Higher Arm Versus Lower Arm Systolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Outcomes: a Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From the INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference-Individual Participant Data Collaboration. METHODS: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared. RESULTS: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P<0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P<0.001). Higher arm BP models better predicted cardiovascular events with Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores (both P<0.001) and reclassified 4.6% and 3.5% of participants respectively to higher risk categories compared with lower arm BPs). CONCLUSIONS: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: CRD42015031227.

Detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care with radial pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement and handheld single-lead electrocardiography: a diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of three tests-radial pulse palpation, an electronic blood pressure monitor and a handheld single-lead ECG device-for opportunistic screening for unknown atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: We performed a diagnostic accuracy study in the intention-to-screen arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial aimed at opportunistic screening for AF in general practice. We performed radial pulse palpation, followed by electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A) and handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) in random order. If one or more index tests were positive, we performed a 12-lead ECG at shortest notice. Similarly, to limit verification bias, a random sample of patients with three negative index tests received this reference test. Additionally, we analysed the dataset using multiple imputation. We present pooled diagnostic parameters. SETTING: 47 general practices participated between September 2015 and August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In the electronic medical record system of the participating general practices (n=47), we randomly marked 200 patients of ≥65 years without AF. When they visited the practice for any reason, we invited them to participate. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, inability to give informed consent or visit the practice or having a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. OUTCOMES: Diagnostic accuracy of individual tests and test combinations to detect unknown AF. RESULTS: We included 4339 patients; 0.8% showed new AF. Sensitivity and specificity were 62.8% (range 43.1%-69.7%) and 91.8% (91.7%-91.8%) for radial pulse palpation, 70.0% (49.0%-80.6%) and 96.5% (96.3%-96.7%) for electronic blood pressure measurement and 90.1% (60.8%-100%) and 97.9% (97.8%-97.9%) for handheld ECG, respectively. Positive predictive values were 5.8% (5.3%-6.1%), 13.8% (12.2%-14.8%) and 25.2% (24.2%-25.8%), respectively. All negative predictive values were ≥99.7%. CONCLUSION: In detecting AF, electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A), but especially handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) showed better diagnostic accuracy than radial pulse palpation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register No. NL4776 (old NTR4914).

Screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in primary care using Holter monitoring and intermittent, ambulatory single-lead electrocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Timely detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important because of its increased risk of thrombo-embolic events. Single time point screening interventions fall short in detection of paroxysmal AF, which requires prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring, usually using a Holter. However, traditional 24-48 h Holter monitoring is less appropriate for screening purposes because of its low diagnostic yield. Intermittent, ambulatory screening using a single-lead electrocardiogram (1 L-ECG) device can offer a more efficient alternative. METHODS: Primary care patients of ≥65 years participated in an opportunistic screening study for AF. We invited patients with a negative 12 L-ECG to wear a Holter monitor for two weeks and to use a MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device thrice daily. We report the yield of paroxysmal AF found by Holter monitoring and calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the 1 L-ECG device's built-in AF detection algorithm with the Holter monitor as reference standard. RESULTS: We included 270 patients, of whom four had AF in a median of 8.0 days of Holter monitoring, a diagnostic yield of 1.5% (95%-CI: 0.4-3.8%). In 205 patients we performed simultaneous 1 L-ECG screening. For diagnosing AF based on the 1 L-ECG device's AF detection algorithm, sensitivity was 66.7% (95%-CI: 9.4-99.2%), specificity 68.8% (95%-CI: 61.9-75.1%), positive predictive value 3.1% (95%-CI: 1.4-6.8%) and negative predictive value 99.3% (95%-CI: 96.6-99.9%). CONCLUSION: We found a low diagnostic yield of paroxysmal AF using Holter monitoring in elderly primary care patients with a negative 12 L-ECG. The diagnostic accuracy of an intermittently, ambulatory used MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device as interpreted by its built-in AF detection algorithm is limited.

The Effect of a Comprehensive, Interdisciplinary Medication Review on Quality of Life and Medication Use in Community Dwelling Older People with Polypharmacy.

