User login
In the Literature
In This Edition
Literature at a Glance
A guide to this month’s studies
- Risk factors for iatrogenic pneumothorax
- Residency acceptance and use of pharmaceutical industry funding
- Early cholecystectomy outcomes for gallstone pancreatitis
- Use of microbial DNA in sepsis
- Adding rifampicin to vancomycin in MRSA pneumonia
- Rate and outcomes of culture-negative severe sepsis
- Rates of surgical comanagement in U.S. hospitals
- Probiotics and rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Ultrasound Guidance and Operator Experience Decrease Risk of Pneumothorax Following Thoracentesis
Clinical question: How often does pneumothorax happen following thoracentesis, and what factors are associated with increased risk of this complication?
Background: Procedural complications are an important source of adverse events in the hospital. Iatrogenic pneumothorax after thoracentesis results in increased hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Large variation exists in reported pneumothorax rates, and little is known about procedure- and patient-specific factors associated with development of this complication.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Review of 24 MEDLINE-indexed studies from January 1966 to April 2009.
Synopsis: A total of 349 pneumothoraces were reported after 6,605 thoracenteses (overall incidence 6.0%). Chest-tube insertion was required in 34.1% of the cases. Risk for pneumothorax was significantly higher when larger needles or catheters were used compared with needles smaller than 20-gauge (odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.0) and after therapeutic thoracentesis compared with diagnostic procedures (OR 2.6, 95% CI, 1.8-3.8).
Procedures requiring two or more needle passes did not significantly increase pneumothorax risk (OR 2.5, 95% CI, 0.3-20.1). In contrast, pneumothorax rates were significantly lower when using ultrasound guidance (OR 0.3, 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) and with experienced operators (3.9% vs. 8.5%, P=0.04).
Examining patient risk factors, pneumothorax rates were similar regardless of effusion size and patient gender. Additionally, rates were similar among non-ICU inpatients, ICU inpatients, and outpatients. Data did show a trend toward increased risk of pneumothorax with mechanical ventilation (OR 4.0, 95% CI, 0.95-16.8), although no study directly compared rates in ICU patients with and without mechanical ventilation.
Bottom line: Ultrasound guidance is a modifiable factor that decreases the risk of post-thoracentesis pneumothorax. Pneumothorax rates are lower when performed by experienced clinicians, providing an important opportunity to reduce procedure-related complications by increasing direct trainee supervision.
Citation: Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman D, Balk EM, Smetana GW. Pneumothorax following thoracentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):332-339.
Pharmaceutical Industry Support Is Common in U.S. Internal-Medicine Residency Programs
Clinical question: What are the current attitudes of program directors regarding pharmaceutical industry support of internal-medicine residency activities? What are the potential associations between program characteristics and acceptance of industry support?
Background: Increasing evidence suggests that interactions with the pharmaceutical industry influence physician attitudes and practices. Recently, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) proposed that academic medical centers prohibit the acceptance of all gifts and restrict access by pharmaceutical industry representatives.
Study design: Survey of U.S. internal-medicine residency program directors.
Setting: Web-based survey of residency program directors in 388 U.S. internal-medicine residency programs.
Synopsis: Of the 236 program directors responding to the survey, 132 (55.9%) reported accepting some kind of support from the pharmaceutical industry. Support was most commonly provided in the form of food for conferences (90.9%), educational materials (83.3%), office supplies (68.9%), and drug samples (57.6%).
When programs reported accepting pharmaceutical industry support, 67.9% cited a lack of other funding sources as the reason for acceptance. Only 22.7% of programs with a program director who thinks pharmaceutical support is unacceptable actually accepted industry support. The likelihood of accepting support was associated with location in the Southern U.S. and was inversely associated with the three-year rolling American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) pass rates (each 1% decrease in the pass rate was associated with a 21% increase in the odds of accepting pharmaceutical industry support).
Bottom line: While most program directors did not find pharmaceutical industry support desirable, more than half reported acceptance of such support, with most citing lack of other funding resources as the reason for acceptance.
Citation: Loertscher LL, Halvorsen AJ, Beasley BW, Holmboe ES, Kolars JC, McDonald FS. Pharmaceutical industry support and residency education: a survey of internal medicine program directors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):356-362.
Early Cholecystectomy Safely Decreases Hospital Stay in Patients with Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis
Clinical question: Can laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission for mild gallstone pancreatitis reduce hospital length of stay without increasing perioperative complications?
Background: Although there is a clear consensus that patients who present with gallstone pancreatitis should undergo cholecystectomy to prevent recurrence, precise timing of surgery remains controversial.
Study design: Randomized prospective trial.
Setting: Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a Los Angeles County public teaching hospital and Level I trauma center.
Synopsis: Patients were prospectively randomized to an early group and a control group. Inclusion criteria consisted of adults from the ages of 18 to 100 with mild gallstone pancreatitis and three or fewer Ranson criteria. The primary endpoint was length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoint was a composite of complications, including the need for conversion to open cholecystectomy, readmission within 30 days, bleeding requiring transfusion, bile duct injury, or wound infection.
The study was terminated after 50 patients, as there was a difference in the length of hospital stay with a predefined alpha level of 0.005. Patients in the early group were taken to the operating room at a mean of 35.1 hours after admission, compared with 77.8 hours in the control group. The overall length of hospital stay was shorter in the early group (mean 3.5 days, 95% CI, 2.7-4.3), compared with the control group (mean 5.8, 95% CI, 3.8-7.9). All cholecystectomies were completed laparoscopically, without conversion to open. No statistically significant difference existed in secondary endpoints (P=0.48, OR 1.66, 95% CI, 0.41-6.78).
Bottom line: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission, irrespective of normalization of laboratory values or clinical progress, safely decreases the overall length of stay, compared with delaying laparoscopic cholecystectomy until laboratory values and clinical condition normalize.
Citation: Aboulian A, Chan T, Yaghoubian A, et al. Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4): 615-619.
Presence of Microbial DNA in Blood Correlates with Disease Severity
Clinical question: Is the presence of microbial DNA in the blood associated with disease severity in severe sepsis, and how does detection of this microbial DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compare with blood cultures (BC)?
Background: Inadequate antibiotic therapy is a strong and independent predictor of poor outcomes in sepsis. Diagnostic uncertainty regarding the causative micro-organism is compensated for by liberal use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. As a result, resistance to antibiotics is an increasing public-health problem.
Study design: Prospective multicenter controlled observational study.
Setting: Three ICUs in Germany and France.
Synopsis: From 2005 to 2007, 63 patients were enrolled in the control group and 142 patients were enrolled in the sepsis group. In control patients, blood cultures and specimens were drawn daily at a maximum of three days after admission. In the sepsis group, blood samples were obtained on the day severe sepsis was suspected. Consecutive samples for the next two days after study inclusion were taken.
Taking BC as the laboratory comparison method, the sensitivity of PCR to detect culture-positive bacteremia in sepsis was 0.80 with a specificity of 0.77. PCR detected 29 of 41 microorganisms (70.3%) found in the BC. The highest recovery rate was observed for gram-negative bacteria (78.6%), fungi (50.0%), and gram-positive bacteria (47.6%). PCR from septic patients correlated well with markers of host response (IL-6 and PCT) and disease severity (SOFA score), even when the BC remained negative.
The appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy based on culture-based methods was not recorded, so it’s impossible to conclude whether or not the PCR would have contributed to a more effective therapy.
Bottom line: Concordance between BC and PCR is moderate in septic patients. PCR-based pathogen detection correlated with disease severity even if the BC remained negative, suggesting that the presence of microbial DNA in the bloodstream is a clinically significant event.
Citation: Bloos F, Hinder F, Becker K, et al. A multicenter trial to compare blood culture with polymerase chain reaction in severe human sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(2):241-247.
Adding Rifampicin to Vancomycin Improves Outcomes in MRSA Pneumonia
Clinical question: Does adding rifampicin to vancomycin improve outcomes in patients with hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia?
