Assessing the Burden of Unnecessary Central Venous Catheters in Patients on Medical-Surgical Floors

Project goals: Our project goals are to: a) assess the burden of unnecessary PICCs and other non-tunneled central lines on med-surg units at TJUH and b) understand the underlying reasons behind the problem. In the first phase of our project we conducted an audit of med-surg unit PICCs and other non-tunneled central lines with the goal of obtaining a rough estimate of the number of line days that are unnecessary. SMART AIM By December 31, 2017, the TJUH medical-surgical floors will reduce the number of unnecessary PICC lines by 30%.https://jdc.jefferson.edu/patientsafetyposters/1024/thumbnail.jp

Assessing a 600-mg Loading Dose of Clopidogrel 24 Hours Prior to Pipeline Embolization Device Treatment

Background: Clopidogrel/aspirin antiplatelet therapy routinely is administered 7-10 days before pipeline aneurysm treatment. Our study assessed the safety and efficacy of a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel 24 hours before Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) treatment. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients treated with PED from October 2010 to May 2016. A total of 39.7% (n = 158) of patients were dispensed a loading dose of 650 mg of aspirin plus at least 600 mg of clopidogrel 24 hours preceding PED deployment, compared to 60.3% (n = 240) of patients who received 81-325 mg of aspirin daily for 10 days with 75 mg of clopidogrel daily preprocedurally. The mean follow-up was 15.8 months (standard deviation [SD] 12.4 months). modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was registered before the discharge and at each follow-up visit. To control confounding, we used multivariable logistic regression and propensity score conditioning. Results: Of 398 patients, the proportion of female patients was ~16.5% (41/240) in both groups and shared the same mean of age ~56.46 years. ~12.2% (mean = 0.09; SD = 0.30) had a subarachnoid hemorrhage. 92% (mean = 0.29; SD = 0.70) from the pretreatment group and 85.7% (mean = 0.44; SD = 0.91) of the bolus group had a mRS ≤2. In multivariate analysis, bolus did not affect the mRS score, P = 0.24. Seven patients had a long-term recurrence, 2 (0.83%; mean = 0.01; SD = 0.10) of which from the pretreatment group. In a multivariable logistic regression, bolus was not associated with a long-term recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-13.50; P = 0.52) or with thromboembolic accidents (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.03; P = 0.83) nor with hemorrhagic events (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97-1.03; P = 0.99). Three patients died: one who received a bolus had an acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. The mean mortality rate was parallel in both groups ~0.25 (SD = 0.16). Bolus was not associated with mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.26-4.65; P = 0.89). The same associations were present in propensity score-adjusted models. Conclusions: In a cohort receiving PED, a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel should be safe and efficacious in those off the standard protocol or showing \u3c30% platelet inhibition before treatment

The Use of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in Pipeline Flow Diversion

Background: Despite the routine clopidogrel/aspirin anti-platelet therapy, complications like thromboembolism, continue to be encountered with PED. We studied the safety and the efficacy of prasugrel in the management of clopidogrel non-responders treated for intracranial aneurysms. Methods: 437 consecutive neurosurgery patients were identified between January 2011 and May 2016. Patients allergic or having \u3c30% platelet-inhibition with a daily 75mg of clopidogrel were dispensed 10mg of prasugrel daily (n=20) or 90mg of ticagrelor twice daily (n=2). The average follow-up was 15.8 months (SD=12.4 months). Patient clinical well being was evaluated with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) registered before the discharge and at each follow-up visit. To control confounding we used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression and propensity score conditioning. Results: 26 of 437(5.9%) patients (mean of age 56.3 years; 62 women [14,2%]) presented with a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. 1 patient was allergic to clopidogrel and prasugrel simultaneously. All the patients receiving prasugrel (n=22) had a mRS\u3c2 on their latest follow-up visit (mean=0.67; SD=1.15). In a multivariate analysis, clopidogrel did not affect the mRS on last follow-up, p=0.14. Multivariable logistic regression showed that clopidogrel was not associated with an increased long-term recurrence rate (odds ratio[OR], 0.17; 95%Confidence Interval [CI95%], 0.01-2.70; p=0.21) neither with an increased thromboembolic accident rate (OR, 0.46; CI95%, 0.12-1.67; p=0.36) nor with an increased hemorrhagic event rate (OR, 0.39; CI95%,0.91-1.64; p=0.20). None of the patients receiving prasugrel deceased or had a long-term recurrence nor a hemorrhagic event, only 1 patient suffered from mild aphasia subsequent to a thromboembolic event. 3 patients on clopidogrel passed during the study: (2) from acute SAH and (1) from intra-parenchymal hemorrhage. Clopidogrel was not associated with an increased mortality rate (OR, 2.18; CI95%,0.11-43.27; p=0.61). The same associations were present in propensity score adjusted models. Conclusion: In a cohort of patients treated with PED for their intracranial aneurysms, prasugrel (10mg/day) is a safe alternative to clopidogrel resistant, allergic or non-responders

Sources of Measurement Error in an ECG Examination: Implications for Performance-Based Assessments

Objective: To assess the sources of measurement error in an electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation examination given in a third-year internal medicine clerkship. Design: Three successive generalizability studies were conducted. 1) Multiple faculty rated student responses to a previously administered exam. 2) The rating criteria were revised and study 1 was repeated. 3) The examination was converted into an extended matching format including multiple cases with the same underlying cardiac problem. Results: The discrepancies among raters (main effects and interactions) were dwarfed by the error associated with case specificity. The largest source of the differences among raters was in rating student errors of commission rather than student errors of omission. Revisions in the rating criteria may have helped increase inter-rater reliability slightly however, due to case specificity, it had little impact on the overall reliability of the exam. The third study indicated the majority of the variability in student performance across cases was in performance across cases within the same type of cardiac problem rather than between different types of cardiac problems. Conclusions: Case specificity was the overwhelming source of measurement error. The variation among cases came mainly from discrepancies in performance between examples of the same cardiac problem rather than from differences in performance across different types of cardiac problems. This suggests it is necessary to include a large number of cases even if the goal is to assess performance on only a few types of cardiac problems