Background and Purpose— There is no consensus on the comparative efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. To evaluate CAS versus CEA in asymptomatic patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods— We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing CAS to CEA in asymptomatic patients using a pre-specified protocol. Two independent reviewers identified randomized controlled trials meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria, extracted relevant data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random effects models with inverse-variance weighting were used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing the incidences of periprocedural and long-term outcomes between CAS and CEA. Results— We identified 11 reports of 5 randomized controlled trials for inclusion (n=3019) asymptomatic patients. The pooled incidences of any periprocedural stroke (RR, 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–3.40), periprocedural nondisabling stroke (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.98–3.89), and any periprocedural stroke or death (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.95–3.11) trended toward an increased risk after CAS. We could not rule out clinically significant differences between treatments for long-term stroke (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76–2.03) and the composite outcome of periprocedural stroke, death or myocardial infarction, or long-term ipsilateral stroke (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70–1.21). Conclusions— Although uncertainty surrounds the long-term outcomes of CAS versus CEA, the potential for increased risks of periprocedural stroke and periprocedural stroke or death with CAS suggests that CEA is the preferred option for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

Key PointsQuestionDoes an electronic medication reconciliation tool reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events and other adverse outcomes in the 30 days after discharge?FindingsIn this cluster randomized trial that included 3491 patients discharged from 2 medical units and 2 surgical units of 1 academic hospital, electronic medication reconciliation reduced medication discrepancies but had no effect on adverse drug events (primary outcome), emergency department visits, or readmission in the 30 days after discharge.MeaningHospital accreditation requirements for medication reconciliation should be revised to focus on interventions that will reduce the risk of adverse events for patients with multiple changes to their community medication.

ObjectivesWe used an international pharmacosurveillance network to estimate the rate and characteristics of antidepressant use in older adults in countries with more conservative (UK) and liberal depression guidelines (Canada, USA).SettingElectronic health records and population-based administrative data from six jurisdictions in four countries (UK, Taiwan, USA and Canada).ParticipantsA historical cohort of older adults (≥65 years) who had a new episode of antidepressant use between 2009 and 2014.Outcome measuresThe age and sex-standardised cumulative incidence of new episodes of antidepressant use in older adults was measured. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the proportion of new users by the antidepressant prescribed, therapeutic class, potential treatment indication and country, as well as the characteristics of the first treatment episode (standardised daily doses, duration and changes).ResultsThe incidence of antidepressant use between 2009 and 2014 varied from 4.7% (Montreal and Quebec City) to 18.6% (Taiwan). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the most commonly used class in the UK (48.8%) and Taiwan (52.4%) compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in North American jurisdictions (42.3%–53.3%). Chronic pain was the most common potential treatment indication (41.2%–68.2%). Among users with chronic pain, TCAs were used most frequently in the UK and Taiwan (55.2%–60.4%), whereas SSRIs were used most frequently in North America (33.5%–46.4%). Treatment was longer (252–525 vs 169–437 days), standardised doses were higher (0.7–1.3 vs 0.5–1.0) and treatment was more likely to be changed (31%–46% vs 21%–34%) among patients with depression (9.1%–43%) than those with chronic pain.ConclusionAntidepressant use in older adults varied 24-fold by country, with the UK, which has the most conservative treatment guidelines, being among the lowest. Chronic pain was the most common potential treatment indication. Evaluation of real-world risks of TCAs is a priority for future research, given high rates of use and the potential for increased toxicity in older adults because of potent anticholinergic effects.

BackgroundStudies have suggested that complete revascularization is superior to culprit‐only revascularization for the treatment of enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. However, the optimal timing of complete revascularization remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction or non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease.Methods and ResultsWe systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage revascularization in patients with enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at longest follow‐up. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects models. Four randomized controlled trials (n=838) were included in our meta‐analysis. The risk of unplanned repeat revascularization at longest follow‐up was significantly lower in patients randomized to single‐stage complete revascularization (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.99). Results also suggest a trend towards lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events for patients randomized to single‐stage revascularization at 6 months (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.11) and at longest follow‐up (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52–1.20). Risks of mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction at longest follow‐up were also lower with single‐stage revascularization, but 95% CIs were wide and included unity.ConclusionsOur results suggest that single‐stage complete revascularization is safe. There also appears to be a trend towards lower long‐term risks of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events; however, additional randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the potential benefits of single‐stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.