Background: We conducted a comprehensive medication review at the patients' home, using data from electronic patient records, and with input from relevant specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists formulated and implemented recommendations to optimize medication use in patients aged 60+ years with polypharmacy. We evaluated the effect of this medication review on quality of life (QoL) and medication use. Methods: Cluster randomized controlled trial (stepped wedge), randomly assigning general practices to one of three consecutive steps. Patients received usual care until the intervention was implemented. Primary outcome was QoL (SF-36 and EQ-5D); secondary outcomes were medication changes, medication adherence and (instrumental) activities of daily living (ADL, iADL) which were measured at baseline, and around 6- and 12-months post intervention. Results: Twenty-four general practices included 360 women and 410 men with an average age of 75 years (SD 7.5). A positive effect on SF-36 mental health (estimated mean was stable in the intervention, but decreased in the control condition with -6.1, p = 0.009,) was found with a reduced number of medications at follow-up compared to the control condition. No significant effects were found on other QoL subscales, ADL, iADL or medication adherence. Conclusion: The medication review prevented decrease of mental health (SF36), with no significant effects on other outcome measures, apart from a reduction in the number of prescribed medications.

Associations Between Systolic Interarm Differences in Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes and Mortality: Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis, Development and Validation of a Prognostic Algorithm: The INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration.

Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We undertook individual participant data meta-analyses to (1) quantify independent associations of systolic interarm difference with mortality and cardiovascular events; (2) develop and validate prognostic models incorporating interarm difference, and (3) determine whether interarm difference remains associated with risk after adjustment for common cardiovascular risk scores. We searched for studies recording bilateral blood pressure and outcomes, established agreements with collaborating authors, and created a single international dataset: the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference - Individual Participant Data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. Data were merged from 24 studies (53 827 participants). Systolic interarm difference was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: continuous hazard ratios 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.08) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11), respectively, per 5 mm Hg systolic interarm difference. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality increased with interarm difference magnitude from a ≥5 mm Hg threshold (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01-1.14]). Systolic interarm differences per 5 mm Hg were associated with cardiovascular events in people without preexisting disease, after adjustment for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]), Framingham (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.08]), or QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm version 2 (QRISK2) (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.18]) cardiovascular risk scores. Our findings confirm that systolic interarm difference is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms during cardiovascular assessment. A systolic interarm difference of 10 mm Hg is proposed as the upper limit of normal. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015031227.

Professionals guidance about palliative medicine in chronic heart failure: a mixed-method study.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experience difficulties in timely recognising and directing palliative care (PC) needs of their patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive tool to enable HCPs in timely recognising and directing PC needs in CHF. METHODS: A four-stage mixed-method study was performed. Stage 1: identification of needs and questions of patients and families; stage 2: prioritisation and refinement of the needs and questions; stage 3a: testing and online feedback on V.1; stage 3b: selecting and refining care recommendations; stage 4: testing and review of V.2. Iterative reviews followed each step in the development process to ensure a wide range of stakeholder input. In total, 16 patients, 12 family members and 54 HCPs participated. RESULTS: A comprehensive set of 13 PC needs was identified, redefined and tested. The resulting tool, called Identification of patients with HeARt failure with PC needs (I-HARP), contains an introduction prompt with open questions to start the conversation, 13 closed screening questions with additional in-depth questions, and recommendations on actions for identified needs. CONCLUSION: I-HARP contains an evidence-based set of questions and palliative CHF care suggestions for HCPs in the Netherlands. The resulting tool, approved by HCPs, patients and family members, is a promising guidance for HCP to timely recognise and direct PC needs in CHF.

Opportunistic screening versus usual care for detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether opportunistic screening in primary care increases the detection of atrial fibrillation compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 47 intention-to-screen and 49 usual care primary care practices in the Netherlands, not blinded for allocation; the study was carried out from September 2015 to August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In each practice, a fixed sample of 200 eligible patients, aged 65 or older, with no known history of atrial fibrillation in the electronic medical record system, were randomly selected. In the intention-to-screen group, 9218 patients eligible for screening were included, 55.0% women, mean age 75.2 years. In the usual care group, 9526 patients were eligible for screening, 54.3% women, mean age 75.0 years. INTERVENTIONS: Opportunistic screening (that is, screening in patients visiting their general practice) consisted of three index tests: pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement with an atrial fibrillation algorithm, and electrocardiography (ECG) with a handheld single lead electrocardiographic device. The reference standard was 12 lead ECG, performed in patients with at least one positive index test and in a sample of patients (10%) with three negative tests. If 12 lead ECG showed no atrial fibrillation, patients were invited for more screening by continuous monitoring with a Holter electrocardiograph for two weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in the detection rate of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation over one year in intention-to-screen versus usual care practices. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 8874 patients in the intention-to-screen practices and for 9102 patients in the usual care practices. 144 (1.62%) new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation in the intention-to-screen group versus 139 (1.53%) in the usual care group were found (adjusted odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.35)). Of 9218 eligible patients in the intention-to-screen group, 4106 (44.5%) participated in the screening protocol. In these patients, 12 lead ECG detected newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in 26 patients (0.63%). In the 266 patients who continued with Holter monitoring, four more diagnoses of atrial fibrillation were found. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients, aged 65 and over, did not increase the detection rate of atrial fibrillation, which implies that opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation is not useful in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register No NL4776 (old NTR4914).