Background: Hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia has a mortality of more than 20%. Vancomycin penetrates the lung tissue poorly. The value of adding rifampicin, an antibiotic with broad-spectrum coverage and good tissue penetration, was investigated.
Study design: Randomized open-label trial.
Setting: Medical ICU patients at Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, South Korea.
Synopsis: Patients older than 18 years of age with clinical symptoms suggestive of nosocomial pneumonia were randomized to receive vancomycin alone (V) or vancomycin plus rifampicin (VR). Clinicians could add additional antibiotics for gram-negative coverage as needed.
Of the 183 patients screened, 93 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. MRSA infection was microbiologically confirmed. Clinical cure rate in VR patients was significantly greater at day 14 compared with the V group (53.7% vs. 31.0%, P=0.047) based on a modified intention-to-treat model. The overall mortality at day 28 did not significantly differ between the groups (22.0% vs. 38.1%, P=0.15), although the 60-day mortality was lower in the VR group (26.8% vs. 50.0%, P=0.042). Mortality from MRSA pneumonia had a trend toward a decrease in the VR group (14.7% vs. 28.6%, P=0.18).
The trial was limited because it was a single-site study and lacked statistical power to assess certain outcomes. Additionally, treatment protocols were not compared with other antimicrobial therapies.
Bottom line: Vancomycin plus rifampicin improves MRSA pneumonia outcomes in ICU patients.
Citation: Jung YJ, Koh Y, Hong SB, et al. Effect of vancomycin plus rifampicin in the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):175-180.
Severe Sepsis Syndromes Are Not Always Caused by Bacteremia
Clinical question: What are the common causes of clinical sepsis?
Background: When sepsis is defined by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the etiology is not always infectious. Rapid initiation of antimicrobial therapy for infectious SIRS is a priority, but it could result in treating a significant number of patients who are not bacteremic.
Study design: Prospective secondary analysis of a registry of patients created to evaluate an institutional standard-of-care protocol.
Setting: Urban, 850-bed, tertiary-care teaching institution in North Carolina.
Synopsis: ED cases meeting the criteria for severe sepsis underwent a secondary review that looked at the cause of the sepsis. Only 45% of patients identified as having severe sepsis were blood-culture-positive during that episode of care. The culture-positive group was more likely to have central lines, malignancies, or reside in a nursing home.
Of the subgroup of culture-negative patients, 52% had another infectious etiology, most commonly pneumonia. Other “noninfectious mimics,” including inflammatory colitis, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism, were noted in 32% of patients in the subgroup, and the cause was not identified in 16% of the patients.
In-hospital mortality was higher in the culture-positive group than in the culture-negative group (25% vs. 4%, P=0.05). There was no evidence of harm in patients with culture-negative sepsis treated for a systemic infection.
Bottom line: Many patients with a clinical picture of severe sepsis will not have positive blood cultures or an infectious etiology.
Citation: Heffner AC, Horton JM, Marchick MR, Jones AE. Etiology of illness in patients with severe sepsis admitted to the hospital from the emergency department. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(6):814-820.
Comanagement of Surgical Inpatients by Hospitalists Is Rapidly Expanding
Clinical question: What is the prevalence and nature of comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians?
Background: Comanagement of surgical patients is a common clinical role for hospitalists, but the relationship is not well characterized in the literature in terms of numbers of patients or types of physicians involved in this practice.
Study design: Retrospective cohort.
Setting: Cross-section of hospitals from a Medicare database.
Synopsis: During the study period, 35.2% of patients were comanaged by a medicine physician—23.7% by a generalist and 14% by a subspecialist. Cardiothoracic surgery patients were more likely to be comanaged by a subspecialist, whereas all other patients were more likely to be comanaged by a generalist.
Although subspecialist comanagement actually declined during the study period, overall comanagement increased from 33.3% in 1996 to 40.8% in 2006. This increase is entirely attributable to the increase in comanagement by hospitalists. Most of this growth occurred with orthopedic patients.
Patient factors associated with comanagement include advanced age, emergency admissions, and increasing comorbidities. Teaching hospitals had less comanagement, while midsize, nonteaching, and for-profit hospitals had more comanagement.
Bottom line: Comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians is a common and growing clinical relationship. Hospitalists are responsible for increasing numbers of comanaged surgical patients.
Citation: Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman J, Zhang DD, Goodwin JS. Comanagement of hospitalized surgical patients by medicine physicians in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):363-368.
Probiotics Might Decrease Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Clinical question: Does the administration of probiotics decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients?
Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a major nosocomial infection in ICUs. Probiotics are thought to decrease colonization and, therefore, infection with serious hospital-acquired pathogens.
Study design: Meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials.
Setting: ICU patients on mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.
Synopsis: Five trials met the inclusion criteria of comparing probiotics to placebo in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and reporting the outcome of VAP. Administration of probiotics decreased the incidence of VAP (odds ratio 0.61, 95% CI, 0.41-0.91) and colonization of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (OR 0.35, 95% CI, 0.13-0.93).
Length of ICU stay was decreased in the probiotic arm, although this effect was not statistically significant in all analyses. Probiotics had no effect on such outcomes as ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, or duration of mechanical ventilation.
Bottom line: Probiotics might be an effective strategy to reduce the risk of VAP, even if they do not appear to impact such outcomes as mortality.
Citation: Siempos II, Ntaidou TK, Falagas ME. Impact of the administration of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):954-962. TH
PEDIATRIC HM LITERATURE
By Mark Shen, MD
Renal Ultrasound Identifies Children with High-Grade Vesicoureteral Reflux
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of specific renal ultrasound (US) criterion for detection of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR)?
Background: Based on the paradigm that undetected and untreated VUR might lead to long-term complications, voiding cystography traditionally has been recommended for all young children with a first urinary tract infection (UTI). An increasing base of evidence suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis for low-grade VUR might be unnecessary. However, less-invasive methods of screening for high-grade reflux have not yet been identified.
Study design: Secondary analysis of data from a prior prospective study.
Setting: Nephrology department of a French teaching hospital.
Synopsis: One hundred seventeen children (0-16 years) with a UTI were included and underwent renal US and voiding cystography. Patients with a known uropathy or those who had received antibiotics within the past 48 hours were excluded. A generalized linear multilevel model was used to analyze the relationship between standardized renal US criterion and VUR.
Twenty-seven percent of children had VUR and 8% had high-grade VUR (grade ≥3). Pelvic, ureteral, and urinary tract dilatation were significantly associated with high-grade VUR. Ureteral dilatation offered the best combination of standardized criterion, sensitivity (75%), and specificity (88%).
Significant limitations of this study include the use of bag urine cultures and the lack of consensus-based US criterion for ureteral and pelvic dilatation. The authors appropriately caution that these renal US criteria do not identify all children with high-grade VUR and are merely one step toward an intermediate screening strategy for high-grade VUR in order to mitigate adverse effects of universal voiding cystography. Further validation of this work in a clinically representative population will be needed.
Bottom line: Ureteral dilatation accurately identifies children with high-grade VUR.
Citation: Leroy S, Vantalon S, Larakeb A, Ducou-Le-Pointe H, Bensman A. Vesicoureteral reflux in children with urinary tract infection: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of renal US criteria. Radiology. 2010;255(3):890-898.
In This Edition
Literature at a Glance
A guide to this month’s studies
- Risk factors for iatrogenic pneumothorax
- Residency acceptance and use of pharmaceutical industry funding
- Early cholecystectomy outcomes for gallstone pancreatitis
- Use of microbial DNA in sepsis
- Adding rifampicin to vancomycin in MRSA pneumonia
- Rate and outcomes of culture-negative severe sepsis
- Rates of surgical comanagement in U.S. hospitals
- Probiotics and rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Ultrasound Guidance and Operator Experience Decrease Risk of Pneumothorax Following Thoracentesis
Clinical question: How often does pneumothorax happen following thoracentesis, and what factors are associated with increased risk of this complication?
