decision aid acceptability. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that clinical decision dashboards may be an effective point-of-care decision-support tool. Further research to explore this possibility is warranted.

The impact of electronic health record implementation and use on performance of the Surgical Care Improvement Project measures.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of electronic health record (EHR) deployment on Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) measures in a tertiary-care teaching hospital. DATA SOURCES: SCIP Core Measure dataset from the CMS Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program (March 2010 to February 2012). STUDY DESIGN: One-group pre- and post-EHR logistic regression and difference-in-differences analyses. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Statistically significant short-term declines in scores were observed for the composite, postoperative removal of urinary catheter and post-cardiac surgery glucose control measures. A statistically insignificant improvement in scores for these measures was noted 3 months after EHR deployment. CONCLUSION: The transition to an EHR appears to be associated with a short-term decline in quality. Implementation strategies should be developed to preempt or minimize this initial decline.

Regulatory focus affects physician risk tolerance.

Risk tolerance is a source of variation in physician decision-making. This variation, if independent of clinical concerns, can result in mistaken utilization of health services. To address such problems, it will be helpful to identify nonclinical factors of risk tolerance, particularly those amendable to intervention-regulatory focus theory suggests such a factor. This study tested whether regulatory focus affects risk tolerance among primary care physicians. Twenty-seven primary care physicians were assigned to promotion-focused or prevention-focused manipulations and compared on the Risk Taking Attitudes in Medical Decision Making scale using a randomization test. Results provide evidence that physicians assigned to the promotion-focus manipulation adopted an attitude of greater risk tolerance than the physicians assigned to the prevention-focused manipulation (p = 0.01). The Cohen's d statistic was conventionally large at 0.92. Results imply that situational regulatory focus in primary care physicians affects risk tolerance and may thereby be a nonclinical source of practice variation. Results also provide marginal evidence that chronic regulatory focus is associated with risk tolerance (p = 0.05), but the mechanism remains unclear. Research and intervention targeting physician risk tolerance may benefit by considering situational regulatory focus as an explanatory factor.

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in Medicare patients: multicriteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of finite healthcare resources, developing cost-efficient strategies for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis is paramount. The current levels of knowledge allow for PJI diagnostic recommendations based on scientific evidence but do not consider the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different diagnostic alternatives. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined the best diagnostic strategy for knee and hip PJI in the ambulatory setting for Medicare patients, utilizing benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks evaluation through multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). METHODS: The PJI diagnostic definition supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society was employed for the MCDA. Using a preclinical model, we evaluated three diagnostic strategies that can be conducted in a Medicare patient seen in the outpatient clinical setting complaining of a painful TKA or THA. Strategies were (1) screening with serum markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]/C-reactive protein [CRP]) followed by arthrocentesis in positive cases, (2) immediate arthrocentesis, and (3) serum markers requested simultaneously with arthrocentesis. MCDA was conducted through the analytic hierarchy process, comparing the diagnostic strategies in terms of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RESULTS: Strategy 1 was the best alternative to diagnose knee PJI among Medicare patients (normalized value: 0.490), followed by Strategy 3 (normalized value: 0.403) and then Strategy 2 (normalized value: 0.106). The same ranking of alternatives was observed for the hip PJI model (normalized value: 0.487, 0.405, and 0.107, respectively). The sensitivity analysis found this sequence to be robust with respect to benefits, opportunities, and risks. However, if during the decision-making process, cost savings was given a priority of higher than 54%, the ranking for the preferred diagnostic strategy changed. CONCLUSIONS: After considering the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different available alternatives, our preclinical model supports the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recommendations regarding the use of serum markers (ESR/CRP) before arthrocentesis as the best diagnostic strategy for PJI among Medicare patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Perioperative pleiotropic statin effects in general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that statins may decrease inflammation, airway hyperreactivity, and hypercoagulability while improving revascularization mediated by cholesterol-independent pathways. This study evaluated whether the preoperative use of statins is associated with decreased postoperative major noncardiac complications in noncardiac procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-institution study of noncardiac operations performed from 2005 to 2010. The use of statins was identified from electronic medical records and merged with local National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Preoperative statin exposure was defined as statin use before operation, as documented by admission medication reconciliation and outpatient or pharmacy records. The primary end point was major noncardiac complications, and secondary end points included respiratory, infectious (sepsis and organ space infection) and complications of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Multivariable logistic regression was performed for each end point while we controlled for clinical covariates meeting P < .10 on bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Preoperative statin use was present in 10.5% (n = 814) of 7,777 total cases. Procedure type included general operation (n = 2,605, 33.5%), breast/endocrine (n = 739, 9.5%), colorectal (n = 1,533, 19.7%), hepatobiliary/pancreatic (n = 397, 5.1%), orthopedic (n = 205, 2.6%), skin/ear-nose- throat (145, 1.9%), thoracic (n = 53, 0.7%), upper gastrointestinal (n = 651, 8.4%), and vascular cases (1,449, 18.6%). On multivariable analysis, the use of statins was associated with decreased major, noncardiac complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.49-0.92, P < .001), respiratory complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.79, P = .017), VTE (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.98, P = .044), and infectious complications (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.94, P = .023). CONCLUSION: The preoperative use of statins is independently associated with decreased risk of major complications. This effect is likely driven by reduction in respiratory, VTE, and infectious complication rates. These results warrant future clinical trials to assess the perioperative benefit of statin use in noncardiac procedures.