The Specialist Treatment of Inpatients: Caring for Diabetes in Surgery (STOIC-D Surgery) Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Early Intervention With an Electronic Specialist-Led Model of Diabetes Care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early intervention with an electronic specialist-led "proactive" model of care on glycemic and clinical outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Specialist Treatment of Inpatients: Caring for Diabetes in Surgery (STOIC-D Surgery) randomized controlled trial was performed at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Eligible participants were adults admitted to a surgical ward during the study with either known diabetes or newly detected hyperglycemia (at least one random blood glucose result ≥11.1 mmol/L). Participants were randomized 1:1 to standard diabetes care or the intervention consisting of an early consult by a specialist inpatient diabetes team using electronic tools for patient identification, communication of recommendations, and therapy intensification. The primary outcome was median patient-day mean glucose (PDMG). The key secondary outcome was incidence of health care-associated infection (HAI). RESULTS: Between 12 February 2021 and 17 December 2021, 1,371 admissions met inclusion criteria, with 680 assigned to early intervention and 691 to standard diabetes care. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The early intervention group achieved a lower median PDMG of 8.2 mmol/L (interquartile range [IQR] 6.9-10.0 mmol/L) compared with 8.6 mmol/L (IQR 7.2-10.3 mmol/L) in the control group for an estimated difference of -0.3 mmol/L (95% CI -0.4 to -0.2 mmol/L, P < 0.0001). The incidence of HAI was lower in the intervention group (77 [11%] vs. 110 [16%]), for an absolute risk difference of -4.6% (95% CI -8.2 to -1.0, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In surgical inpatients, early diabetes management intervention with an electronic specialist-led diabetes model of care reduces glucose and HAI.

Medium-Term Bioresorbable Scaffold Outcomes Utilising Data From an Australian Clinical Quality Registry.

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are a novel technology in coronary intervention. However, recent trials demonstrate higher rates of device failure compared to contemporary drug-eluting stents. This study sought to utilise a clinical quality registry to assess the medium-term safety of the Abbott Absorb BRS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), in an Australian context. METHODS: A prospective, observational study of 192 BRS percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) compared to 31,773 non-BRS PCIs entered in the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry from 2013 to 2017. The main outcome measure was patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) events comprising all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI), and any revascularisation. RESULTS: Bioresorbable scaffolds patients (mean age 61.6±10.5 years, 79% male) were younger, had less comorbidity, less prior PCI, fewer ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentations, lower rates of multi-lesion disease and more adjuvant devices compared to non-BRS PCI (all p<0.01). All-cause mortality was 2.1%, myocardial infarction (MI) 2.1%, scaffold thrombosis 3.1% and any revascularisation 14.1% (mean follow-up 27.4±8.9 months). POCE events occurred in 11.5% at 1 year and 16.9% at 2 years, comparable to pooled-trial data. Multivariate predictors of POCE were >1 scaffold used (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-11.4, p<0.01) and scaffold diameter ≤2.5 mm (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-7.6, p=0.02). Over 95% guideline adherence was achieved in six of eight patient selection criteria and four of six device deployment criteria. CONCLUSION: In an Australian setting, BRS were used in non-complex patients. Most guidelines for use were adhered to and outcomes were comparable to pooled trial data. Clinical quality registries are effective in assessing novel treatments and technologies when potential safety concerns develop.