Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: There is a wide treatment gap between evidence-based guidelines and their implementation in primary care.

Objective: To evaluate the extent to which physicians "literally" follow guidelines for secondary prevention of dyslipidemia and the extent to which they practice "substitute" therapeutic measures.

Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of data collected in a prospective cluster randomized trial. The participants were 130 primary care physicians treating 7745 patients requiring secondary prevention of dyslipidemia. The outcome measure was physician "literal" adherence or "substitute" adherence. We used logistic regressions to evaluate the effect of various clinical situations on “literal” and “substitute” adherence.

Results: "Literal" adherence was modest for ordering a lipoprotein profile (35.1%) and for pharmacotherapy initiations (26.0%), but rather poor for drug up-titrations (16.1%) and for referrals for specialist consultation (3.8%). In contrast, many physicians opted for "substitute" adherence for up-titrations (75.9%) and referrals for consultation (78.7%). Physicians tended to follow the guidelines “literally” in simple clinical situations (such as the need for lipid screening) but to use "substitute" measures in more complex cases (when dose up-titration or metabolic consultation was required). Most substitute actions were less intense than the actions recommended by the guidelines.

Conclusions: Physicians often do not blindly follow guidelines, but rather evaluate their adequacy for a particular patient and adjust the treatment according to their assessment. We suggest that clinical management be evaluated in a broader sense than strict guideline adherence, which may underestimate physicians' efforts.
 

Objectives: To establish the impact of breast MRI on women undergoing testing in our institution.

Methods: We analyzed 82 cases that underwent MRI between January 2001 and April 2003. Analysis appraised the clinical impact of MRI testing in cases where medical summaries were available.

Results: Studies were categorized into five indications: a) screening in high risk women (n=7), b) search for primary disease in the presence of disease (n=5), c) monitoring of chemotherapy (n=2), d) postoperative assessment of tumor bed (n=9), and e) diagnostic/characterization of primary or recurrent breast cancer (n=59). Results were defined as negative, positive or no impact on clinical management. MRI testing had a positive impact in 62 cases, affecting measurable change in 9 cases. Benefit was seen in screening, diagnosis and postoperative cases. In 15 cases, MRI stimulated investigations.

Conclusion: MRI is a valuable tool in breast imaging and affects management. Further trials are necessary to define clearly the role of MRI and to ascertain whether in cases where beneficial impact on management is noted, there is ultimate impact on outcome. 

Objective: To investigate gender differences in the baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment and prognosis of women with unstable angina.

Method: Data were collected prospectively as part of the Acute Coronary Syndromes Israeli Survey in 2000 at Soroka University Medical Center. In-hospital management and 2 year follow-up were monitored for 226 consecutive patients with unstable angina admitted to our medical center during February and March 2000.

Results: Women were older (71 ± 12 vs. 66 ± 12, P = 0.006), more diabetic (41.3% vs. 34.5%, not significant) and hypertensive (76.3% vs. 64.6%, P = 0.07). Women presented more often with atypical chest pain (18.8% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.038). Heparin, aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor were equally delivered, but more beta-blockers were administered to women (88.5% vs. 75.7%, P = 0.02) and more statins to men (48.1% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.07). Angiography rates were similar (17.7% vs. 19.6%). Similar management was documented during the 2 year follow-up. Re-hospitalization rates were similar (53.3% of women and 63.7% of men, NS). Men had a tendency to develop acute myocardial infarction more often (9.6% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.06) and to develop peripheral vascular disease (3.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.09), and they had a non-significant higher rate of coronary artery bypass graft (6.7% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.08). No gender difference was found in angiography (14.7% of women vs. 16.3% of men) or percutaneous intervention (13% vs. 16.7%). At 2 years there was no gender-related difference in mortality (13.3% of women vs. 16.3% of men, NS). Kaplan-Meier analysis for event-free survival after 2 years showed no gender difference in survival. Multi-regression analysis showed that gender was not a prognostic factor for survival.

Conclusions. We found no major difference in the management of men and women with unstable angina. Although men showed a tendency to suffer more major cardiac events, their 2 year prognosis was the same as for women.