Publications

BACKGROUND

Tandem colonoscopy is regarded as the reference standard for the evaluation of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) during colonoscopy. Pooled results from previous tandem studies yield AMRs of 22%. The AMR of trainees is important to estimate the number of colonoscopies required to develop competence in screening for colorectal neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the ADR and AMR of trainees as a function of experience.

METHODS

Prospective tandem colonoscopy study at an academic VA medical center. A trainee initially attempted colonoscopy. If the trainee was able to intubate the cecum, the trainee performed the withdrawal, and the colonoscopy was then repeated by the attending physician to assess the AMR.

RESULTS

Twelve trainee endoscopists were included in the study. Trainees had between 0 and 33 months of previous endoscopic experience and had done between 0 and 605 previous colonoscopies. A total of 230 patients were evaluated for the study, and 218 patients were enrolled. Complete tandem colonoscopy was performed in 147 patients. There was a 54% ADR. The mean (standard deviation) size of the adenomas in the cohort was 5.9 (5.3) mm. Significant variables in multivariate logistic regression analysis for missed adenomas were trainee experience (P = .011) and patient age (P < .001). The AMR decreased with increasing experience, and it is estimated that 450 colonoscopies are required to attain AMRs of less than 25% in a 60-year-old patient.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study; the attending physician performing the second pass was not blinded to the first pass. The AMR was only analyzed for cases in which the trainee was able to reach the cecum with no or minimal assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our tandem colonoscopy study demonstrates that the AMR decreases as the experience of trainees increases and is a late competency attained during training. Future training may need to incorporate these findings to serve as a basis for determining appropriate training guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between overuse of healthcare services and geographic variations in medical care.

DESIGN

Systematic Review.

DATA SOURCES

Articles published in Medline between 1978, the year of publication of the first framework to measure quality, and January 1, 2009.

STUDY SELECTION

Four investigators screened 114,830 titles and 2 investigators screened all selected abstracts and articles for possible inclusion and extracted all data.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data on rates of overuse in different geographic areas. We also extracted data on underuse, if available, for the same population in which overuse was measured.

RESULTS

Five papers examined the relationship between geographic variations and overuse of healthcare services. One study in 2008 compared the appropriateness of coronary angiography (CA) for acute myocardial infarction in high-cost areas versus low cost areas in the Medicare population and found largely similar rates of inappropriateness (12.2% vs. 16.2%). A study in 2000 using national data concluded that overuse of CA explained little of the geographic variations in the use of this procedure in the Medicare program. An older study of Medicare patients found similar rates of inappropriate use of CA (15% to 17% vs. 18%), endoscopy (15% vs. 18% 19%), and carotid endarterectomy (29% vs. 30%) in low-use and high-use regions. A small area reanalysis of data from this study of 3 procedures found no evidence of a relationship between inappropriate use of procedures and volume in 23 adjacent counties of California. Another 2008 study found that inappropriate chemotherapy for stage I cancer was less common in low-cost areas compared with high-cost areas (3.1% vs. 6.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence does not lend support to the hypothesis that inappropriate use of procedures is a major source of geographic variations in intensity and/or costs of care. More research is needed to improve our understanding of the relationship between geographic variations and the quality of care.

BACKGROUND

Adenosine exerts actions in multiple organ systems, and adenosine receptors are a therapeutic target in many development programmes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the safety of rolofylline, an adenosine A(1)-receptor antagonist, in patients with acute heart failure.

METHODS

The effect of rolofylline was investigated in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Intravenous rolofylline 30 mg or placebo was infused over 4 hours daily for up to 3 days. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were recorded from baseline through 7 and 14 days, respectively, and clinical events were adjudicated through 60 days.

RESULTS

Of 2033 patients enrolled, 2002 received study drug randomized 2 : 1 to rolofylline or placebo. Rolofylline and placebo were associated with a similar risk of pre-specified groups of AEs or SAEs, other than selected neurological events. Investigator-reported seizures occurred in 11 (0.8%) rolofylline-treated patients and zero patients receiving placebo (p = 0.02). Stroke occurred in 21 (1.6%) patients assigned to rolofylline compared with 3 (0.5%) placebo-treated patients through 60 days with a greater risk for stroke in the rolofylline group (hazard ratio 3.49; 95% CI 1.04, 11.71; p = 0.043). There was no temporal relation to rolofylline administration and no specific stroke subtype or clinical characteristics that predicted stroke in the rolofylline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rolofylline treatment was associated with an increased seizure rate, an anticipated complication of A(1)-receptor antagonists. An unanticipated, disproportionate increase in strokes in the rolofylline-treated patients emerged, although no clear temporal relation, aetiology, stroke subtype or interacting factor suggestive of a causal mechanism was identified. Further research into stroke as a potential complication of adenosine-modulating therapies is required. Additionally, this study underscores the value of longer follow-up durations for AEs, even for agents with short treatment periods, such as in acute heart failure.