High prevalence of newly detected hypertension in hospitalized patients: the value of inhospital 24-h blood pressure measurement.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for hypertension in hospitalized patients could reduce the number of individuals with unrecognized hypertension. We hypothesized that 24-h blood pressure monitoring is an adequate tool to detect unrecognized hypertension among inpatients. METHODS: Clinically stable inpatients in the Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Visceral Surgery and Department of Orthopaedics were included in the cross-sectional study. Every patient underwent inhospital 24-h blood pressure measurement. Previously unknown hypertension was defined as 24-h blood pressure of at least 125/80 mmHg in the absence of known hypertension. Forty-two patients had an additional 24-h blood pressure measurement after discharge, to compare mean inhospital and outpatient 24-h blood pressure values. RESULTS: In 314 consecutive inpatients, 24-h blood pressure measurement was performed. Among 139 patients without known hypertension, 53 were hypertensive. The mean routine and 24-h blood pressures in these patients were 135/77 and 137/82 mmHg, respectively. Thirty-seven of these patients had normal routine blood pressure and could be detected only by 24-h blood pressure measurement. Patients with unknown hypertension had a marked cardiovascular risk profile, 26 being at high or very high cardiovascular risk. However, documented cardiovascular disease was present in only seven patients, suggesting that effective treatment could prevent a considerable number of cardiovascular events. The agreement between inhospital and outpatient 24-h blood pressure measurement in 42 patients was good. CONCLUSIONS: By performing inhospital 24-h blood pressure measurement, a considerable number of patients with previously unknown hypertension can be detected.

Routine blood pressure measurements do not predict adverse events in hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: Countless blood pressure measurements are performed every day for almost every hospitalized patient. We analyzed the value of routine blood pressure measurements on patient care in an unselected group of hospitalized patients. METHODS: The study included 639 patients who were admitted to the hospital with a broad range of medical conditions. Two independent investigators reviewed the medical charts of the patients. Routine blood pressure values were abstracted from the patient charts and evaluated with respect to the occurrence of adverse clinical events in the study group. Changes in blood pressure between the last measurement just before adverse clinical events and the mean blood pressure values 72 hours before the adverse events were calculated and compared with mean normal day-to-day variations in blood pressure. RESULTS: In every patient, a mean of 1.6 +/- 0.6 routine blood pressure measurements per day were performed. Of the 639 patients in the study, 122 (19%) had clinical complications. The most commonly occurring complications were gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 15), falls (n = 13), other bleeding (n = 12) and pneumonia (n = 8). In patients who experienced clinical complications, pre-event systolic and diastolic blood pressure changes of at least 10 mm Hg occurred in 41% and 24% of the group, respectively, but this was not different from the normal day-to-day variations observed in patients who had no clinical complications. The results also were similar for patients who died or who had a severe adverse event that required admission to an intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: Routine blood pressure measurements in a general hospital patient population do not predict clinical adverse events.

Can airway obstruction be estimated by lung auscultation in an emergency room setting?

OBJECTIVE: Lung auscultation is a central part of the physical examination at hospital admission. In this study, the physicians' estimation of airway obstruction by auscultation was determined and compared with the degree of airway obstruction as measured by FEV(1)/FVC values. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-three patients consecutively admitted to the medical emergency room with chest problems were included. After taking their history, patients were auscultated by an Internal Medicine registrar. The degree of airway obstruction had to be estimated (0=no, 1=mild, 2=moderate and 3=severe obstructed) and then spirometry was performed. Airway obstruction was defined as a ratio of FEV(1)/FVC <70%. The degree of airway obstruction was defined on FEV(1)/FVC as mild (FEV(1)/FVC <70% and >50%), moderate (FEV(1)/FVC <50% >30%) and severe (FEV(1)/FVC <30%). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients (57.9%) had no sign of airway obstruction (FEV(1)/FVC >70%). Spirometry showed a mild obstruction in 51 patients (21.9%), a moderate obstruction in 27 patients (11.6%) and a severe obstruction in 20 patients (8.6%). There was a weak but significant correlation between FEV(1)/FVC and the auscultation-based estimation of airway obstruction in Internal Medicine Registrars (Spearman's rho=0.328; P<0.001). The sensitivity to detect airway obstruction by lung auscultation was 72.6% and the specificity only 46.3%. Thus, the negative predictive value was 68% and the positive predictive value 51%. In 27 patients (9.7%), airway obstruction was missed by lung auscultation. In these 27 cases, the severity of airway obstruction was mild in 20 patients, moderate in 5 patients and severe in 2 patients. In 82 patients (29.4%) with no sign of airway obstruction (FEV(1)/FVC >70%), airway obstruction was wrongly estimated as mild in 42 patients, as moderate in 34 patients and as severe in 6 patients, respectively. By performing multiple logistic regression, normal lung auscultation was a significant and independent predictor for not having an airway obstruction (OR 2.48 (1.43-4.28); P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Under emergency room conditions, physicians can quite accurately exclude airway obstruction by auscultation. Normal lung auscultation is an independent predictor for not having an airway obstruction. However, airway obstruction is often overestimated by auscultation; thus, spirometry should be performed.

