SETTING: Five medical and cardiology wards of a tertiary care center in Malaysia.
SUBJECTS: Five hundred cardiac inpatients, who received ACEIs concomitantly with other interacting drugs.
METHOD: This was a prospective cohort study of 500 patients with cardiovascular diseases admitted to Penang Hospital between January to August 2006, who received ACEIs concomitantly with other interacting drugs. ACEI-drug interactions of clinical significance were identified using available drug information resources. Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) was used to assess the causality of association between ACEI-drug interactions and the adverse outcome (hyperkalemia).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Hyperkalemia as an adverse clinical outcome of the interaction was identified from laboratory investigations.
RESULTS: Of the 489 patients included in the analysis, 48 (9.8%) had hyperkalemia thought to be associated with ACEI-drug interactions. Univariate analysis using binary logistic regression revealed that advanced age (60 years or more), and taking more than 15 medications were independent risk factors significantly associated with hyperkalemia. However, current and previous smoking history appeared to be a protective factor. Risk factors identified as predictors of hyperkalemia secondary to ACEI-drug interactions by multi-logistic regression were: advanced age (adjusted OR 2.3, CI 1.07-5.01); renal disease (adjusted OR 4.7, CI 2.37-9.39); hepatic disease (adjusted OR 5.2, CI 1.08-25.03); taking 15-20 medications (adjusted OR 4.4, CI 2.08-9.19); and taking 21-26 medications (adjusted OR 9.0, CI 1.64-49.74).
CONCLUSION: Cardiac patients receiving ACEIs concomitantly with potentially interacting drugs are at high risk of experiencing hyperkalemia. Old age, renal disease, hepatic disease, and receiving large number of medications are factors that may significantly increase their vulnerability towards this adverse outcome; thus, frequent monitoring is advocated.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.
OBJECTIVES: This paper presents consensus work conducted with an international group of expert stroke recovery and rehabilitation researchers, clinicians, and people living with stroke to identify and define criteria and measurable indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence (CoCE) in stroke recovery and rehabilitation. These were intentionally developed to be ambitious and internationally relevant, regardless of a country's development or income status, to drive global improvement in stroke services.
METHODS: Criteria and specific measurable indicators for CoCE were collaboratively developed by an international panel of stroke recovery and rehabilitation experts from 10 countries and consumer groups from 5 countries.
RESULTS: The criteria and associated indicators, ranked in order of importance, focused upon (i) optimal outcome, (ii) research culture, (iii) working collaboratively with people living with stroke, (iv) knowledge exchange, (v) leadership, (vi) education, and (vii) advocacy. Work is currently underway to user-test the criteria and indicators in 14 rehabilitation centers in 10 different countries.
CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that use of the criteria and indicators could support individual organizations to further develop their services and, more widely, provide a mechanism by which clinical excellence can be articulated and shared to generate global improvements in stroke care.