General practitioner use of D-dimer in suspected venous thromboembolism: historical cohort study in one geographical region in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how many general practitioner (GP)-referred venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) are diagnosed during 1 year in one geographical region and to investigate the (urgent) referral pathway of VTE diagnoses, including the role of laboratory D-dimer testing. DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING: GP patients of 47 general practices in a demarcated geographical region of 161 503 inhabitants in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: We analysed all 895 primary care patients in whom either the GP determined a D-dimer value or who had a diagnostic work-up for suspected VTE in a non-academic hospital during 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of this study were the total number of VTEs per year and the diagnostic pathways-including the role of GP determined D-dimer testing-of patients urgently referred to secondary care for suspected VTE. Additionally, we explored the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off. RESULTS: The annual VTE incidence was 0.9 per 1000 inhabitants. GPs annually ordered 5.1 D-dimer tests per 1000 inhabitants. Of 470 urgently GP-referred patients, 31.3% had a VTE. Of those urgently referred based on clinical assessment only (without D-dimer testing), 73.8% (96/130) had a VTE; based on clinical assessment and laboratory D-dimer testing yielded 15.0% (51/340) VTE. Applying age-adjusted D-dimer cut-offs to all patients aged 50 years or older resulted in a reduction of positive D-dimer results from 97.9% to 79.4%, without missing any VTE. CONCLUSIONS: Although D-dimer testing contributes to the diagnostic work-up of VTE, GPs have a high detection rate for VTE in patients who they urgently refer to secondary care based on clinical assessment only.

Arterial stiffness and decline of renal function in a primary care population.

Arterial stiffness is an important pathophysiological factor linking cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. Controversy exists as to whether arterial stiffness causes renal function decline, or kidney dysfunction leads to stiffening or whether the association is mutual. We aimed to investigate the longitudinal association between arterial stiffness and annual rate of renal function decline. We prospectively investigated in a primary care population whether carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was associated with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and annual decline in eGFR in participants aged ⩾40 years without overt kidney disease. Baseline data on PWV and eGFR were available for 587 participants; follow-up measurements with a mean duration of 5.6 years were available for 222 patients. PWV, female gender and mean arterial pressure were independently associated with eGFR at baseline, although age confounded this association. More importantly, baseline PWV, age and eGFR were independent predictors of renal function decline. Stratification for age showed that the effect of PWV on rate of eGFR decline was amplified with advancing age. On the other hand, baseline eGFR did not determine annual change in PWV, suggesting a unidirectional association between arterial stiffness and eGFR. Arterial stiffness amplifies age-related renal function decline, suggesting that arterial stiffness plays a causal role in the development of renal damage, at least at later stages of age-related renal function decline, possibly through impaired renal autoregulation and increased arterial blood pressure pulsatility.

Ruling Out Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of "Gestalt" and the Wells Rule.

