Study design: Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting: Six academic medical centers.
Synopsis: Data from nearly 11,000 general medicine patients were included in the analysis. Overall, almost 18% of patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge.
In the prediction model derived and validated from the data, seven factors were significant predictors of readmission within 30 days of discharge: insurance status, marital status, having a regular healthcare provider, Charlson comorbidity index, SF 12 physical component score, one or more admissions within the last year, and current length of stay greater than two days. Points assigned from each significant predictor were used to create a risk score. The 5% of patients with risk scores of 25 and higher had 30-day readmission rates of approximately 30%, compared to readmission rates of approximately 16% in patients with scores of less than 25.
These results might not be generalizable to small, rural, nonacademic settings. Planned admissions could not be excluded from the data, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals could not be ascertained. Despite these limitations, this model is easier to use than prior models and relevant to a broad population of patients.
Bottom line: A simple prediction model using patient-level factors can be used to identify patients at higher risk of readmission within 30 days of discharge to home.
Citation: Hasan O, Meltzer DO, Shaykevich SA, et al. Hospital readmission in general medicine patients: a prediction model. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):211-219.
No Difference in Outcomes Between High- and Non-High-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors in Bleeding Peptic Ulcers
Clinical question: Do high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) decrease the rate of rebleeding, surgical intervention, or mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who have undergone endoscopic treatment?
Background: Previous studies have demonstrated superiority of both high- and low-dose PPIs to H2 receptor antagonists and placebo in reducing rebleeding rates in patients with peptic ulcers. However, no clear evidence is available to suggest that high-dose PPIs are more effective than non-high-dose PPIs for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Multicenter and single-site studies conducted in several countries.
Synopsis: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials, compared high- versus non-high-dose PPIs, evaluated endoscopically confirmed bleeding ulcers, gave PPIs after endoscopy, and documented outcomes regarding rates of rebleeding, surgical intervention, or mortality. High-dose PPIs were defined as equivalent to omeprazole 80 mg intravenous bolus followed by continuous intravenous infusion at 8 mg/hr for 72 hours.
Seven studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratios for rebleeding, surgical intervention, and mortality were 1.30 (95% CI, 0.88-1.91), 1.49 (95% CI, 0.66-3.37), and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.37-2.13), respectively, for high-dose versus non-high-dose PPIs. The authors concluded that high-dose PPIs were not superior to non-high-dose PPIs in reducing the rates of these adverse outcomes after endoscopic treatment of bleeding ulcers. Considering the cost of high-dose PPIs, further studies are indicated to help guide PPI dosing for patients with peptic ulcers.
Major limitations of this study were the small number of studies (1,157 patients in total) and their heterogeneity, and the lack of intention-to-treat analysis. The studies also included a high Asian predominance, and it has been shown that Asian populations have an enhanced PPI effect.