RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In a recent study, 50% of the patients who were admitted to a hospital's general medicine ward had at least one error in medication orders at the time of admission related to inaccuracies in the medication history. The use of computerized prescription databases has been suggested as a way to improve medication reconciliation at the time of admission. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and describe unintended discrepancies between a best possible medication history and medications ordered on admission to the general medicine ward in a hospital with routine access to a provincial outpatient prescription database (British Columbia's PharmaNet). METHODS: This prospective study involved 20 patients who were regularly using at least 4 prescription medications before admission to hospital. The best possible medication history for each patient (based on a review of the medical chart and the PharmaNet record and an interview with the patient) was compared with the physician's admission orders to identify any discrepancies. The frequency and perceived severity of discrepancies, graded independently by 3 physicians, were compared with observations from a similar study conducted at a hospital where a prescription database was not available. RESULTS: The 20 patients were recruited between September 2005 and January 2006. For 8 patients (40%), information in the PharmaNet database was consistent with the prescription medication list obtained during the best possible medication history at the time of admission. For the other 12 patients, a total of 30 unintended discrepancies were identified, 13 (43%) of which were classified as having potential for moderate or severe harm. The proportion of patients with unintended discrepancies was similar to that for the comparison cohort (60% versus 54%). Although the percentage of discrepancies involving omissions was lower than in the comparison population (37% versus 46%), these results were offset by a higher proportion of commission discrepancies (27% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Unintended discrepancies were frequent, despite use of the PharmaNet database at the time of admission. Inconsistencies between the PharmaNet record and patients' actual medication use, coupled with failure to verify PharmaNet data with patients, were likely contributing factors.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence evaluating the efficacy of statins in reducing the progression of calcified aortic stenosis (AS). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched (all up to November 2006) for studies evaluating the use of statins to reduce the progression of calcified AS. Search terms included statin, HMG CoA reductase inhibitor, calcified AS, valve stenosis, and calcified stenosis. Additional primary trials were located by searching references noted in review articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Clinical trials published in the English language were selected for review. Primary efficacy outcomes evaluated were changes in aortic valve measurements, hemodynamic measures of AS, and change in measures of AS severity. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two prospective clinical trials and 5 retrospective studies were included in this review. All of the retrospective studies demonstrated that statin use was associated with a statistically significant delay in the progression of AS. One prospective observation trial showed benefit of statin use; however, a large, randomized, double-blind, prospective trial showed no benefit of statin use in decreasing the progression of AS. CONCLUSIONS: An association between statin use and a delay in AS progression has been observed in retrospective studies; however, prospective trials showed conflicting results. Currently, statins cannot be recommended for medical treatment of AS until larger trials are conducted.