Care of acute conditions and chronic diseases in Canada and the United States: Rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study tested the hypothesis that socioeconomically vulnerable Canadians with diverse acute conditions or chronic diseases have health care access and survival advantages over their counterparts in the USA. A rapid systematic review retrieved 25 studies (34 independent cohorts) published between 2003 and 2018. They were synthesized with a streamlined meta-analysis. Very low-income Canadian patients were consistently and highly advantaged in terms of health care access and survival compared with their counterparts in the USA who lived in poverty and/or were uninsured or underinsured. In aggregate and controlling for specific conditions or diseases and typically 4 to 9 comorbid factors or biomarkers, Canadians' chances of receiving better health care were estimated to be 36% greater than their American counterparts (RR=1.36, 95% CI 1.35-1.37). This estimate was significantly larger than that based on general patient or non-vulnerable population comparisons (RR=1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10). Contrary to prevalent political rhetoric, three studies observed that Americans experience more than twice the risk of long waits for breast or colon cancer care or of dying while they wait for an organ transplant (RR=2.36, 95% CI 2.09-2.66). These findings were replicated across externally valid national studies and more internally valid, metropolitan or provincial/state comparisons. Socioeconomically vulnerable Canadians are consistently and highly advantaged on health care access and outcomes compared to their American counterparts. Less vulnerable comparisons found more modest Canadian advantages. The Affordable Care Act ought to be fully supported including the expansion of Medicaid across all states. Canada's single payer system ought to be maintained and strengthened, but not through privatization.

Nitroglycerin-Derived Pd/Pa for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Lesions.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the predictive value of Pd/Pa after nitroglycerin administration (Pd/Pa[N]) as compared with standard fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS: Consecutive patients with intermediate coronary lesions assessed by FFR between January 2014 and October 2015 were included. We measured Pd/Pa at baseline, Pd/Pa(N), and Pd/Pa after incremental doses of intracoronary adenosine. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients (27% females; mean age, 65 years) were included. The diagnostic performance of Pd/Pa(N) and identification of cut-off value for Pd/Pa(N) compared with FFR threshold of 0.8 using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve analysis was between 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.00; P<.05) for 48 µg and 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.94; P<.05) for 240 µg adenosine. Pd/Pa(N) ≤0.8 had 100% positive predictive value. Pd/Pa(N) ≥0.94 provided 100% negative predictive value with a high sensitivity (>92%). Optimal diagnostic accuracy of Pd/Pa(N) was achieved for values ≤0.84. The Pearson's correlation between Pd/Pa(N) and FFR varied between 0.89 for 24 µg adenosine and 0.77 for 240 µg (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Pd/Pa(N) values can be used for diagnosis of hemodynamically significant lesions. Pd/Pa(N) correlates well with standard FFR. Pd/Pa(N) cut-off of ≤0.8 can be considered significant without need for adenosine injection. The value of using adenosine whenever Pd/Pa(N) is ≥0.94 is limited.

Trends in CPAP adherence over twenty years of data collection: a flattened curve.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder, and continuous airway positive pressure (CPAP) is considered to be the gold standard of therapy. CPAP however is known to have problems with adherence, with many patients eventually abandoning the device. The purpose of this paper is to assess secular trends in CPAP adherence over the long term to see if there have been meaningful improvements in adherence in light of the multiple interventions proposed to do so. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted using the Medline-Ovid, Embase, and Pubmed databases, searching for data regarding CPAP adherence over a twenty year timeframe (1994-2015). Data was assessed for quality and then extracted. The main outcome measure was reported CPAP non-adherence. Secondary outcomes included changes in CPAP non-adherence when comparing short versus long-term, and changes in terms of behavioral counseling. RESULTS: Eighty-two papers met study inclusion/exclusion criteria. The overall CPAP non-adherence rate based on a 7-h/night sleep time that was reported in studies conducted over the twenty year time frame was 34.1 %. There was no significant improvement over the time frame. Behavioral intervention improved adherence rates by ~1 h per night on average. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of CPAP adherence remains persistently low over twenty years worth of reported data. No clinically significant improvement in CPAP adherence was seen even in recent years despite efforts toward behavioral intervention and patient coaching. This low rate of adherence is problematic, and calls into question the concept of CPAP as gold-standard of therapy for OSA.