Diagnostic value of lung auscultation in an emergency room setting.

BACKGROUND: In daily routine, physicians use history, physical examination and technology-based information such as laboratory tests and imaging studies to diagnose the patients' disease. We determined the diagnostic value of lung auscultation in patients admitted to the Medical emergency room with chest symptoms. METHODS: Two-hundred-and forty-three consecutive patients (137 males), mean age 59.2 years were included. Internal Medicine registrars had to make a presumptive diagnosis, 1) after having taken the history and 2) after having auscultated the lungs. Thereafter, routine diagnostic procedures were performed. The estimated diagnosis was compared with the final diagnosis based on the written report to the Family Practitioner. RESULTS: Two-hundred-eighty-seven diagnoses were made. Eighteen percent of patients suffered from left heart failure, 13% from unexplained chest pain, 10.5% from chest wall pain, and 10.5% from pneumonia. Forty-one percent of the diagnoses were already correct when based only on the patient's history. Lung auscultation improved the diagnostic yield only in 1% and worsened it in another 3%. By multiple logistic regression, normal lung auscultation (OR 0.12 [95CI% 0.053-0.29]) was the independent predictor for not having a lung or heart disease. However, elevation of B-type natiuretic peptide (BNP) (OR 1.16 per 100 pg/ml (95CI% 1.004-1.35), wheezing (OR 0.023 [0.002-0.33]) and pCO2 (OR 0.25 (0.10-0.621) were independent predictors for having a heart disease, whereas wheezing (OR 7.41 [3.26-16.83]) and CRP (OR 1.008 per 10 units [1.003-1.014]) were risk factors for having a lung disease. CONCLUSION: In contrast to history taking, abnormal lung auscultation does not appear to contribute considerably to the final diagnosis in patients presenting with chest symptoms in an emergency room setting. However, normal lung auscultation is a valuable predictor for not having a lung or heart disease, whereas wheezing is a predictor for having a lung disease and not having a heart disease.

Clinical outcomes of stents versus balloon angioplasty in non-acute coronary artery disease. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To evaluate whether stents as compared to balloon angioplasty reduce mortality in patients with non-acute coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified randomized controlled trials comparing stents to balloon angioplasty for the treatment of non-acute coronary artery disease by searching major medical databases from 1979 to March 2002. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted data from trials that had to report data on death and myocardial infarction. Nineteen trials, with a total of 8004 patients, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. For 1000 patients treated with stents rather than balloon angioplasty, 3 (95% CI 0-6), 5 (95% CI 0-9), and 6 (95% CI -1-12) additional lives were saved at 30 days, 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, for 1000 patients treated with stents rather than balloon angioplasty 46 (95% CI 25-66) additional target vessel revascularizations were avoided, but 25 (95% CI 15-34) additional bleeding complications with need for blood transfusion or surgical intervention occurred. In sensitivity analysis 11 (95% CI 2-20) and 2 (95% CI -4-7) deaths were avoided per 1000 patients treated with stents rather than PTCA in trials that routinely used compared to trials that did not use glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. CONCLUSION: In non-acute coronary disease stents may reduce overall mortality, but this benefit seems to be limited to stents used in conjunction with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Stents compared to PTCA reduce target vessel revascularizations, but increase the risk of bleeding complications.