MedShr: improving patient care through clinical case discussion.

Case discussion is an essential part of clinical practice and medical education, and as part of patient care takes place both informally between medical staff and formally in case conferences and other meetings. Case presentations are often the most popular sessions at medical congresses and increasingly have moved to digital channels and social media. MedShr was developed to help doctors improve patient care: to empower doctors to use their own smartphones to share and discuss clinical cases, whilst protecting patient privacy and confidentiality. In this manuscript, we review the current climate of digital and social media networks used for clinical case discussion, and outline the importance of moving to a dedicated digital platform. We discuss the common drivers for digital case discussions which include multidisciplinary team groups, diagnostic doubt, new techniques, clinical equipoise and debate and case discussion amongst professionals from different training levels and specialties. One key observation is that if clinical guidelines and published evidence tell doctors what to do, case discussion shows them how to do it in terms of drugs, devices, procedures, techniques, and applying the evidence to individuals or patient groups. We explore how MedShr works and the range of features which promote professional compliance, protect privacy and enable case-based education. We also discuss example cases, case series and discussion themes from MedShr. In summary, the MedShr platform provides a trusted, secure environment for clinicians that uses state of the art social network technology to support case discussion whilst protecting patient privacy and confidentiality.

Cost implications of implementing NICE guideline on chest pain in rapid access chest pain clinics: an audit and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implementing the recently published National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline on chest pain (CG95) in rapid access chest pain clinics (RACPCs) could significantly impact on overall cost, while introducing new technology like cardiac computed tomography (CT) scanning. With the National Health Service (NHS) under pressure to make £20 billion savings, applying CG95 in RACPCs could be challenging. An audit enabled us to assess the cost implications. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed of 204 consecutive cases attending Croydon RACPC from 13 July to 21 September 2010, on risk factors, demographics and planned first-line investigations. CG95 and three alternative strategies were mapped on the sample, and the estimated cost and volume of first-line investigations were compared with actual RACPC activities and costs. RESULTS: Application of CG95 resulted in significant increases in cost and volume of functional testing, cardiac CT scan angiography and invasive coronary angiography, with 42-43% overall cost increases. The application of three alternative strategies resulted in annual cost increases ranging from 0.1 to 33%. An alternative cost analysis showed annual savings of up to 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing NICE CG95 can significantly increase the cost of RACPCs but alternative strategies could enable the introduction of new technology without significant cost increases and even significant savings.

An unusual case of massive subcutaneous chest wall haemorrhage with enoxaparin.

Enoxaparin is used in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes and offers improved outcome in the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction and major bleeding when compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Our report describes a rare case of massive life-threatening subcutaneous chest wall haemorrhage, distant to the injection site. Clinicians should be aware of atypical presentations of haemorrhage when using combination antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy.

Coronary steal with unstable angina secondary to a coronary artery fistula.

BACKGROUND: A 62-year old man with progressive deterioration of stable angina presented with an unstable episode and was referred for diagnostic coronary angiography. INVESTIGATIONS: Physical examination, electrocardiography, myocardial perfusion scan, coronary angiography, cardiac CT. DIAGNOSIS: Left coronary main stem to pulmonary artery fistula. MANAGEMENT: Coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, coil embolisation.

Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary bifurcations.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stent implantation in coronary bifurcations treated with either a 1-stent or 2-stent strategy. METHODS: The study used a retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive de novo bifurcations, excluding left main, treated with SES or PES between April 2003 and June 2005. RESULTS: We identified 170 bifurcations in 161 patients treated with SES and 119 bifurcations in 112 patients treated with PES. During a median follow-up of 1,061 days (interquartile range 814-1,314), 43 patients (26.7%) in the SES group and 28 (25.0%) in the PES group had a major adverse cardiac event (P = .78). The angiographic restenosis rate per bifurcation was 20.9% and 25.9%, respectively (P = .41). There was no difference overall in the occurrence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) per bifurcation, 22 with SES (12.9%) and 18 with PES (15.1%), P = .61. The TLR rate was similar for SES and PES in bifurcations treated with 1 stent (6.7% vs 11.4%, P = .40) and in bifurcations treated with both branch stenting (20.0% vs 20.4%, P =1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, the long-term clinical outcomes appear similar overall between SES and PES in the treatment of coronary bifurcations irrespective of whether a 1-stent or 2-stent strategy was used.

Protamine usage following implantation of drug-eluting stents: a word of caution.

The treatment of hemorrhagic complications of percutaneous interventions with protamine is an accepted practice. Concerns exist about the increased thrombo-genicity of drug-eluting stents. We report two cases of acute stent thrombosis following drug-eluting stent implantation related to protamine administration.

Long-term follow-up of drug-eluting stents when inserted for on- and off-label indications.

This study reports long-term follow-up of the on- and off-label implantation of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in a retrospective study of 1,044 patients. Off-label implantation of DESs was performed for left main coronary artery lesions, bifurcation lesions, bare metal stent restenosis, ostial disease, chronic total occlusions, saphenous vein graft lesions, internal mammary artery graft lesions, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, and acute myocardial infarction. End points examined were procedural complications, in-hospital myocardial infarction, and acute stent thrombosis; end points examined at follow-up were subacute stent thrombosis, late stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, death, and major adverse clinical events (MACEs; a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization). The study included 364 patients who received a DES on an on-label basis and 680 patients who received a DES on an off-label basis. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 groups, and there was no difference in procedural complications or acute stent thrombosis (on-label, 0%; off-label, 0.3%; p=0.55). There were no significant differences in subacute stent thrombosis (0% vs 0.6%, p=0.3), late stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 1.2%, p=0.78), death at follow-up (4.9% vs 4.1%, p=0.53), or myocardial infarction (1.9% vs 2.4%, p=0.83). Off-label DES implantation was associated with higher rates of target vessel revascularization (13.2% vs 24.1%, p=0.0001) and MACEs (17.6% vs 28.2%, p=0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed associations between target vessel revascularization and MACEs (respective p values) with bare metal stent restenosis (p=0.001 and p=0.001), diabetes mellitus (p=0.002 and p=0.001), and previous coronary artery bypass grafting (p=0.04 and p=0.01), but not off-label DES implantation (p=1.36 and p=1.16). In conclusion, DES use in the off-label situations studied was safe and was not associated with increased stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or death. Multivariate analysis showed that off-label DES implantation was not a risk factor for target vessel revascularization or MACEs.