Background: Procedural complications are an important source of adverse events in the hospital. Iatrogenic pneumothorax after thoracentesis results in increased hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Large variation exists in reported pneumothorax rates, and little is known about procedure- and patient-specific factors associated with development of this complication.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Review of 24 MEDLINE-indexed studies from January 1966 to April 2009.
Synopsis: A total of 349 pneumothoraces were reported after 6,605 thoracenteses (overall incidence 6.0%). Chest-tube insertion was required in 34.1% of the cases. Risk for pneumothorax was significantly higher when larger needles or catheters were used compared with needles smaller than 20-gauge (odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.0) and after therapeutic thoracentesis compared with diagnostic procedures (OR 2.6, 95% CI, 1.8-3.8).
Procedures requiring two or more needle passes did not significantly increase pneumothorax risk (OR 2.5, 95% CI, 0.3-20.1). In contrast, pneumothorax rates were significantly lower when using ultrasound guidance (OR 0.3, 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) and with experienced operators (3.9% vs. 8.5%, P=0.04).
Examining patient risk factors, pneumothorax rates were similar regardless of effusion size and patient gender. Additionally, rates were similar among non-ICU inpatients, ICU inpatients, and outpatients. Data did show a trend toward increased risk of pneumothorax with mechanical ventilation (OR 4.0, 95% CI, 0.95-16.8), although no study directly compared rates in ICU patients with and without mechanical ventilation.
Bottom line: Ultrasound guidance is a modifiable factor that decreases the risk of post-thoracentesis pneumothorax. Pneumothorax rates are lower when performed by experienced clinicians, providing an important opportunity to reduce procedure-related complications by increasing direct trainee supervision.
Citation: Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman D, Balk EM, Smetana GW. Pneumothorax following thoracentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):332-339.
Pharmaceutical Industry Support Is Common in U.S. Internal-Medicine Residency Programs
Clinical question: What are the current attitudes of program directors regarding pharmaceutical industry support of internal-medicine residency activities? What are the potential associations between program characteristics and acceptance of industry support?
Background: Increasing evidence suggests that interactions with the pharmaceutical industry influence physician attitudes and practices. Recently, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) proposed that academic medical centers prohibit the acceptance of all gifts and restrict access by pharmaceutical industry representatives.
Study design: Survey of U.S. internal-medicine residency program directors.
Setting: Web-based survey of residency program directors in 388 U.S. internal-medicine residency programs.
Synopsis: Of the 236 program directors responding to the survey, 132 (55.9%) reported accepting some kind of support from the pharmaceutical industry. Support was most commonly provided in the form of food for conferences (90.9%), educational materials (83.3%), office supplies (68.9%), and drug samples (57.6%).
When programs reported accepting pharmaceutical industry support, 67.9% cited a lack of other funding sources as the reason for acceptance. Only 22.7% of programs with a program director who thinks pharmaceutical support is unacceptable actually accepted industry support. The likelihood of accepting support was associated with location in the Southern U.S. and was inversely associated with the three-year rolling American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) pass rates (each 1% decrease in the pass rate was associated with a 21% increase in the odds of accepting pharmaceutical industry support).
Bottom line: While most program directors did not find pharmaceutical industry support desirable, more than half reported acceptance of such support, with most citing lack of other funding resources as the reason for acceptance.
Citation: Loertscher LL, Halvorsen AJ, Beasley BW, Holmboe ES, Kolars JC, McDonald FS. Pharmaceutical industry support and residency education: a survey of internal medicine program directors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):356-362.
Early Cholecystectomy Safely Decreases Hospital Stay in Patients with Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis
Clinical question: Can laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission for mild gallstone pancreatitis reduce hospital length of stay without increasing perioperative complications?
Background: Although there is a clear consensus that patients who present with gallstone pancreatitis should undergo cholecystectomy to prevent recurrence, precise timing of surgery remains controversial.
Study design: Randomized prospective trial.
Setting: Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a Los Angeles County public teaching hospital and Level I trauma center.
Synopsis: Patients were prospectively randomized to an early group and a control group. Inclusion criteria consisted of adults from the ages of 18 to 100 with mild gallstone pancreatitis and three or fewer Ranson criteria. The primary endpoint was length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoint was a composite of complications, including the need for conversion to open cholecystectomy, readmission within 30 days, bleeding requiring transfusion, bile duct injury, or wound infection.
The study was terminated after 50 patients, as there was a difference in the length of hospital stay with a predefined alpha level of 0.005. Patients in the early group were taken to the operating room at a mean of 35.1 hours after admission, compared with 77.8 hours in the control group. The overall length of hospital stay was shorter in the early group (mean 3.5 days, 95% CI, 2.7-4.3), compared with the control group (mean 5.8, 95% CI, 3.8-7.9). All cholecystectomies were completed laparoscopically, without conversion to open. No statistically significant difference existed in secondary endpoints (P=0.48, OR 1.66, 95% CI, 0.41-6.78).
Bottom line: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission, irrespective of normalization of laboratory values or clinical progress, safely decreases the overall length of stay, compared with delaying laparoscopic cholecystectomy until laboratory values and clinical condition normalize.
Citation: Aboulian A, Chan T, Yaghoubian A, et al. Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4): 615-619.
Presence of Microbial DNA in Blood Correlates with Disease Severity
Clinical question: Is the presence of microbial DNA in the blood associated with disease severity in severe sepsis, and how does detection of this microbial DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compare with blood cultures (BC)?
Background: Inadequate antibiotic therapy is a strong and independent predictor of poor outcomes in sepsis. Diagnostic uncertainty regarding the causative micro-organism is compensated for by liberal use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. As a result, resistance to antibiotics is an increasing public-health problem.
Study design: Prospective multicenter controlled observational study.
Setting: Three ICUs in Germany and France.
Synopsis: From 2005 to 2007, 63 patients were enrolled in the control group and 142 patients were enrolled in the sepsis group. In control patients, blood cultures and specimens were drawn daily at a maximum of three days after admission. In the sepsis group, blood samples were obtained on the day severe sepsis was suspected. Consecutive samples for the next two days after study inclusion were taken.
Taking BC as the laboratory comparison method, the sensitivity of PCR to detect culture-positive bacteremia in sepsis was 0.80 with a specificity of 0.77. PCR detected 29 of 41 microorganisms (70.3%) found in the BC. The highest recovery rate was observed for gram-negative bacteria (78.6%), fungi (50.0%), and gram-positive bacteria (47.6%). PCR from septic patients correlated well with markers of host response (IL-6 and PCT) and disease severity (SOFA score), even when the BC remained negative.
The appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy based on culture-based methods was not recorded, so it’s impossible to conclude whether or not the PCR would have contributed to a more effective therapy.
Bottom line: Concordance between BC and PCR is moderate in septic patients. PCR-based pathogen detection correlated with disease severity even if the BC remained negative, suggesting that the presence of microbial DNA in the bloodstream is a clinically significant event.
Citation: Bloos F, Hinder F, Becker K, et al. A multicenter trial to compare blood culture with polymerase chain reaction in severe human sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(2):241-247.
Adding Rifampicin to Vancomycin Improves Outcomes in MRSA Pneumonia
Clinical question: Does adding rifampicin to vancomycin improve outcomes in patients with hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia?
Background: Hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia has a mortality of more than 20%. Vancomycin penetrates the lung tissue poorly. The value of adding rifampicin, an antibiotic with broad-spectrum coverage and good tissue penetration, was investigated.
Study design: Randomized open-label trial.
Setting: Medical ICU patients at Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, South Korea.
Synopsis: Patients older than 18 years of age with clinical symptoms suggestive of nosocomial pneumonia were randomized to receive vancomycin alone (V) or vancomycin plus rifampicin (VR). Clinicians could add additional antibiotics for gram-negative coverage as needed.
Of the 183 patients screened, 93 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. MRSA infection was microbiologically confirmed. Clinical cure rate in VR patients was significantly greater at day 14 compared with the V group (53.7% vs. 31.0%, P=0.047) based on a modified intention-to-treat model. The overall mortality at day 28 did not significantly differ between the groups (22.0% vs. 38.1%, P=0.15), although the 60-day mortality was lower in the VR group (26.8% vs. 50.0%, P=0.042). Mortality from MRSA pneumonia had a trend toward a decrease in the VR group (14.7% vs. 28.6%, P=0.18).
