Browsing by Author "Peterson, ED"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Bleeding risk with ischemic stroke therapy - Reply
    (JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 2012-10-03) Xian, Y; Liang, L; Peterson, ED
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    International comparisons of the management of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States: The MINAP/NICOR, SWEDEHEART/RIKS-HIA, and ACTION Registry-GWTG/NCDR registries.
    (Int J Cardiol, 2014-08-01) McNamara, RL; Chung, SC; Jernberg, T; Holmes, D; Roe, M; Timmis, A; James, S; Deanfield, J; Fonarow, GC; Peterson, ED; Jeppsson, A; Hemingway, H
    OBJECTIVES: To compare management of patients with acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in three developed countries with national ongoing registries. BACKGROUND: Results from clinical trials suggest significant variation in care across the world. However, international comparisons in "real world" registries are limited. METHODS: We compared the use of in-hospital procedures and discharge medications for patients admitted with NSTEMI from 2007 to 2010 using the unselective MINAP/NICOR [England and Wales (UK); n=137,009], the unselective SWEDEHEART/RIKS-HIA (Sweden; n=45,069), and the selective ACTION Registry-GWTG/NCDR [United States (US); n=147,438] clinical registries. RESULTS: Patients enrolled among the three registries were generally similar except those in the US who were younger but had higher rates of smoking, diabetes, hypertension, prior heart failure, and prior MI than in Sweden or in UK. Angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were performed more often in the US (76% and 44%) and Sweden (65% and 42%) relative to the UK (32% and 22%). Discharge betablockers were also prescribed more often in the US (89%) and Sweden (89%) than in the UK (76%). In contrast, discharge statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), and dual antiplatelet agents (among those not receiving PCI) were higher in the UK (92%, 79%, and 71%) than in the US (85%, 65%, 41%) and Sweden (81%, 69%, and 49%). CONCLUSIONS: The care for patients with NSTEMI differed substantially among the three countries. These differences in care among countries provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research as well as identify opportunities for global quality improvement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Risks of intracranial hemorrhage among patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving warfarin and treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator.
    (JAMA, 2012-06) Xian, Y; Liang, L; Smith, EE; Schwamm, LH; Reeves, MJ; Olson, DM; Hernandez, AF; Fonarow, GC; Peterson, ED
    Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is known to improve outcomes in ischemic stroke; however, patients receiving long-term chronic warfarin therapy may face an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage when treated with tPA. Although current guidelines endorse administering intravenous tPA to warfarin-treated patients if their international normalized ratio (INR) is 1.7 or lower, there are few data on safety of intravenous tPA in warfarin-treated patients in clinical practice.To determine the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) among patients with ischemic stroke treated with intravenous tPA who were receiving warfarin vs those who were not and to determine this risk as a function of INR.Observational study, using data from the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Registry, of 23,437 patients with ischemic stroke and with INR of 1.7 or lower, treated with intravenous tPA in 1203 registry hospitals from April 2009 through June 2011.Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary end points include life-threatening/serious systemic hemorrhage, any tPA complications, and in-hospital mortality.Overall, 1802 (7.7%) patients with stroke treated with tPA were receiving warfarin (median INR, 1.20; interquartile range [IQR], 1.07-1.40). Warfarin-treated patients were older, had more comorbid conditions, and had more severe strokes. The unadjusted sICH rate in warfarin-treated patients was higher than in non-warfarin-treated patients (5.7% vs 4.6%, P < .001), but these differences were not significantly different after adjustment for baseline clinical factors (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.82-1.25]). Similarly, there were no significant differences between warfarin-treated and non-warfarin-treated patients for serious systemic hemorrhage (0.9% vs 0.9%; adjusted OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.49-1.24]), any tPA complications (10.6% vs 8.4%; adjusted OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.93-1.29]), or in-hospital mortality (11.4% vs 7.9%; adjusted OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.79-1.13]). Among warfarin-treated patients with INRs of 1.7 or lower, the degree of anticoagulation was not statistically significantly associated with sICH risk (adjusted OR, 1.10 per 0.1-unit increase in INR [95% CI, 1.00-1.20]; P = .06).Among patients with ischemic stroke, the use of intravenous tPA among warfarin-treated patients (INR ≤1.7) was not associated with increased sICH risk compared with non-warfarin-treated patients.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Variability in performance measures for assessment of hypertension control.
    (Am Heart J, 2013-05) Navar-Boggan, AM; Shah, BR; Boggan, JC; Stafford, JA; Peterson, ED
    BACKGROUND: Definitions of multiple performance measures exist for the assessment of blood pressure control; however, limited data on how these technical variations may affect actual measured performance are available. METHODS: We evaluated patients with hypertension followed routinely by cardiologists at Duke University Health System from 2009 to 2010. Provider hypertension control was compared based on reading at the last clinic visit vs the average blood pressure across all visits. The impact of home blood pressure measurements and patient exclusions endorsed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement were evaluated using medical record reviews. RESULTS: Among 5,552 hypertensive patients, the rate of blood pressure control based on last clinic visit was 69.1%; however, significant clinic-to-clinic variability was seen in serial clinic blood pressure measurements in individual patients (average 18 mm Hg). As a result, provider performance ratings varied considerably depending on whether a single reading or average blood pressure reading was used. The inclusion of home blood pressure measurements resulted in modestly higher rates of blood pressure control performance (+6% overall). Similarly, excluding patients who met guideline-recommended exclusion criteria increased blood pressure control rates only slightly (+3% overall). In contrast, excluding patients who were on 2 or more antihypertensive medications would have raised blood pressure control rates to 96% overall. CONCLUSION: Depending on definitions used, overall and provider-specific blood pressure control rates can vary considerably. Technical aspects of blood pressure performance measures may affect perceived quality gaps and comparative provider ratings.