A pragmatic approach for mortality prediction after surgery in infective endocarditis: optimizing and refining EuroSCORE

OBJECTIVE

To simplify and optimize the ability of EuroSCORE I and II to predict early mortality after surgery for infective endocarditis (IE).

METHODS

Multicentre retrospective study (n = 775). Simplified scores, eliminating irrelevant variables, and new specific scores, adding specific IE variables, were created. The performance of the original, recalibrated and specific EuroSCOREs was assessed by Brier score, C-statistic and calibration plot in bootstrap samples. The Net Reclassification Index was quantified.

RESULTS

Recalibrated scores including age, previous cardiac surgery, critical preoperative state, New York Heart Association >I, and emergent surgery (EuroSCORE I and II); renal failure and pulmonary hypertension (EuroSCORE I); and urgent surgery (EuroSCORE II) performed better than the original EuroSCOREs (Brier original and recalibrated: EuroSCORE I: 0.1770 and 0.1667; EuroSCORE II: 0.2307 and 0.1680). Performance improved with the addition of fistula, staphylococci and mitral location (EuroSCORE I and II) (Brier specific: EuroSCORE I 0.1587, EuroSCORE II 0.1592). Discrimination improved in specific models (C-statistic original, recalibrated and specific: EuroSCORE I: 0.7340, 0.7471 and 0.7728; EuroSCORE II: 0.7442, 0.7423 and 0.7700). Calibration improved in both EuroSCORE I models (intercept 0.295, slope 0.829 (original); intercept -0.094, slope 0.888 (recalibrated); intercept -0.059, slope 0.925 (specific)) but only in specific EuroSCORE II model (intercept 2.554, slope 1.114 (original); intercept -0.260, slope 0.703 (recalibrated); intercept -0.053, slope 0.930 (specific)). Net Reclassification Index was 5.1% and 20.3% for the specific EuroSCORE I and II.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of simplified EuroSCORE I and EuroSCORE II models in IE with the addition of specific variables may lead to simpler and more accurate models.

Risk factors for exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Although acute exacerbations are key events in the progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), their frequency and the factors associated with acute exacerbation are not fully known.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and risk factors of very frequent exacerbations in COPD (⩾3 per year).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a cohort study to analyse acute exacerbation and associated factors in 512 primary care patients during a 2-year follow-up, variables of interest were collected for each patient. Acute exacerbation was defined as an event that required antibiotics and/or systemic steroids (moderate) or hospital admission (severe). Odds ratios (OR) were used to determine factors associated with exacerbation.

RESULTS

Incidence of exacerbation was 61.7% in the first year of follow-up and 63.9% in the second year. During the first year, the factors associated with very frequent exacerbation were previous hospital admission (OR 1.69), dyspnoea (moderate [OR 2.86] and severe-very severe [OR 5.83]) and the Charlson Index (OR 1.19); during the second year, associated factors were female sex (OR 4.17), history of previous hospital admissions (OR 2.90), smoking (smoker/ex-smoker) (OR 2.00) and forced vital capacity (OR 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of exacerbation is high in COPD patients. Previous admission for exacerbation is a strong predictor and can identify patients at risk.

The profile of general practitioners (GPs) who publish in selected family practice journals

Background

Providing support for research is one of the key issues in the ongoing attempts to improve Primary Care. However, when patient care takes up a significant part of a GP's time, conducting research is difficult. In this study we examine the working conditions and profile of GPs who publish in three leading medical journals and propose possible remedial policy actions.

Findings

The authors of all articles published in 2006 and 2007 in three international Family Medicine journals - Annals of Family Medicine, Family Practice, and Journal of Family Practice - were contacted by E-mail. They were asked to complete a questionnaire investigating the following variables: availability of specific time for research, time devoted to research, number of patients attended, and university affiliation. Only GPs were included in the study. Three hundred and ten relevant articles published between 2006 and 2007 were identified and the authors contacted using a survey tool. 124 researchers responded to our questionnaire; 45% of respondents who were not GPs were excluded. On average GPs spent 2.52 days per week and 6.9 hours per day on patient care, seeing 45 patients per week. Seventy-five per cent of GPs had specific time assigned to research, on average 13 hours per week; 79% were affiliated to a university and 69% held teaching positions.

Conclusions

Most GPs who publish original articles in leading journals have time specifically assigned to research as part of their normal working schedule. They see a relatively small number of patients. Improving the working conditions of family physicians who intend to investigate is likely to lead to better research results.