Incidence and predictors of drug-eluting stent thrombosis during and after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment.

BACKGROUND: The need for prolonged aspirin and thienopyridine therapy and the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) remain as drawbacks associated with drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted between June 2002 and January 2004 on 3021 patients consecutively and successfully treated in 5389 lesions with drug-eluting stents. Detailed patient information was collected on antiplatelet therapy. We analyzed the incidence of ST throughout the 18-month follow-up period and its relationship with thienopyridine therapy. ST occurred in 58 patients (1.9%) at 18 months. Forty-two patients (1.4%) experienced the event within 6 months of stent implantation. Acute myocardial infarction (fatal or nonfatal) occurred in 46 patients (79%) and death in 23 patients (39%) with ST. The median interval from discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy to ST was 13.5 days (interquartile range 5.2 to 25.7 days) for the first 6 months and 90 days (interquartile range 30 to 365 days) between 6 and 18 months. On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor for ST within 6 months of stenting was discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy (hazard ratio, 13.74; 95% CI, 4.04 to 46.68; P<0.001). Thienopyridine discontinuation after 6 months did not predict the occurrence of ST (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30 to 2.98; P=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy was the major determinant of ST within the first 6 months, but insufficient information is available to determine whether there is benefit in continuing a thienopyridine beyond 6 months.

Induction, differentiation, and remodeling of blood vessels after transplantation of Bcl-2-transduced endothelial cells.

Implants of collagen-fibronectin gels containing Bcl-2-transduced human umbilical vein endothelial cells (Bcl-2-HUVECs) induce the formation of human endothelial cell (EC)/murine vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) chimeric vessels in immunodeficient mice. Microfil casting of the vasculature 60 d after implantation reveals highly branched microvascular networks within the implants that connect with and induce remodeling of conduit vessels arising from the abdominal wall circulation. Approximately 85% of vessels within the implants are lined by Bcl-2-positive human ECs expressing VEGFR1, VEGFR2, and Tie-2, but not integrin alpha(v)beta(3). The human ECs are seated on a well formed human laminin/collagen IV-positive basement membrane, and are surrounded by mouse VSMCs expressing SM-alpha actin, SM myosin, SM22alpha, and calponin, all markers of contractile function. Transmission electron microscopy identified well formed EC-EC junctions, chimeric arterioles with concentric layers of contractile VSMC, chimeric capillaries surrounded by pericytes, and chimeric venules. Bcl-2-HUVEC-lined vessels retain 70-kDa FITC-dextran, but not 3-kDa dextran; local histamine rapidly induces leak of 70-kDa FITC-dextran or India ink. As in skin, TNF induces E-selectin and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 only on venular ECs, whereas intercellular adhesion molecule-1 is up-regulated on all human ECs. Bcl-2-HUVEC implants are able to engraft within and increase perfusion of ischemic mouse gastrocnemius muscle after femoral artery ligation. These studies show that cultured Bcl-2-HUVECs can differentiate into arterial, venular, and capillary-like ECs when implanted in vivo, and induce arteriogenic remodeling of the local mouse vessels. Our results support the utility of differentiated EC transplantation to treat tissue ischemia.

Safety and efficacy of nurse initiated thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

PROBLEM: Delay in starting thrombolytic treatment in patients arriving at hospital with chest pain who are diagnosed as having acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Audit of "door to needle times" for patients presenting with chest pain and an electrocardiogram on admission that confirmed acute myocardial infarction. A one year period in each of three phases of development was studied. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: The goal of the national service framework for coronary heart disease is that by April 2002, 75% of eligible patients should receive thrombolysis within 30 minutes of arriving at hospital. A district general hospital introduced a strategy to improve door to needle times. In phase 1 (1989-95), patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction, referred by general practitioners, were assessed in the coronary care unit; all other patients were seen first in the accident and emergency department. In phase 2 (1995-7), all patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction were transferred directly to a fast track area within the coronary care unit, where nurses assess patients and doctors started treatment. KEY MEASURES IMPROVEMENT: Median door to needle time in phase 1 of 45 minutes (range 5-300 minutes), with 38% of patients treated within 30 minutes. Median door to needle time in phase 2 of 40 minutes (range 5-180 minutes), with 47% treated within 30 minutes STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: In phase 3 (1997-2001), all patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction were transferred directly to the fast track area and assessed by a "coronary care thrombolysis nurse." If electrocardiography confirmed the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, the nurse could initiate thrombolytic therapy (subject to guidelines and exclusions determined by the consultant cardiologists). EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Median door to needle time in phase 3 of 15 minutes (range 5-70 minutes), with 80% of patients treated within 30 minutes. Systematic clinical review showed no cases in which a nurse initiated inappropriate thrombolysis. LESSONS LEARNT: Thrombolysis started by nurses is safe and effective in patients with acute myocardial infarction. It may provide a way by which the national service framework's targets for door to needle times can be achieved.