The trial was limited because it was a single-site study and lacked statistical power to assess certain outcomes. Additionally, treatment protocols were not compared with other antimicrobial therapies.
Bottom line: Vancomycin plus rifampicin improves MRSA pneumonia outcomes in ICU patients.
Citation: Jung YJ, Koh Y, Hong SB, et al. Effect of vancomycin plus rifampicin in the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):175-180.
Severe Sepsis Syndromes Are Not Always Caused by Bacteremia
Clinical question: What are the common causes of clinical sepsis?
Background: When sepsis is defined by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the etiology is not always infectious. Rapid initiation of antimicrobial therapy for infectious SIRS is a priority, but it could result in treating a significant number of patients who are not bacteremic.
Study design: Prospective secondary analysis of a registry of patients created to evaluate an institutional standard-of-care protocol.
Setting: Urban, 850-bed, tertiary-care teaching institution in North Carolina.
Synopsis: ED cases meeting the criteria for severe sepsis underwent a secondary review that looked at the cause of the sepsis. Only 45% of patients identified as having severe sepsis were blood-culture-positive during that episode of care. The culture-positive group was more likely to have central lines, malignancies, or reside in a nursing home.
Of the subgroup of culture-negative patients, 52% had another infectious etiology, most commonly pneumonia. Other “noninfectious mimics,” including inflammatory colitis, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism, were noted in 32% of patients in the subgroup, and the cause was not identified in 16% of the patients.
In-hospital mortality was higher in the culture-positive group than in the culture-negative group (25% vs. 4%, P=0.05). There was no evidence of harm in patients with culture-negative sepsis treated for a systemic infection.
Bottom line: Many patients with a clinical picture of severe sepsis will not have positive blood cultures or an infectious etiology.
Citation: Heffner AC, Horton JM, Marchick MR, Jones AE. Etiology of illness in patients with severe sepsis admitted to the hospital from the emergency department. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(6):814-820.
Comanagement of Surgical Inpatients by Hospitalists Is Rapidly Expanding
Clinical question: What is the prevalence and nature of comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians?
Background: Comanagement of surgical patients is a common clinical role for hospitalists, but the relationship is not well characterized in the literature in terms of numbers of patients or types of physicians involved in this practice.
Study design: Retrospective cohort.
Setting: Cross-section of hospitals from a Medicare database.
Synopsis: During the study period, 35.2% of patients were comanaged by a medicine physician—23.7% by a generalist and 14% by a subspecialist. Cardiothoracic surgery patients were more likely to be comanaged by a subspecialist, whereas all other patients were more likely to be comanaged by a generalist.
Although subspecialist comanagement actually declined during the study period, overall comanagement increased from 33.3% in 1996 to 40.8% in 2006. This increase is entirely attributable to the increase in comanagement by hospitalists. Most of this growth occurred with orthopedic patients.
Patient factors associated with comanagement include advanced age, emergency admissions, and increasing comorbidities. Teaching hospitals had less comanagement, while midsize, nonteaching, and for-profit hospitals had more comanagement.
Bottom line: Comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians is a common and growing clinical relationship. Hospitalists are responsible for increasing numbers of comanaged surgical patients.
Citation: Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman J, Zhang DD, Goodwin JS. Comanagement of hospitalized surgical patients by medicine physicians in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):363-368.
Probiotics Might Decrease Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Clinical question: Does the administration of probiotics decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients?
Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a major nosocomial infection in ICUs. Probiotics are thought to decrease colonization and, therefore, infection with serious hospital-acquired pathogens.
Study design: Meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials.
Setting: ICU patients on mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.
Synopsis: Five trials met the inclusion criteria of comparing probiotics to placebo in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and reporting the outcome of VAP. Administration of probiotics decreased the incidence of VAP (odds ratio 0.61, 95% CI, 0.41-0.91) and colonization of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (OR 0.35, 95% CI, 0.13-0.93).
Length of ICU stay was decreased in the probiotic arm, although this effect was not statistically significant in all analyses. Probiotics had no effect on such outcomes as ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, or duration of mechanical ventilation.
Bottom line: Probiotics might be an effective strategy to reduce the risk of VAP, even if they do not appear to impact such outcomes as mortality.
Citation: Siempos II, Ntaidou TK, Falagas ME. Impact of the administration of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):954-962. TH
PEDIATRIC HM LITERATURE
By Mark Shen, MD
Renal Ultrasound Identifies Children with High-Grade Vesicoureteral Reflux
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of specific renal ultrasound (US) criterion for detection of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR)?
Background: Based on the paradigm that undetected and untreated VUR might lead to long-term complications, voiding cystography traditionally has been recommended for all young children with a first urinary tract infection (UTI). An increasing base of evidence suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis for low-grade VUR might be unnecessary. However, less-invasive methods of screening for high-grade reflux have not yet been identified.
Study design: Secondary analysis of data from a prior prospective study.
Setting: Nephrology department of a French teaching hospital.
Synopsis: One hundred seventeen children (0-16 years) with a UTI were included and underwent renal US and voiding cystography. Patients with a known uropathy or those who had received antibiotics within the past 48 hours were excluded. A generalized linear multilevel model was used to analyze the relationship between standardized renal US criterion and VUR.
Twenty-seven percent of children had VUR and 8% had high-grade VUR (grade ≥3). Pelvic, ureteral, and urinary tract dilatation were significantly associated with high-grade VUR. Ureteral dilatation offered the best combination of standardized criterion, sensitivity (75%), and specificity (88%).
Significant limitations of this study include the use of bag urine cultures and the lack of consensus-based US criterion for ureteral and pelvic dilatation. The authors appropriately caution that these renal US criteria do not identify all children with high-grade VUR and are merely one step toward an intermediate screening strategy for high-grade VUR in order to mitigate adverse effects of universal voiding cystography. Further validation of this work in a clinically representative population will be needed.
Bottom line: Ureteral dilatation accurately identifies children with high-grade VUR.
Citation: Leroy S, Vantalon S, Larakeb A, Ducou-Le-Pointe H, Bensman A. Vesicoureteral reflux in children with urinary tract infection: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of renal US criteria. Radiology. 2010;255(3):890-898.
In This Edition
Literature at a Glance
A guide to this month’s studies
- Risk factors for iatrogenic pneumothorax
- Residency acceptance and use of pharmaceutical industry funding
- Early cholecystectomy outcomes for gallstone pancreatitis
- Use of microbial DNA in sepsis
- Adding rifampicin to vancomycin in MRSA pneumonia
- Rate and outcomes of culture-negative severe sepsis
- Rates of surgical comanagement in U.S. hospitals
- Probiotics and rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Ultrasound Guidance and Operator Experience Decrease Risk of Pneumothorax Following Thoracentesis
Clinical question: How often does pneumothorax happen following thoracentesis, and what factors are associated with increased risk of this complication?
Background: Procedural complications are an important source of adverse events in the hospital. Iatrogenic pneumothorax after thoracentesis results in increased hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Large variation exists in reported pneumothorax rates, and little is known about procedure- and patient-specific factors associated with development of this complication.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Review of 24 MEDLINE-indexed studies from January 1966 to April 2009.
Synopsis: A total of 349 pneumothoraces were reported after 6,605 thoracenteses (overall incidence 6.0%). Chest-tube insertion was required in 34.1% of the cases. Risk for pneumothorax was significantly higher when larger needles or catheters were used compared with needles smaller than 20-gauge (odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.0) and after therapeutic thoracentesis compared with diagnostic procedures (OR 2.6, 95% CI, 1.8-3.8).
Procedures requiring two or more needle passes did not significantly increase pneumothorax risk (OR 2.5, 95% CI, 0.3-20.1). In contrast, pneumothorax rates were significantly lower when using ultrasound guidance (OR 0.3, 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) and with experienced operators (3.9% vs. 8.5%, P=0.04).