PURPOSE: Diagnostic prediction models such as the Wells rule can be used for safely ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) when it is suspected. A physician's own probability estimate ("gestalt"), however, is commonly used instead. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of both approaches in primary care. METHODS: Family physicians estimated the probability of PE on a scale of 0% to 100% (gestalt) and calculated the Wells rule score in 598 patients with suspected PE who were thereafter referred to secondary care for definitive testing. We compared the discriminative ability (c statistic) of both approaches. Next, we stratified patients into PE risk categories. For gestalt, a probability of less than 20% plus a negative point-of-care d-dimer test indicated low risk; for the Wells rule, we used a score of 4 or lower plus a negative d-dimer test. We compared sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (percentage of low-risk patients in total cohort), and failure rate (percentage of patients having PE within the low-risk category). RESULTS: With 3 months of follow-up, 73 patients (12%) were confirmed to have venous thromboembolism (a surrogate for PE at baseline). The c statistic was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.83) for gestalt and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) for the Wells rule. Gestalt missed 2 out of 152 low-risk patients (failure rate = 1.3%; 95% CI, 0.2%-4.7%) with an efficiency of 25% (95% CI, 22%-29%); the Wells rule missed 4 out of 272 low-risk patients (failure rate = 1.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.7%) with an efficiency of 45% (95% CI, 41%-50%). CONCLUSIONS: Combined with d-dimer testing, both gestalt using a cutoff of less than 20% and the Wells rule using a score of 4 or lower are safe for ruling out PE in primary care. The Wells rule is more efficient, however, and PE can be ruled out in a larger proportion of suspected cases.

Factors associated with appropriate knowledge of the indications for prescribed drugs among community-dwelling older patients with polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: polypharmacy contributes to patients' non-adherence with physicians' prescriptions. Patients' knowledge about the indications for their medicines is one of the factors influencing adherence. OBJECTIVE: to identify factors associated with appropriate knowledge about the indications for drugs prescribed to older patients with polypharmacy. METHODS: in a primary care setting, using home interviews and postal questionnaires, patients aged 60 and over who were taking five or more prescribed drugs simultaneously were asked about their medication. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association (odds ratio, OR) between medication knowledge and explanatory variables like medication use, sex, age, living situation and educational level. RESULTS: seven hundred and fifty-four participants (mean age 73.2 years) reported an average daily intake of nine (SD 3.0) prescribed drugs. Only 15% of the patients were able to recall the indication for each of their prescribed drugs. Variables that were negatively associated with correct reporting of all indications were taking many prescribed drugs (e.g. ≥10 versus ≤5: OR 0.05), age 80 years or over (versus 60-69 years: OR 0.47) and male sex (OR 0.53). Patients living with a partner were more knowledgeable than patients living alone (OR 2.11). We did not find an association with educational level. CONCLUSION: among older patients using five or more prescribed drugs, there was little understanding of the indications for their drugs, especially among patients taking the highest number of drugs, patients aged 80 or over, and men. Patients living independently with a partner were more knowledgeable than others.

Detecting and Diagnosing Atrial Fibrillation (D2AF): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a common cause of stroke and other morbidity. Adequate treatment with anticoagulants reduces the risk of stroke by 60 %. Early detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation could prevent strokes. Atrial fibrillation is often asymptomatic and/or paroxysmal. Case-finding with pulse palpation is an effective screening method, but new methods for detecting atrial fibrillation have been developed. To detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ambulatory rhythm recording is needed. This study aims to determine the yield of case-finding for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients. In addition, it will determine the diagnostic accuracy of three different case-finding methods. METHODS/DESIGN: In a multicenter cluster randomised controlled trial, we compare an enhanced protocol for case-finding of atrial fibrillation with usual care. We recruit 96 practices. We include primary care patients aged 65 years or older not diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. Within each practice, a cluster of 200 patients is randomly selected and marked. Practices are evenly randomised to intervention or control group. The allocation is not blinded. When a marked patient visits an intervention practice, the case-finding protocol starts, consisting of: pulse palpation, sphygmomanometer with automated atrial fibrillation detection and handheld single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). All patients with at least 1 positive test and a random sample of patients with negative tests receive a 12-lead ECG. Patients without atrial fibrillation on the 12-lead ECG, undergo additional continuous Holter and use the handheld single-lead ECG at home for 2 weeks. Control practices provide care as usual. The study runs for 1 year in each cluster. The primary outcomes are the difference in detection rate of new AF between intervention and control practices and the accuracy of three index tests to diagnose AF. We are currently recruiting practices. The 'Detecting and Diagnosing Atrial Fibrillation' (D2AF) study will determine the yield of an intensive case-finding strategy and the diagnostic accuracy of three index tests to diagnose atrial fibrillation in a primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4914 , registered on the 25 of November 2014.

