Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, peak postoperative hsTnT during the first 3 days after surgery was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Elevated postoperative hsTnT without an ischemic feature was also associated with 30-day mortality.

Objectives To identify factors that differentiate between effective and ineffective computerised clinical decision support systems in terms of improvements in the process of care or in patient outcomes.Design Meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources A database of features and effects of these support systems derived from 162 randomised controlled trials identified in a recent systematic review. Trialists were contacted to confirm the accuracy of data and to help prioritise features for testing.Main outcome measures "Effective" systems were defined as those systems that improved primary (or 50% of secondary) reported outcomes of process of care or patient health. Simple and multiple logistic regression models were used to test characteristics for association with system effectiveness with several sensitivity analyses.Results Systems that presented advice in electronic charting or order entry system interfaces were less likely to be effective (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.80). Systems more likely to succeed provided advice for patients in addition to practitioners (2.77, 1.07 to 7.17), required practitioners to supply a reason for over-riding advice (11.23, 1.98 to 63.72), or were evaluated by their developers (4.35, 1.66 to 11.44). These findings were robust across different statistical methods, in internal validation, and after adjustment for other potentially important factors. ConclusionsWe identified several factors that could partially explain why some systems succeed and others fail. Presenting decision support within electronic charting or order entry systems are associated with failure compared with other ways of delivering advice. Odds of success were greater for systems that required practitioners to provide reasons when over-riding advice than for systems that did not. Odds of success were also better for systems that provided advice concurrently to patients and practitioners. Finally, most systems were evaluated by their own developers and such evaluations were more likely to show benefit than those conducted by a third party.

Among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery, MINS is common and associated with substantial mortality.

No abstract

Background The effect on cardiovascular outcomes of withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in chronic users before noncardiac surgery is unknown. Methods In this international prospective cohort study, the authors analyzed data from 14,687 patients (including 4,802 angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker users) at least 45 yr old who had in-patient noncardiac surgery from 2007 to 2011. Using multivariable regression models, the authors studied the relationship between withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers and a primary composite outcome of all-cause death, stroke, or myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery at 30 days, with intraoperative and postoperative clinically important hypotension as secondary outcomes. Results Compared to patients who continued their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, the 1,245 (26%) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker users who withheld their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in the 24 h before surgery were less likely to suffer the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, stroke, or myocardial injury (150/1,245 [12.0%] vs. 459/3,557 [12.9%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96; P = 0.01) and intraoperative hypotension (adjusted relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.93; P < 0.001). The risk of postoperative hypotension was similar between the two groups (adjusted relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10; P = 0.36). Results were consistent across the range of preoperative blood pressures. The practice of withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers was only modestly correlated with patient characteristics and the type and timing of surgery. Conclusions Withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers before major noncardiac surgery was associated with a lower risk of death and postoperative vascular events. A large randomized trial is needed to confirm this finding. In the interim, clinicians should consider recommending that patients withhold angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers 24 h before surgery.

BackgroundThe use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve chronic disease management, which requires recurrent visits to multiple health professionals, ongoing disease and treatment monitoring, and patient behavior modification. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve the processes of chronic care (such as diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of disease) and associated patient outcomes (such as effects on biomarkers and clinical exacerbations).MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for potentially eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS was designed to support chronic disease management. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of relevant outcomes.ResultsOf 55 included trials, 87% (n = 48) measured system impact on the process of care and 52% (n = 25) of those demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Sixty-five percent (36/55) of trials measured impact on, typically, non-major (surrogate) patient outcomes, and 31% (n = 11) of those demonstrated benefits. Factors of interest to decision makers, such as cost, user satisfaction, system interface and feature sets, unique design and deployment characteristics, and effects on user workflow were rarely investigated or reported.ConclusionsA small majority (just over half) of CCDSSs improved care processes in chronic disease management and some improved patient health. Policy makers, healthcare administrators, and practitioners should be aware that the evidence of CCDSS effectiveness is limited, especially with respect to the small number and size of studies measuring patient outcomes.

BackgroundComputerised clinical decision support (CDS) can potentially better inform decisions, and it can help with the management of information overload. It is perceived to be a key component of a learning health care system. Despite its increasing implementation worldwide, it remains uncertain why the effect of CDS varies and which factors make CDS more effective.ObjectiveTo examine which factors make CDS strategies more effective on a number of outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice, patient outcome measures, economic measures, provider or patient satisfaction, and medical decision quality.MethodsWe identified randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies that directly compared CDS implementation with a given factor to CDS without that factor by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL and checking reference lists of relevant studies. We considered CDS with any objective for any condition in any healthcare setting. We included CDS interventions that were either displayed on screen or provided on paper and that were directed at healthcare professionals or targeted at both professionals and patients. The reviewers screened the potentially relevant studies in duplicate. They extracted data and assessed risk of bias in independent pairs or individually followed by a double check by another reviewer. We summarised results using medians and interquartile ranges and rated our certainty in the evidence using the GRADE system.ResultsWe identified 66 head-to-head trials that we synthesised across 14 comparisons of CDS intervention factors. Providing CDS automatically versus on demand led to large improvements in adherence. Displaying CDS on-screen versus on paper led to moderate improvements and making CDS more versus less patient-specific improved adherence modestly. When CDS interventions were combined with professional-oriented strategies, combined with patient-oriented strategies, or combined with staff-oriented strategies, then adherence improved slightly. Providing CDS to patients slightly increased adherence versus CDS aimed at the healthcare provider only. Making CDS advice more explicit and requiring users to respond to the advice made little or no difference. The CDS intervention factors made little or no difference to patient outcomes. The results for economic outcomes and satisfaction outcomes were sparse.ConclusionMultiple factors may affect the success of CDS interventions. CDS may be more effective when the advice is provided automatically and displayed on-screen and when the suggestions are more patient-specific. CDS interventions combined with other strategies probably also improves adherence. Providing CDS directly to patients may also positively affect adherence. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all factors.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42016033738Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0790-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundUnderuse and overuse of diagnostic tests have important implications for health outcomes and costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of diagnostic tests in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to assess whether computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are effective at improving ordering of tests for diagnosis, monitoring of disease, or monitoring of treatment. The outcome of interest was effect on the diagnostic test-ordering behavior of practitioners.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinical care settings. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS gave suggestions for ordering or performing a diagnostic procedure. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of test ordering outcomes.ResultsThirty-five studies were identified, with significantly higher methodological quality in those published after the year 2000 (p = 0.002). Thirty-three trials reported evaluable data on diagnostic test ordering, and 55% (18/33) of CCDSSs improved testing behavior overall, including 83% (5/6) for diagnosis, 63% (5/8) for treatment monitoring, 35% (6/17) for disease monitoring, and 100% (3/3) for other purposes. Four of the systems explicitly attempted to reduce test ordering rates and all succeeded. Factors of particular interest to decision makers include costs, user satisfaction, and impact on workflow but were rarely investigated or reported.ConclusionsSome CCDSSs can modify practitioner test-ordering behavior. To better inform development and implementation efforts, studies should describe in more detail potentially important factors such as system design, user interface, local context, implementation strategy, and evaluate impact on user satisfaction and workflow, costs, and unintended consequences.