Examining patient risk factors, pneumothorax rates were similar regardless of effusion size and patient gender. Additionally, rates were similar among non-ICU inpatients, ICU inpatients, and outpatients. Data did show a trend toward increased risk of pneumothorax with mechanical ventilation (OR 4.0, 95% CI, 0.95-16.8), although no study directly compared rates in ICU patients with and without mechanical ventilation.
Bottom line: Ultrasound guidance is a modifiable factor that decreases the risk of post-thoracentesis pneumothorax. Pneumothorax rates are lower when performed by experienced clinicians, providing an important opportunity to reduce procedure-related complications by increasing direct trainee supervision.
Citation: Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman D, Balk EM, Smetana GW. Pneumothorax following thoracentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):332-339.
Pharmaceutical Industry Support Is Common in U.S. Internal-Medicine Residency Programs
Clinical question: What are the current attitudes of program directors regarding pharmaceutical industry support of internal-medicine residency activities? What are the potential associations between program characteristics and acceptance of industry support?
Background: Increasing evidence suggests that interactions with the pharmaceutical industry influence physician attitudes and practices. Recently, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) proposed that academic medical centers prohibit the acceptance of all gifts and restrict access by pharmaceutical industry representatives.
Study design: Survey of U.S. internal-medicine residency program directors.
Setting: Web-based survey of residency program directors in 388 U.S. internal-medicine residency programs.
Synopsis: Of the 236 program directors responding to the survey, 132 (55.9%) reported accepting some kind of support from the pharmaceutical industry. Support was most commonly provided in the form of food for conferences (90.9%), educational materials (83.3%), office supplies (68.9%), and drug samples (57.6%).
When programs reported accepting pharmaceutical industry support, 67.9% cited a lack of other funding sources as the reason for acceptance. Only 22.7% of programs with a program director who thinks pharmaceutical support is unacceptable actually accepted industry support. The likelihood of accepting support was associated with location in the Southern U.S. and was inversely associated with the three-year rolling American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) pass rates (each 1% decrease in the pass rate was associated with a 21% increase in the odds of accepting pharmaceutical industry support).
Bottom line: While most program directors did not find pharmaceutical industry support desirable, more than half reported acceptance of such support, with most citing lack of other funding resources as the reason for acceptance.
Citation: Loertscher LL, Halvorsen AJ, Beasley BW, Holmboe ES, Kolars JC, McDonald FS. Pharmaceutical industry support and residency education: a survey of internal medicine program directors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):356-362.
Early Cholecystectomy Safely Decreases Hospital Stay in Patients with Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis
Clinical question: Can laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission for mild gallstone pancreatitis reduce hospital length of stay without increasing perioperative complications?
Background: Although there is a clear consensus that patients who present with gallstone pancreatitis should undergo cholecystectomy to prevent recurrence, precise timing of surgery remains controversial.
Study design: Randomized prospective trial.
Setting: Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a Los Angeles County public teaching hospital and Level I trauma center.
Synopsis: Patients were prospectively randomized to an early group and a control group. Inclusion criteria consisted of adults from the ages of 18 to 100 with mild gallstone pancreatitis and three or fewer Ranson criteria. The primary endpoint was length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoint was a composite of complications, including the need for conversion to open cholecystectomy, readmission within 30 days, bleeding requiring transfusion, bile duct injury, or wound infection.
The study was terminated after 50 patients, as there was a difference in the length of hospital stay with a predefined alpha level of 0.005. Patients in the early group were taken to the operating room at a mean of 35.1 hours after admission, compared with 77.8 hours in the control group. The overall length of hospital stay was shorter in the early group (mean 3.5 days, 95% CI, 2.7-4.3), compared with the control group (mean 5.8, 95% CI, 3.8-7.9). All cholecystectomies were completed laparoscopically, without conversion to open. No statistically significant difference existed in secondary endpoints (P=0.48, OR 1.66, 95% CI, 0.41-6.78).
Bottom line: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission, irrespective of normalization of laboratory values or clinical progress, safely decreases the overall length of stay, compared with delaying laparoscopic cholecystectomy until laboratory values and clinical condition normalize.
Citation: Aboulian A, Chan T, Yaghoubian A, et al. Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4): 615-619.
Presence of Microbial DNA in Blood Correlates with Disease Severity
Clinical question: Is the presence of microbial DNA in the blood associated with disease severity in severe sepsis, and how does detection of this microbial DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compare with blood cultures (BC)?
Background: Inadequate antibiotic therapy is a strong and independent predictor of poor outcomes in sepsis. Diagnostic uncertainty regarding the causative micro-organism is compensated for by liberal use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. As a result, resistance to antibiotics is an increasing public-health problem.
Study design: Prospective multicenter controlled observational study.
Setting: Three ICUs in Germany and France.
Synopsis: From 2005 to 2007, 63 patients were enrolled in the control group and 142 patients were enrolled in the sepsis group. In control patients, blood cultures and specimens were drawn daily at a maximum of three days after admission. In the sepsis group, blood samples were obtained on the day severe sepsis was suspected. Consecutive samples for the next two days after study inclusion were taken.
Taking BC as the laboratory comparison method, the sensitivity of PCR to detect culture-positive bacteremia in sepsis was 0.80 with a specificity of 0.77. PCR detected 29 of 41 microorganisms (70.3%) found in the BC. The highest recovery rate was observed for gram-negative bacteria (78.6%), fungi (50.0%), and gram-positive bacteria (47.6%). PCR from septic patients correlated well with markers of host response (IL-6 and PCT) and disease severity (SOFA score), even when the BC remained negative.
The appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy based on culture-based methods was not recorded, so it’s impossible to conclude whether or not the PCR would have contributed to a more effective therapy.
Bottom line: Concordance between BC and PCR is moderate in septic patients. PCR-based pathogen detection correlated with disease severity even if the BC remained negative, suggesting that the presence of microbial DNA in the bloodstream is a clinically significant event.
Citation: Bloos F, Hinder F, Becker K, et al. A multicenter trial to compare blood culture with polymerase chain reaction in severe human sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(2):241-247.
Adding Rifampicin to Vancomycin Improves Outcomes in MRSA Pneumonia
Clinical question: Does adding rifampicin to vancomycin improve outcomes in patients with hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia?
Background: Hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia has a mortality of more than 20%. Vancomycin penetrates the lung tissue poorly. The value of adding rifampicin, an antibiotic with broad-spectrum coverage and good tissue penetration, was investigated.
Study design: Randomized open-label trial.
Setting: Medical ICU patients at Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, South Korea.
Synopsis: Patients older than 18 years of age with clinical symptoms suggestive of nosocomial pneumonia were randomized to receive vancomycin alone (V) or vancomycin plus rifampicin (VR). Clinicians could add additional antibiotics for gram-negative coverage as needed.
Of the 183 patients screened, 93 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. MRSA infection was microbiologically confirmed. Clinical cure rate in VR patients was significantly greater at day 14 compared with the V group (53.7% vs. 31.0%, P=0.047) based on a modified intention-to-treat model. The overall mortality at day 28 did not significantly differ between the groups (22.0% vs. 38.1%, P=0.15), although the 60-day mortality was lower in the VR group (26.8% vs. 50.0%, P=0.042). Mortality from MRSA pneumonia had a trend toward a decrease in the VR group (14.7% vs. 28.6%, P=0.18).
The trial was limited because it was a single-site study and lacked statistical power to assess certain outcomes. Additionally, treatment protocols were not compared with other antimicrobial therapies.
Bottom line: Vancomycin plus rifampicin improves MRSA pneumonia outcomes in ICU patients.
Citation: Jung YJ, Koh Y, Hong SB, et al. Effect of vancomycin plus rifampicin in the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):175-180.
Severe Sepsis Syndromes Are Not Always Caused by Bacteremia
Clinical question: What are the common causes of clinical sepsis?
