Ultrasonographic predictors for the development of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a single joint prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to evaluate if any ultrasonographic aspect of metacarpo-phalangeal (MCP) joint can be predictors for the development of new joint damage, at single joint level, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Two hundred and forty MCP joints of 24 patients with RA were prospectively evaluated both clinically and by ultrasound (US) at time 0, at six months and 12 months, in order to collect the following variables: presence of synovial hypertrophy and power-Doppler (PD) vascularisation both graded on a semiquantitative (0-3) scale, and the number and dimension of bone erosions. X-ray examinations were carried out at time 0 and at 12 months and lesions were graded using the Sharp/van der Heijde (S/vdH) method at single joint level. Potential prognostic determinants for joint damage obtained at the first examination and during follow-up were entered in a conditional logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen out of seventeen (88%) of the new eroded joints on x-rays examination had persistent PD vascularity and 14/17 (82%) had persistent synovial thickening (p=0.001 and p=0.02, vs. non-eroded joints, respectively). In multiple conditional logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the development of radiological joint damage was the presence of a synovial PD score ≥2 on two or more US evaluations (OR 8.51 [95%CI 1.84-39.48] for Rx new erosions and OR 8.30 [95%CI 1.97-38.9] for increased S/vdH local joint score). Both baseline synovial score ≥2 and presence of Rx erosions were also significantly associated with the development of radiological joint damage. Two predictive models for x-ray erosions and total single joint level S/vdH damage score were constructed consisting of 2 baseline plus one longitudinal variable with a ROC AUC of 0.916 (95%CI 0.867-0.965) and 0.886 (95%CI 0.814-0.957). CONCLUSIONS: At the single joint level, the presence of US determined synovial thickness and PD signal at baseline and the persistent PD signal over time have relevant prognostic value for the development of articular damage in the same MCP joints of RA patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of noninvasive strategies to evaluate patients with chest pain.

We evaluated clinical and economic outcomes of diagnostic strategies on the basis of pharmacologic stress echocardiography (PhSE) versus exercise electrocardiography test (EET) in 527 patients with chest pain (274 women; age 59 +/- 10 years) who underwent both EET and PhSE. We investigated 3 strategies, ie, coronary angiography: after positive EET (strategy 1); after positive PhSE (strategy 2); or after a positive PhSE performed after a positive EET (strategy 3). A patient was correctly identified if he or she had negative test results and no events, or had positive test results and abnormal coronaries. The cost per patient correctly identified was calculated as the ratio between the cost of each strategy and the number of patients correctly identified. The accuracy in correctly identifying the patients was 78%, 92%, and 91% with strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cost of each patient correctly identified was 1572 US dollars, 1097 US dollars, and 1081 US dollars with strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In conclusion, PhSE-based strategies are cost-effective versus EET.

[Evaluation of the appropriateness of prescribing Holter dynamic electrocardiography]. / La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to Holter monitoring performed on ambulatory patients during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. METHODS: We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. RESULTS: We evaluated 863 prescriptions (population: 435 males, 428 females; mean age 64 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to the test were of class I (appropriate) in 59.6%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 11.7%, and of class III (inappropriate) in 28.7% of the cases. In 33% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 37.9% of class I, in 36.7% of class II, and in 24.5% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The exam was considered useful in 46.7% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 59.2% of class I, in 45.5% of class II, and in 21% of class III exams (p < 0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 373/863 tests (43.2%). Their indications were of class I in 67.6%, of class II in 12% and of class III in 24% of the cases vs 53.7, 11.4 and 34.9% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p < 0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 40% of cardiologist- vs 27.6% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.31-2.32; p < 0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 59.8% of cardiologist- vs 36.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 1.94-3.37; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.

[Evaluation of the appropriateness of prescribing exercise tests]. / La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione del test da sforzo.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the appropriateness of the indications to exercise testing for ambulatory patients performed during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. METHODS: We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. RESULTS: We evaluated 1158 prescriptions (population: 822 males, 336 females; mean age 60 years, range 16-82 years). Prescriptions were of class I (appropriate) in 38.9%, of class II (of doubtful appropriateness) in 52.5% and of class III (inappropriate) in 8.6% of the cases. In 14.2% of the cases the exam was abnormal: it was abnormal in 35.5% of class I, in 26.6% of class II and in 23% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The exam was useful in 51.6% of the cases; it was useful in 62.4% of class I, in 50.2% of class II and in 13% of class III exams (p < 0.05). Cardiologists required 596/1158 tests (51.5%). Their indications were included in class I in 45.6%, in class II in 49.7% and in class III in 4.7% of the cases vs 31.7, 55.5 e 12.8% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p < 0.05). The test was abnormal in 35.7% of cardiologist vs 23.5% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.34; p < 0.05); the test was useful in 64.4% of cardiologist vs 38.2% of non-cardiologist-prescribed exams (odds ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval 2.3-3.71; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, less than half of exercise testing procedures are appropriate; appropriately-prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.

[Evaluation of the appropriateness of prescribing echocardiography]. / La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'ecocardiogramma.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to echocardiography for ambulatory patients performed during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. METHODS: We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. RESULTS: We evaluated 2848 prescriptions (patients: 1450 males, 1398 females; mean age 62 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to test were of class I (appropriate) in 43.6%, of class II (of doubtfully appropriateness) in 36.8% and of class III (inappropriate) in 19.6% of the cases. In 60.8% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 83.8% of class I, in 56.6% of class II and in 17.8% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The exam was considered useful in 51.1% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 78.9% of class I, in 39% of class II and in 12.1% of class III exams (p < 0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 856/2848 tests (30%). Their indications were of class I in 58.8%, of class II in 29.8% and of class III in 11.4% of the cases vs 37, 39.9 and 23.1% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p < 0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 74.3% of cardiologist- vs 55% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 2.04-2.92; p < 0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 63.1% of cardiologist- vs 46% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.75-2.45; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about half of the prescriptions for echocardiography can be considered inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams more often provide abnormal and useful results; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.

A computer protocol to evaluate subjects with chest pain in the emergency department: a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Chest pain is a frequent cause of medical admission to the emergency department and the main differential diagnosis is between coronary and non-coronary chest pain. We elaborated a computer protocol for the management of patients with chest pain. METHODS: The computer protocol was made of three sections according to clinical, electrocardiographic and biochemical data. Each section was coded by a letter indicating the probability of coronary chest pain for each section. The combination of the three letters formed a score string used to assign patients to four subgroups of overall probability of coronary chest pain (low, medium-low, medium-high, and high). Low-probability patients were discharged from the emergency department, whereas high-probability patients were admitted to the coronary care unit. The medium-probability patients underwent further evaluation by means of a stress test and were re-classified as having a final low probability (negative test) or high probability (positive test). RESULTS: We evaluated 472 patients (mean age 64 years, range 18-97 years; 47% female). The incidence of coronary events in patients with low, medium-low, medium-high and high overall probability was 1.9, 12.8,13.5 and 68.0%, respectively (P < 0.05). The positive and negative predictive values of the protocol were 64.7 and 97.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our computer protocol represents a reliable method for the management of patients with chest pain and a non-diagnostic electrocardiogram.