A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between Vitamin K Antagonist Use and Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulant use is suspected to increase the risk of bone fracture through inhibition of vitamin K-dependent cofactors of bone formation, an effect not seen with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between VKA use and fracture. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies analyzing fracture in adults using VKAs versus controls. Two authors independently reviewed articles. We assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and calculated pooled effects using random effects models. RESULTS: We included 23 articles (22 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial), studying 1,121,582 subjects. There was no increased odds of fracture in VKA users versus controls (pooled OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89, 1.14) or in VKA users versus NOAC users (pooled OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78, 1.15). Subjects using a VKA for 1 year or longer did not have increased odds of fracture (pooled OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90, 1.27). Compared to controls, there was increased odds of fracture in women (pooled OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02, 1.21) and older VKA users (≥ 65) (pooled OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01, 1.14). DISCUSSION: We found no increase in odds of fracture in VKA users versus controls or NOAC users. There was a small increase in odds of fracture among female and elderly VKA users, which may not be clinically important when accounting for other considerations in choosing an anticoagulant. Our findings suggest that, when anticoagulation is necessary, fracture risk should not be a major consideration in choice of an agent. Future studies directly comparing VKA to NOAC users and studies with longer duration of VKA use may be needed.

X + Y = Time for QI: Meaningful Engagement of Residents in Quality Improvement During the Ambulatory Block.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful resident engagement in quality improvement (QI) remains challenging. Barriers include a lack of time and of faculty with QI expertise. We leveraged our internal medicine (IM) residency program's adoption of an "X" (inpatient rotations) plus "Y" (ambulatory block) schedule to implement a QI curriculum for all residents during their ambulatory block. OBJECTIVE: We sought to engage residents in interprofessional QI, improve residents' QI confidence and knowledge and application to practice, and create opportunities for QI scholarship. METHODS: In July 2015, the program provided dedicated time for QI in the ambulatory block. All categorical IM residents and 11 voluntary faculty mentors were divided into 10 teams based on clinic site and "Y" block schedule. Teams participated in resident-led, interprofessional ambulatory QI projects. Resident QI knowledge and confidence were assessed before the curriculum and 11 months after using the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool-Revised (QIKAT-R) and surveys. QI project implementation and scholarship were tracked. RESULTS: All categorical residents (N = 81) participated. Residents reported increased confidence in all QI skills, and they demonstrated increased knowledge, with mean QIKAT-R paired scores improving from 15.8 ± 4.6 to 19.1 ± 5.9 (n = 45 pairs, P < .001). A total of 9 of 10 teams implemented process changes, and 6 team project improvements have been sustained. CONCLUSIONS: This ongoing curriculum engaged IM and IM-psychiatry residents in QI during their ambulatory block using volunteer clinic faculty mentors. Residents demonstrated improved QI confidence and knowledge. The majority of resident projects were sustained and generated scholarship.