Background: When sepsis is defined by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the etiology is not always infectious. Rapid initiation of antimicrobial therapy for infectious SIRS is a priority, but it could result in treating a significant number of patients who are not bacteremic.
Study design: Prospective secondary analysis of a registry of patients created to evaluate an institutional standard-of-care protocol.
Setting: Urban, 850-bed, tertiary-care teaching institution in North Carolina.
Synopsis: ED cases meeting the criteria for severe sepsis underwent a secondary review that looked at the cause of the sepsis. Only 45% of patients identified as having severe sepsis were blood-culture-positive during that episode of care. The culture-positive group was more likely to have central lines, malignancies, or reside in a nursing home.
Of the subgroup of culture-negative patients, 52% had another infectious etiology, most commonly pneumonia. Other “noninfectious mimics,” including inflammatory colitis, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism, were noted in 32% of patients in the subgroup, and the cause was not identified in 16% of the patients.
In-hospital mortality was higher in the culture-positive group than in the culture-negative group (25% vs. 4%, P=0.05). There was no evidence of harm in patients with culture-negative sepsis treated for a systemic infection.
Bottom line: Many patients with a clinical picture of severe sepsis will not have positive blood cultures or an infectious etiology.
Citation: Heffner AC, Horton JM, Marchick MR, Jones AE. Etiology of illness in patients with severe sepsis admitted to the hospital from the emergency department. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(6):814-820.
Comanagement of Surgical Inpatients by Hospitalists Is Rapidly Expanding
Clinical question: What is the prevalence and nature of comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians?
Background: Comanagement of surgical patients is a common clinical role for hospitalists, but the relationship is not well characterized in the literature in terms of numbers of patients or types of physicians involved in this practice.
Study design: Retrospective cohort.
Setting: Cross-section of hospitals from a Medicare database.
Synopsis: During the study period, 35.2% of patients were comanaged by a medicine physician—23.7% by a generalist and 14% by a subspecialist. Cardiothoracic surgery patients were more likely to be comanaged by a subspecialist, whereas all other patients were more likely to be comanaged by a generalist.
Although subspecialist comanagement actually declined during the study period, overall comanagement increased from 33.3% in 1996 to 40.8% in 2006. This increase is entirely attributable to the increase in comanagement by hospitalists. Most of this growth occurred with orthopedic patients.
Patient factors associated with comanagement include advanced age, emergency admissions, and increasing comorbidities. Teaching hospitals had less comanagement, while midsize, nonteaching, and for-profit hospitals had more comanagement.
Bottom line: Comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians is a common and growing clinical relationship. Hospitalists are responsible for increasing numbers of comanaged surgical patients.
Citation: Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman J, Zhang DD, Goodwin JS. Comanagement of hospitalized surgical patients by medicine physicians in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):363-368.
Probiotics Might Decrease Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Clinical question: Does the administration of probiotics decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients?
Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a major nosocomial infection in ICUs. Probiotics are thought to decrease colonization and, therefore, infection with serious hospital-acquired pathogens.
Study design: Meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials.
Setting: ICU patients on mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.
Synopsis: Five trials met the inclusion criteria of comparing probiotics to placebo in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and reporting the outcome of VAP. Administration of probiotics decreased the incidence of VAP (odds ratio 0.61, 95% CI, 0.41-0.91) and colonization of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (OR 0.35, 95% CI, 0.13-0.93).
Length of ICU stay was decreased in the probiotic arm, although this effect was not statistically significant in all analyses. Probiotics had no effect on such outcomes as ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, or duration of mechanical ventilation.
Bottom line: Probiotics might be an effective strategy to reduce the risk of VAP, even if they do not appear to impact such outcomes as mortality.
Citation: Siempos II, Ntaidou TK, Falagas ME. Impact of the administration of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):954-962. TH
PEDIATRIC HM LITERATURE
By Mark Shen, MD
Renal Ultrasound Identifies Children with High-Grade Vesicoureteral Reflux
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of specific renal ultrasound (US) criterion for detection of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR)?
Background: Based on the paradigm that undetected and untreated VUR might lead to long-term complications, voiding cystography traditionally has been recommended for all young children with a first urinary tract infection (UTI). An increasing base of evidence suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis for low-grade VUR might be unnecessary. However, less-invasive methods of screening for high-grade reflux have not yet been identified.
Study design: Secondary analysis of data from a prior prospective study.
Setting: Nephrology department of a French teaching hospital.
Synopsis: One hundred seventeen children (0-16 years) with a UTI were included and underwent renal US and voiding cystography. Patients with a known uropathy or those who had received antibiotics within the past 48 hours were excluded. A generalized linear multilevel model was used to analyze the relationship between standardized renal US criterion and VUR.
Twenty-seven percent of children had VUR and 8% had high-grade VUR (grade ≥3). Pelvic, ureteral, and urinary tract dilatation were significantly associated with high-grade VUR. Ureteral dilatation offered the best combination of standardized criterion, sensitivity (75%), and specificity (88%).
Significant limitations of this study include the use of bag urine cultures and the lack of consensus-based US criterion for ureteral and pelvic dilatation. The authors appropriately caution that these renal US criteria do not identify all children with high-grade VUR and are merely one step toward an intermediate screening strategy for high-grade VUR in order to mitigate adverse effects of universal voiding cystography. Further validation of this work in a clinically representative population will be needed.
Bottom line: Ureteral dilatation accurately identifies children with high-grade VUR.
Citation: Leroy S, Vantalon S, Larakeb A, Ducou-Le-Pointe H, Bensman A. Vesicoureteral reflux in children with urinary tract infection: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of renal US criteria. Radiology. 2010;255(3):890-898.
Should Patients Be Informed of Better Care Elsewhere?
Editors’ note: Hospitalists face difficult decisions every day, including situations that don’t always have clear-cut answers. Beginning with this month’s “HM Debate,” The Hospitalist stares down the tough questions and presents all sides of the issues. This month’s question: You are discharging a patient after treatment for a non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The cardiology team recommends nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the patient’s three-vessel disease. You set up a referral for surgery, but you know the CABG morbidity and mortality rates are higher at your hospital than at a hospital 30 miles away. Should you disclose this information to your patient?
PRO
If you would tell your relative, you should tell your patient
If a patient at your hospital needs surgery or another invasive intervention, are you obligated to inform them of your hospital’s record with that procedure—particularly if the record is not as good as the one of the hospital down the street? Should loyalty to your hospital trump the risk to the patient?
In our scenario, the patient is being referred for elective surgery, and it is known that the cardiovascular team at a neighboring hospital has a better record for this procedure. It is the hospitalist’s job to present this information to the patient so that an intelligent and informed decision can be made. If the hospitalist believes the outcomes data, then an obligation exists to share that information with the patient.
If the data are subtle, one might argue that confusing the patient with more levels of decision-making is unnecessary. On the other hand, if data on performance outcomes between two institutions are clear, it presents an ethical position.
Let us assume the hospitalist is aware of poor outcomes in coronary bypass surgery at their hospital. Perhaps the mortality rates were unusually high and the hospitalist knew external consultants were brought in to identify the problems. Would you refer your patient for bypass surgery in that situation? A better question might be: Would you let a family member undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in your hospital? Probably not. So if you would inform a family member, shouldn’t you tell your patient?
A situation like this occurred in September 2005 at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. Media coverage was intense, and statistics showed that thoracic surgery mortality at UMass was the highest in the state two years running. The service at the hospital was closed temporarily.1 Extensive reorganization, adoption of QI protocols, and development of oversight committees resulted in much-improved patient outcomes when the program reopened a few weeks later.
The higher-than-expected complication rate had persisted at UMass for four years before the closure and reorganization. One wonders if hospitalists and cardiologists suspected a problem with surgical outcomes before the hospital was thrust into the national spotlight. Is it our job to know our hospital’s track record in surgery and invasive procedures? Yes, it probably is. This is why a hospital’s quality-assurance committee is so important. As keeper of the outcomes data, the committee is charged with sounding an alarm when a problem is brewing.