Diagnostic prediction models for suspected pulmonary embolism: systematic review and independent external validation in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To validate all diagnostic prediction models for ruling out pulmonary embolism that are easily applicable in primary care. DESIGN: Systematic review followed by independent external validation study to assess transportability of retrieved models to primary care medicine. SETTING: 300 general practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient dataset of 598 patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discriminative ability of all models retrieved by systematic literature search, assessed by calculation and comparison of C statistics. After stratification into groups with high and low probability of pulmonary embolism according to pre-specified model cut-offs combined with qualitative D-dimer test, sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (overall proportion of patients with low probability of pulmonary embolism), and failure rate (proportion of pulmonary embolism cases in group of patients with low probability) were calculated for all models. RESULTS: Ten published prediction models for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were found. Five of these models could be validated in the primary care dataset: the original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified revised Geneva models. Discriminative ability was comparable for all models (range of C statistic 0.75-0.80). Sensitivity ranged from 88% (simplified revised Geneva) to 96% (simplified Wells) and specificity from 48% (revised Geneva) to 53% (simplified revised Geneva). Efficiency of all models was between 43% and 48%. Differences were observed between failure rates, especially between the simplified Wells and the simplified revised Geneva models (failure rates 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 3.3%) and 3.1% (1.4% to 5.9%), respectively; absolute difference -1.98% (-3.33% to -0.74%)). Irrespective of the diagnostic prediction model used, three patients were incorrectly classified as having low probability of pulmonary embolism; pulmonary embolism was diagnosed only after referral to secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: Five diagnostic pulmonary embolism prediction models that are easily applicable in primary care were validated in this setting. Whereas efficiency was comparable for all rules, the Wells rules gave the best performance in terms of lower failure rates.

Alternative diagnoses in patients in whom the GP considered the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary embolism (PE) often presents with nonspecific symptoms and may be an easily missed diagnosis. When the differential diagnosis includes PE, an empirical list of frequently occurring alternative diagnoses could support the GP in diagnostic decision making. OBJECTIVES: To identify common alternative diagnoses in patients in whom the GP suspected PE but in whom PE could be ruled out. To investigate how the Wells clinical decision rule for PE combined with a point-of-care d-dimer test is associated with these alternative diagnoses. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the Amsterdam Maastricht Utrecht Study on thrombo-Embolism (Amuse-2) study, which validated the Wells PE rule combined with point-of-care d-dimer testing in primary care. All 598 patients had been referred to and diagnosed in secondary care. All diagnostic information was retrieved from the GPs' medical records. RESULTS: In 516 patients without PE, the most frequent alternative diagnoses were nonspecific thoracic pain/dyspnoea (42.6%), pneumonia (13.0%), myalgia (11.8%), asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.8%), panic disorder/hyperventilation (4.1%) and respiratory tract infection (2.3%). Pneumonia occurred almost as frequent as PE. Patients without PE with either a positive Wells rule (>4) or a positive d-dimer test, were more often (odds ratio = 2.1) diagnosed with a clinically relevant disease than patients with a negative Wells rule and negative d-dimer test. CONCLUSION: In primary care patients suspected of PE, the most common clinically relevant diagnosis other than PE was pneumonia. A positive Wells rule or a positive d-dimer test are not only positively associated with PE, but also with a high probability of other clinically relevant disease.

Family history tools for primary care are not ready yet to be implemented. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Taking the family history helps the doctor in estimating the probability of disease in individual patients. However, significant barriers to obtaining adequate family history information remain. Tools overcoming these barriers might support family physicians in this task. OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the characteristics of existing family history tools and discuss their potential use in primary care. METHODS: Studies were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase and Cinahl from 1 January 2002 until May 2012. All authors independently screened studies and included original research papers on family history tools of which assessment had been performed or was planned. We reviewed diseases for which family history information was collected, study setting, tool design, type of family history collection, presence of risk-assessment and recommendations for management, and assessment (categorized as either validity or benefit). RESULTS: Eighteen family history tools were identified: six generic, two on cardiovascular disease and ten on cancer. The six generic tools were partly tested in primary care (3x), are mainly computerized (4x), rarely include management recommendations for the physician (1x) and were partly validated against a reference standard (genetic counsellor) (3x, plus one planned). Of the five specific tools studied in primary care, none was validated. No family history tool allows electronic transfer of family history information to electronic medical record systems. Use of a family history tool improved identification of patients at risk for disease. CONCLUSION: Several promising family history tools for primary care have been developed but large-scale implementation cannot be advised yet, based on available validation studies.

Safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism using the Wells rule and qualitative D-dimer testing in primary care: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of the Wells clinical decision rule combined with a point of care D-dimer test to safely exclude pulmonary embolism in primary care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care across three different regions of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Utrecht). PARTICIPANTS: 598 adults with suspected pulmonary embolism in primary care. INTERVENTIONS: Doctors scored patients according to the seven variables of the Wells rule and carried out a qualitative point of care D-dimer test. All patients were referred to secondary care and diagnosed according to local protocols. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed or refuted on the basis of a composite reference standard, including spiral computed tomography and three months' follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), proportion of patients at low risk (efficiency), number of missed patients with pulmonary embolism in low risk category (false negative rate), and the presence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, based on the composite reference standard, including events during the follow-up period of three months. RESULTS: Pulmonary embolism was present in 73 patients (prevalence 12.2%). On the basis of a threshold Wells score of ≤ 4 and a negative qualitative D-dimer test result, 272 of 598 patients were classified as low risk (efficiency 45.5%). Four cases of pulmonary embolism were observed in these 272 patients (false negative rate 1.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.4% to 3.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of this combined diagnostic approach was 94.5% (86.6% to 98.5%) and 51.0% (46.7% to 55.4%), respectively. CONCLUSION: A Wells score of ≤ 4 combined with a negative qualitative D-dimer test result can safely and efficiently exclude pulmonary embolism in primary care.

Rimonabant improves obesity but not the overall cardiovascular risk and quality of life; results from CARDIO-REDUSE (CArdiometabolic Risk reDuctIOn by Rimonabant: the Effectiveness in Daily practice and its USE).

BACKGROUND: Rimonabant treatment, examined in Phase 3 trials, showed improvement of cardiovascular risk factors in obese patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this Phase 4 trial is to assess the effectiveness of rimonabant plus lifestyle counselling when used in daily practice, namely in the general practice. The hypothesis was that the effectiveness in Phase 4 would be smaller than the efficacy in Phase 3 due to different patient selection and treatment conditions. At the end of this trial, rimonabant was suspended of all markets due to psychiatric side effects. METHODS: This trial randomly assigned 222 patients with enlarged waist circumferences and hyperglycaemia or diabetes mellitus type 2, recruited from Dutch general practices, to double-blinded therapy with either placebo or rimonabant (20 mg/day) for 1 year in addition to lifestyle counselling. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the rimonabant group showed significant improvements in body weight, body mass index, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and the main outcome waist circumference after 1 year. The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study risk calculation showed no significant difference. The rimonabant group showed statistically deterioration, compared with the placebo group, in the quality of life in the EuroQol and two domains of the SF-36: role limitations due to physical health problems and bodily pain. CONCLUSIONS: The unique real life data of this Phase 4 trial showed that the effectiveness of rimonabant in daily practice is indeed lower than in controlled circumstances (Phase 3). Rimonabant treatment showed improvement of obesity and the HDL cholesterol, but had no positive effect on the other cardiovascular risk factors and the quality of life.

Effects of a brief cardiovascular prevention program by a health advisor in primary care; the 'Hartslag Limburg' project, a cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine in primary care patients at high risk for a cardiovascular event, the effects on biomedical risk factors for and incidence of cardiovascular events, of a brief cardiovascular prevention program executed by a health advisor. DESIGN: cluster randomized controlled trial with 1275 patients (24 general practices) in and around Maastricht, the Netherlands (1999-2004). INTERVENTION: health advisors were to complete computerized cardiovascular risk profiles, provide multi-factorial tailored health education and advice, and communicate with GP's to optimize treatment. OUTCOME: differences in changes in risk factors between baseline and follow up at 6, 18, and 36 months and incidence of cardiovascular events at 36 months. PROCESS: Because of logistic reasons risk profiles were put on paper instead of in the computerized patient files. On average patients attended 2.3 counseling sessions. Interaction with GPs was less productive than expected. OUTCOME: Effect after six months on BMI (-0.20 kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.38 to -0.01, p=0.039), Cohen's d: -0.18), and after 18 months on HDL-cholesterol (+0.05 mmol/l (95% CI +0.01 to +0.09, p=0.014), Cohen's d: 0.14). No other (subgroup) effects were found. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of clinically meaningful effects, implementation of this intervention in its present form is not justified.