Longer waiting time for surgery was not associated with mortality after adjusting for patient risk factors, and taking into account hospital level variability. Hospital level variability was statistically significant, and was partially explained by the total volume of hospital surgical activity. The decrease in mortality between 1996 and 2000 was confirmed by multivariate models.

Objective. To estimate the iatrogenic costs of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the primary and secondary care claims data registered in the regional health service database in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy). The study cohort comprised all persons (265,114) who received at least one prescription for any NSAID between August 1996 and July 1998. The outcomes of interest were the costs of medical interventions for upper gastrointestinal disorders following NSAID treatment (i.e., prescriptions for gastroprotective drugs, hospitalizations, and outpatient diagnostic procedures). Results. The study population received a total of 660,311 NSAID prescriptions for a cost of 6,587,533 Euros (€) (€0.53 per treatment day). The cost of medical interventions for gastrointestinal events added 58% to the cost of NSAID therapy (€0.31 per NSAID treatment day, up to 64% directly attributable to NSAID use). The iatrogenic costs were generated by 12.4% of the patients, 77% of whom had a positive history of gastrointestinal disorders and 82% of whom were older than 50 years. Co-prescriptions for gastroprotective drugs accounted for 78.6% of the overall iatrogenic costs. The iatrogenic costs did not differ between cyclooxygenase (COX) nonselective and COX-2 preferential drugs within strata of age and prior history of gastrointestinal disorders, but were significantly higher for the parenteral NSAIDs than the oral or rectal formulations. Conclusions. In Italy, the iatrogenic costs of NSAID therapy add 58% to the cost of NSAID treatment; most of the cost is generated by co-prescriptions of gastroprotective drugs to elderly NSAID users or patients with a history of gastrointestinal disorders.

BackgroundCaesarean delivery (CD) rates are commonly used as an indicator of quality in obstetric care and risk adjustment evaluation is recommended to assess inter-institutional variations. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the Ten Group classification system (TGCS) can be used in case-mix adjustment.MethodsStandardized data on 15,255 deliveries from 11 different regional centers were prospectively collected. Crude Risk Ratios of CDs were calculated for each center. Two multiple logistic regression models were herein considered by using: Model 1- maternal (age, Body Mass Index), obstetric variables (gestational age, fetal presentation, single or multiple, previous scar, parity, neonatal birth weight) and presence of risk factors; Model 2- TGCS either with or without maternal characteristics and presence of risk factors. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of the multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of each model. The null hypothesis that Areas under ROC Curve (AUC) were not different from each other was verified with a Chi Square test and post hoc pairwise comparisons by using a Bonferroni correction.ResultsCrude evaluation of CD rates showed all centers had significantly higher Risk Ratios than the referent. Both multiple logistic regression models reduced these variations. However the two methods ranked institutions differently: model 1 and model 2 (adjusted for TGCS) identified respectively nine and eight centers with significantly higher CD rates than the referent with slightly different AUCs (0.8758 and 0.8929 respectively). In the adjusted model for TGCS and maternal characteristics/presence of risk factors, three centers had CD rates similar to the referent with the best AUC (0.9024).ConclusionsThe TGCS might be considered as a reliable variable to adjust CD rates. The addition of maternal characteristics and risk factors to TGCS substantially increase the predictive discrimination of the risk adjusted model.

Background Estimation of the balance between subendocardial oxygen supply and demand could be a useful parameter to assess the risk of myocardial ischemia. Evaluation of the subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR, also known as Buckberg index) by invasive recording of left ventricular and aortic pressure curves represents a valid method to estimate the degree of myocardial perfusion relative to left ventricular workload. However, routine clinical use of this parameter requires its noninvasive estimation and the demonstration of its reliability. Methods and Results Arterial applanation tonometry allows a noninvasive estimation of SEVR as the ratio of the areas directly beneath the central aortic pressure curves obtained during diastole (myocardial oxygen supply) and during systole (myocardial oxygen demand). However, this “traditional” method does not account for the intra‐ventricular diastolic pressure and proper allocation to systole and diastole of left ventricular isometric contraction and relaxation, respectively, resulting in an overestimation of the SEVR values. These issues are considered in the novel method for SEVR assessment tested in this study. SEVR values estimated with carotid tonometry by "traditional” and "new” method were compared with those evaluated invasively by cardiac catheterization. The “traditional” method provided significantly higher SEVR values than the reference invasive SEVR: average of differences±SD= 44±11% (limits of agreement: 23% – 65%). The noninvasive “new” method showed a much better agreement with the invasive determination of SEVR: average of differences±SD= 0±8% (limits of agreement: ‐15% to 16%). Conclusions Carotid applanation tonometry provides valid noninvasive SEVR values only when all the main factors determining myocardial supply and demand flow are considered.

No abstract