Tech-savvy patients have access to detailed reporting on performance measures for hospitals and physicians. Interpretation of the data can be complex. High surgical complication rates might be the result of a higher-than-expected patient acuity mix—patients who were older and sicker than usual—and may not represent a system or surgeon problem. Hospitalists need to guide patients through the interpretation of this data.
Patients trust their physicians. They trust that hospitalists will provide the best advice and make recommendations with their interests at heart. To not do so violates the public trust in physicians as patient advocates. Required by law, transparency of hospital quality data is the basis of a truthful relationship between the healthcare system and the public.
HM’s reputation will be tarnished if patients perceive that the physicians are more interested in the well-being of the hospital than the well-being of the patients.
Reference
- Kowalczyk L, Smith S. Hospital halts heart surgeries due to deaths. Boston Globe Web site. Available at: www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/22/hospital_halts_heart_surgeries_due_to_deaths. Accessed March 31, 2009.
CON
Outcome disclosure is impractical, unnecessary
At first glance, disclosing information about better outcomes at another hospital seems reasonable—even ethically obligatory. However, there are several competing interests, and in the end, the existing precedent for requiring reasonable disclosure in informed consent makes more sense.
The first issue is practicality. How much is a hospitalist obligated to know, and what degree of difference must be disclosed? In the case example, the hospitalist knows better outcomes are available at a nearby facility. However, if a duty to disclose this information exists, it can’t be limited to the information that an individual hospitalist has available to them. If such a duty exists, there is a corresponding burden on providers to have consistent and accurate information to disclose. If disclosure of differing outcomes is the ethical standard, then the reasonable disclosure needs to meet some uniform criteria for when a differing outcome rises to the level that the disclosure is compelled.
Data exist for pneumonia outcomes, readmission rates, and medication errors, as well as data for physicians relative to their colleagues. The fact that a hospitalist might have incidental knowledge of differing outcomes is not sufficient to create an ethical obligation, but there must be some uniformity to a disclosure requirement.
It is easy to envision a hospitalist spending as much time disclosing outcomes data as disclosing medical information and prognosis in the process of obtaining informed consent. Hospitalists can’t be expected to manage all of that information, much less make a meaningful disclosure. Physicians’ information-management skills should focus on medical knowledge—not outcomes data.
The test case has more implications for the professionalism of the hospitalist. Ultimately, they should act in the best interest of the patient. The recommended course of treatment should maximize benefit and minimize harm. Enough information should be provided that the patient can participate in weighing risks and benefits. The hospitalist needs to decide if it is unsafe to perform the procedure at their institution, and if so, the patient should be referred out. If there is a small but real benefit to having the procedure done elsewhere, the hospitalist cannot be responsible for determining what threshold of incremental benefit warrants disclosure. Existing ethical responsibilities to protect the patient and act in their best interests already addresses the issues of disparate outcomes more effectively than a blanket disclosure policy. Patients need to trust their hospitalists, and we need to be worthy of that trust.
Mandating disclosure of better outcomes would create a conflict of interest for physicians and hospitals. This conflict would be difficult to manage. Large referral centers exist because physicians recognize their own limits and act in patients’ best interests. Requiring a new level of disclosure would mean that many hospitals (save for an elite few) would recommend patients go elsewhere a substantial part of the time.
Conflicts of interest usually are managed more than eliminated, and the current management of the tension between caring for a patient personally and referring them out based on a perception of the patient’s need for a higher level of care achieves a reasonable and balanced result. Disrupting this result with a mandated level of disclosure will result in disruption of a functional process.
Measured disclosure of relevant information is a good thing. A high level of communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients is a good thing. Discussion of disparate outcomes may be an ethically important part of a treatment plan, but saying it is advisable in all cases is unnecessary, unmanageable, and inadvisable.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Hospital Medicine or The Hospitalist.
Editors’ note: Hospitalists face difficult decisions every day, including situations that don’t always have clear-cut answers. Beginning with this month’s “HM Debate,” The Hospitalist stares down the tough questions and presents all sides of the issues. This month’s question: You are discharging a patient after treatment for a non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The cardiology team recommends nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the patient’s three-vessel disease. You set up a referral for surgery, but you know the CABG morbidity and mortality rates are higher at your hospital than at a hospital 30 miles away. Should you disclose this information to your patient?
PRO
If you would tell your relative, you should tell your patient
If a patient at your hospital needs surgery or another invasive intervention, are you obligated to inform them of your hospital’s record with that procedure—particularly if the record is not as good as the one of the hospital down the street? Should loyalty to your hospital trump the risk to the patient?
In our scenario, the patient is being referred for elective surgery, and it is known that the cardiovascular team at a neighboring hospital has a better record for this procedure. It is the hospitalist’s job to present this information to the patient so that an intelligent and informed decision can be made. If the hospitalist believes the outcomes data, then an obligation exists to share that information with the patient.
If the data are subtle, one might argue that confusing the patient with more levels of decision-making is unnecessary. On the other hand, if data on performance outcomes between two institutions are clear, it presents an ethical position.
Let us assume the hospitalist is aware of poor outcomes in coronary bypass surgery at their hospital. Perhaps the mortality rates were unusually high and the hospitalist knew external consultants were brought in to identify the problems. Would you refer your patient for bypass surgery in that situation? A better question might be: Would you let a family member undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in your hospital? Probably not. So if you would inform a family member, shouldn’t you tell your patient?
A situation like this occurred in September 2005 at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. Media coverage was intense, and statistics showed that thoracic surgery mortality at UMass was the highest in the state two years running. The service at the hospital was closed temporarily.1 Extensive reorganization, adoption of QI protocols, and development of oversight committees resulted in much-improved patient outcomes when the program reopened a few weeks later.
The higher-than-expected complication rate had persisted at UMass for four years before the closure and reorganization. One wonders if hospitalists and cardiologists suspected a problem with surgical outcomes before the hospital was thrust into the national spotlight. Is it our job to know our hospital’s track record in surgery and invasive procedures? Yes, it probably is. This is why a hospital’s quality-assurance committee is so important. As keeper of the outcomes data, the committee is charged with sounding an alarm when a problem is brewing.
Tech-savvy patients have access to detailed reporting on performance measures for hospitals and physicians. Interpretation of the data can be complex. High surgical complication rates might be the result of a higher-than-expected patient acuity mix—patients who were older and sicker than usual—and may not represent a system or surgeon problem. Hospitalists need to guide patients through the interpretation of this data.
Patients trust their physicians. They trust that hospitalists will provide the best advice and make recommendations with their interests at heart. To not do so violates the public trust in physicians as patient advocates. Required by law, transparency of hospital quality data is the basis of a truthful relationship between the healthcare system and the public.
HM’s reputation will be tarnished if patients perceive that the physicians are more interested in the well-being of the hospital than the well-being of the patients.
Reference
- Kowalczyk L, Smith S. Hospital halts heart surgeries due to deaths. Boston Globe Web site. Available at: www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/22/hospital_halts_heart_surgeries_due_to_deaths. Accessed March 31, 2009.
CON
Outcome disclosure is impractical, unnecessary
At first glance, disclosing information about better outcomes at another hospital seems reasonable—even ethically obligatory. However, there are several competing interests, and in the end, the existing precedent for requiring reasonable disclosure in informed consent makes more sense.
The first issue is practicality. How much is a hospitalist obligated to know, and what degree of difference must be disclosed? In the case example, the hospitalist knows better outcomes are available at a nearby facility. However, if a duty to disclose this information exists, it can’t be limited to the information that an individual hospitalist has available to them. If such a duty exists, there is a corresponding burden on providers to have consistent and accurate information to disclose. If disclosure of differing outcomes is the ethical standard, then the reasonable disclosure needs to meet some uniform criteria for when a differing outcome rises to the level that the disclosure is compelled.
Data exist for pneumonia outcomes, readmission rates, and medication errors, as well as data for physicians relative to their colleagues. The fact that a hospitalist might have incidental knowledge of differing outcomes is not sufficient to create an ethical obligation, but there must be some uniformity to a disclosure requirement.
