Accuracy of Physicians in Differentiating Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarction Based on Clinical Information.

BACKGROUND: Physicians commonly judge whether a myocardial infarction (MI) is type 1 (thrombotic) vs type 2 (supply/demand mismatch) based on clinical information. Little is known about the accuracy of physicians' clinical judgement in this regard. We aimed to determine the accuracy of physicians' judgement in the classification of type 1 vs type 2 MI in perioperative and nonoperative settings. METHODS: We performed an online survey using cases from the Optical Coherence Tomographic Imaging of Thrombus (OPTIMUS) Study, which investigated the prevalence of a culprit lesion thrombus based on intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients experiencing MI. Four MI cases, 2 perioperative and 2 nonoperative, were selected randomly, stratified by etiology. Physicians were provided with the patient's medical history, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms. Physicians did not have access to intracoronary OCT results. The primary outcome was the accuracy of physicians' judgement of MI etiology, measured as raw agreement between physicians and intracoronary OCT findings. Fleiss' kappa and Gwet's AC1 were calculated to correct for chance. RESULTS: The response rate was 57% (308 of 536). Respondents were 62% male; median age was 45 years (standard deviation ± 11); 45% had been in practice for > 15 years. Respondents' overall accuracy for MI etiology was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%-63%), including 63% (95% CI 60%-68%) for nonoperative cases, and 56% (95% CI 52%-60%) for perioperative cases. Overall chance-corrected agreement was poor (kappa = 0.05), consistent across specialties and clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Physician accuracy in determining MI etiology based on clinical information is poor. Physicians should consider results from other testing, such as invasive coronary angiography, when determining MI etiology.

CONTEXTE: Les médecins déterminent généralement s'ils sont en présence d'un infarctus du myocarde (IM) de type 1 (thrombotique) ou de type 2 (demande accrue ou apport réduit en oxygène) sur la base des renseignements cliniques. On en sait cependant très peu au sujet de la justesse du jugement clinique des médecins à cet égard. Nous avons donc cherché à déterminer si les médecins réussissent à distinguer correctement les IM de type 1 et de type 2 dans les contextes périopératoire et non opératoire. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons mené une enquête en ligne en utilisant les cas de l'étude OPTIMUS ( Op tical Coherence T omographic Im aging of Thromb us ), qui avait évalué la prévalence des lésions causant un thrombus au moyen de la tomographie par cohérence optique (TCO) endocoronaire chez les patients subissant un IM. Nous avons choisi au hasard quatre cas d'IM stratifiés en fonction de leur cause : deux cas en contexte périopératoire et deux cas en contexte non opératoire. Les médecins avaient accès aux antécédents médicaux, aux résultats des analyses de laboratoire et aux électrocardiogrammes des patients, mais pas aux résultats de la TCO endocoronaire. Le principal paramètre d'évaluation était la justesse du jugement du médecin concernant la cause de l'IM, mesurée en fonction de la concordance approximative entre le jugement du médecin et les observations à la TCO endocoronaire. Les coefficients de concordance kappa de Fleiss et AC1 de Gwet ont servi à corriger pour le hasard. RÉSULTATS: Le taux de réponse était de 57 % (308 sur 536). Des participants, 62 % étaient des hommes et 45 % exerçaient depuis plus de 15 ans; l'âge médian était de 45 ans (écart-type : ± 11). La justesse globale avec laquelle les répondants ont déterminé la cause des IM était de 60 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 57-63 %) : 63 % (IC à 95 % : 60-68 %) dans le cas des IM en contexte non opératoire et 56 % (IC à 95 % : 52-60 %) dans le cas des IM en contexte périopératoire. La concordance globale corrigée pour le hasard était faible (kappa = 0,05) et demeurait constante, sans égard au domaine de spécialité ou au scénario clinique. CONCLUSIONS: La justesse du jugement des médecins évaluant la cause d'un IM en fonction des renseignements cliniques est faible. Les médecins devraient envisager de recourir à des tests additionnels, y compris la coronarographie invasive, avant de déterminer la cause d'un IM.

Preventability of 28-Day Hospital Readmissions in General Internal Medicine Patients: A Retrospective Analysis at a Quaternary Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions are associated with increased patient mortality and health care costs, yet only a fraction are likely to be preventable. This study's objective was to identify preventable hospital readmissions of general internal medicine patients, and their common causes. METHODS: Patients who were discharged from the general internal medicine teaching service and readmitted to hospital within 28 days for 24 hours or more were recruited to the study; they were identified via the hospital electronic medical record system. Data were gathered via structured review of hospital charts/electronic medical records, along with standardized patient interviews. Unique to our study, a multidisciplinary panel of physicians, nurses, and hospital administrators adjudicated preventability and identified common causes of readmission. RESULTS: Fifty-five hospital readmissions were identified; 53% were adjudicated to be preventable. There was no difference in any variable analyzed between preventable and nonpreventable readmissions. The most common causes of preventable readmissions were inadequate coordination of community services upon discharge, insufficient clinical postdischarge follow-up, and suboptimal end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: This study identified a higher proportion of preventable 28-day hospital readmissions when compared with prior research. Increased involvement of palliative care during initial hospitalization for appropriate conditions and improvements in care after discharge may reduce preventable hospital readmissions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing conventional versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for surgically ineligible stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In 25% to 35% of patients with early stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is not feasible, and external-beam radiation becomes their standard treatment. Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) is the traditional radiation treatment standard; however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly being adopted as an alternate radiation treatment. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing SBRT with CFRT for stage I NSCLC in a public payer system. METHODS: Consecutive patients were reviewed using 2010 Canadian dollars for direct medical costs from a public payer perspective. A subset of direct radiation treatment delivery costs, excluding physician billings and hospitalization, was also included. Health outcomes as life-years gained (LYGs) were computed using time-to-event methods. Sensitivity analyses identified critical factors influencing costs and benefits. RESULTS: From January 2002 to June 2010, 168 patients (CFRT, n = 50; SBRT, n = 118) were included; median follow-up was 24 months. Mean overall survival was 2.83 years (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.1) for CFRT and 3.86 years (95% CI, 3.2 to not reached) for SBRT (P = .06). Mean costs for CFRT were $6,886 overall and $5,989 for radiation treatment delivery only versus $8,042 and $6,962, respectively, for SBRT. Incremental costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) per LYG for SBRT versus CFRT were $1,120 for the public payer and $942 for radiation treatment alone. Varying survival and labor costs individually (± 20%) created the largest changes in the ICER, and simultaneous adjustment (± 5% to ± 30%) confirmed cost effectiveness of SBRT. CONCLUSION: Using a threshold of $50,000 per LYG, SBRT seems cost effective. Results require confirmation with randomized data.