It is easy to envision a hospitalist spending as much time disclosing outcomes data as disclosing medical information and prognosis in the process of obtaining informed consent. Hospitalists can’t be expected to manage all of that information, much less make a meaningful disclosure. Physicians’ information-management skills should focus on medical knowledge—not outcomes data.
The test case has more implications for the professionalism of the hospitalist. Ultimately, they should act in the best interest of the patient. The recommended course of treatment should maximize benefit and minimize harm. Enough information should be provided that the patient can participate in weighing risks and benefits. The hospitalist needs to decide if it is unsafe to perform the procedure at their institution, and if so, the patient should be referred out. If there is a small but real benefit to having the procedure done elsewhere, the hospitalist cannot be responsible for determining what threshold of incremental benefit warrants disclosure. Existing ethical responsibilities to protect the patient and act in their best interests already addresses the issues of disparate outcomes more effectively than a blanket disclosure policy. Patients need to trust their hospitalists, and we need to be worthy of that trust.
Mandating disclosure of better outcomes would create a conflict of interest for physicians and hospitals. This conflict would be difficult to manage. Large referral centers exist because physicians recognize their own limits and act in patients’ best interests. Requiring a new level of disclosure would mean that many hospitals (save for an elite few) would recommend patients go elsewhere a substantial part of the time.
Conflicts of interest usually are managed more than eliminated, and the current management of the tension between caring for a patient personally and referring them out based on a perception of the patient’s need for a higher level of care achieves a reasonable and balanced result. Disrupting this result with a mandated level of disclosure will result in disruption of a functional process.
Measured disclosure of relevant information is a good thing. A high level of communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients is a good thing. Discussion of disparate outcomes may be an ethically important part of a treatment plan, but saying it is advisable in all cases is unnecessary, unmanageable, and inadvisable.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Hospital Medicine or The Hospitalist.
Editors’ note: Hospitalists face difficult decisions every day, including situations that don’t always have clear-cut answers. Beginning with this month’s “HM Debate,” The Hospitalist stares down the tough questions and presents all sides of the issues. This month’s question: You are discharging a patient after treatment for a non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The cardiology team recommends nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the patient’s three-vessel disease. You set up a referral for surgery, but you know the CABG morbidity and mortality rates are higher at your hospital than at a hospital 30 miles away. Should you disclose this information to your patient?
PRO
If you would tell your relative, you should tell your patient
If a patient at your hospital needs surgery or another invasive intervention, are you obligated to inform them of your hospital’s record with that procedure—particularly if the record is not as good as the one of the hospital down the street? Should loyalty to your hospital trump the risk to the patient?
In our scenario, the patient is being referred for elective surgery, and it is known that the cardiovascular team at a neighboring hospital has a better record for this procedure. It is the hospitalist’s job to present this information to the patient so that an intelligent and informed decision can be made. If the hospitalist believes the outcomes data, then an obligation exists to share that information with the patient.
If the data are subtle, one might argue that confusing the patient with more levels of decision-making is unnecessary. On the other hand, if data on performance outcomes between two institutions are clear, it presents an ethical position.
Let us assume the hospitalist is aware of poor outcomes in coronary bypass surgery at their hospital. Perhaps the mortality rates were unusually high and the hospitalist knew external consultants were brought in to identify the problems. Would you refer your patient for bypass surgery in that situation? A better question might be: Would you let a family member undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in your hospital? Probably not. So if you would inform a family member, shouldn’t you tell your patient?
A situation like this occurred in September 2005 at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. Media coverage was intense, and statistics showed that thoracic surgery mortality at UMass was the highest in the state two years running. The service at the hospital was closed temporarily.1 Extensive reorganization, adoption of QI protocols, and development of oversight committees resulted in much-improved patient outcomes when the program reopened a few weeks later.
The higher-than-expected complication rate had persisted at UMass for four years before the closure and reorganization. One wonders if hospitalists and cardiologists suspected a problem with surgical outcomes before the hospital was thrust into the national spotlight. Is it our job to know our hospital’s track record in surgery and invasive procedures? Yes, it probably is. This is why a hospital’s quality-assurance committee is so important. As keeper of the outcomes data, the committee is charged with sounding an alarm when a problem is brewing.
Tech-savvy patients have access to detailed reporting on performance measures for hospitals and physicians. Interpretation of the data can be complex. High surgical complication rates might be the result of a higher-than-expected patient acuity mix—patients who were older and sicker than usual—and may not represent a system or surgeon problem. Hospitalists need to guide patients through the interpretation of this data.
Patients trust their physicians. They trust that hospitalists will provide the best advice and make recommendations with their interests at heart. To not do so violates the public trust in physicians as patient advocates. Required by law, transparency of hospital quality data is the basis of a truthful relationship between the healthcare system and the public.
HM’s reputation will be tarnished if patients perceive that the physicians are more interested in the well-being of the hospital than the well-being of the patients.
Reference
- Kowalczyk L, Smith S. Hospital halts heart surgeries due to deaths. Boston Globe Web site. Available at: www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/22/hospital_halts_heart_surgeries_due_to_deaths. Accessed March 31, 2009.
CON
Outcome disclosure is impractical, unnecessary
At first glance, disclosing information about better outcomes at another hospital seems reasonable—even ethically obligatory. However, there are several competing interests, and in the end, the existing precedent for requiring reasonable disclosure in informed consent makes more sense.
The first issue is practicality. How much is a hospitalist obligated to know, and what degree of difference must be disclosed? In the case example, the hospitalist knows better outcomes are available at a nearby facility. However, if a duty to disclose this information exists, it can’t be limited to the information that an individual hospitalist has available to them. If such a duty exists, there is a corresponding burden on providers to have consistent and accurate information to disclose. If disclosure of differing outcomes is the ethical standard, then the reasonable disclosure needs to meet some uniform criteria for when a differing outcome rises to the level that the disclosure is compelled.
Data exist for pneumonia outcomes, readmission rates, and medication errors, as well as data for physicians relative to their colleagues. The fact that a hospitalist might have incidental knowledge of differing outcomes is not sufficient to create an ethical obligation, but there must be some uniformity to a disclosure requirement.
It is easy to envision a hospitalist spending as much time disclosing outcomes data as disclosing medical information and prognosis in the process of obtaining informed consent. Hospitalists can’t be expected to manage all of that information, much less make a meaningful disclosure. Physicians’ information-management skills should focus on medical knowledge—not outcomes data.
The test case has more implications for the professionalism of the hospitalist. Ultimately, they should act in the best interest of the patient. The recommended course of treatment should maximize benefit and minimize harm. Enough information should be provided that the patient can participate in weighing risks and benefits. The hospitalist needs to decide if it is unsafe to perform the procedure at their institution, and if so, the patient should be referred out. If there is a small but real benefit to having the procedure done elsewhere, the hospitalist cannot be responsible for determining what threshold of incremental benefit warrants disclosure. Existing ethical responsibilities to protect the patient and act in their best interests already addresses the issues of disparate outcomes more effectively than a blanket disclosure policy. Patients need to trust their hospitalists, and we need to be worthy of that trust.
Mandating disclosure of better outcomes would create a conflict of interest for physicians and hospitals. This conflict would be difficult to manage. Large referral centers exist because physicians recognize their own limits and act in patients’ best interests. Requiring a new level of disclosure would mean that many hospitals (save for an elite few) would recommend patients go elsewhere a substantial part of the time.
Conflicts of interest usually are managed more than eliminated, and the current management of the tension between caring for a patient personally and referring them out based on a perception of the patient’s need for a higher level of care achieves a reasonable and balanced result. Disrupting this result with a mandated level of disclosure will result in disruption of a functional process.
Measured disclosure of relevant information is a good thing. A high level of communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients is a good thing. Discussion of disparate outcomes may be an ethically important part of a treatment plan, but saying it is advisable in all cases is unnecessary, unmanageable, and inadvisable.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Hospital Medicine or The Hospitalist.