Background Uptake of self-testing and self-management of oral coagulation has remained inconsistent, despite good evidence of their effectiveness. To clarify the value of self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation, we did a meta-analysis of individual patient data addressing several important gaps in the evidence, including an estimate of the effect on time to death, first major haemorrhage, and thromboembolism. Methods We searched Ovid versions of Embase (1980-2009) and Medline (1966-2009), limiting searches to randomised trials with a maximally sensitive strategy. We approached all authors of included trials and requested individual patient data: primary outcomes were time to death, first major haemorrhage, and first thromboembolic event. We did prespecified subgroup analyses according to age, type of control-group care (anticoagulation-clinic care vs primary care), self-testing alone versus self-management, and sex. We analysed patients with mechanical heart valves or atrial fibrillation separately. We used a random-effect model method to calculate pooled hazard ratios and did tests for interaction and heterogeneity, and calculated a time-specific number needed to treat. Findings Of 1357 abstracts, we included 11 trials with data for 6417 participants and 12 800 person-years of follow-up. We reported a significant reduction in thromboembolic events in the self-monitoring group (hazard ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.31-0.85) but not for major haemorrhagic events (0.88, 0.74-1.06) or death (0.82, 0.62-1.09). Participants younger than 55 years showed a striking reduction in thrombotic events (hazard ratio 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.66), as did participants with mechanical heart valve (0.52, 0.35-0.77). Analysis of major outcomes in the very elderly (age >= 85 years, n=99) showed no significant adverse effects of the intervention for all outcomes. Interpretation Our analysis showed that self-monitoring and self-management of oral coagulation is a safe option for suitable patients of all ages. Patients should also be offered the option to self-manage their disease with suitable health-care support as back-up.

Background Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) is an established alternative therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis and a high surgical risk. Despite a rapid growth in its use, very few data exist about the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in these patients. We assessed the hypothesis that patients after TAVI benefit from CR, compared to patients after surgical aortic-valve replacement (sAVR). Methods From September 2009 to August 2011, 442 consecutive patients after TAVI (n=76) or sAVR (n=366) were referred to a 3-week CR. Data regarding patient characteristics as well as changes of functional (6-min walk test. 6-MWT), bicycle exercise test), and emotional status (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were retrospectively evaluated and compared between groups after propensity score adjustment. Results Patients after TAVI were significantly older (p<0.001), more female (p<0.001), and had more often coronary artery disease (p=0.027), renal failure (p=0.012) and a pacemaker (p=0.032). During CR, distance in 6-MWT (both groups p0.001) and exercise capacity (sAVR p0.001, TAVI p0.05) significantly increased in both groups. Only patients after sAVR demonstrated a significant reduction in anxiety and depression (p0.001). After propensity scores adjustment, changes were not significantly different between sAVR and TAVI, with the exception of 6-MWT (p=0.004). Conclusions Patients after TAVI benefit from cardiac rehabilitation despite their older age and comorbidities. CR is a helpful tool to maintain independency for daily life activities and participation in socio-cultural life.

In long-term mechanically ventilated patients, dysphagia is a common and potentially life-threatening complication, which can lead to aspiration and pneumonia. Nevertheless, many intensive care unit (ICU) patients are fed by mouth without evaluation of their deglutition capability. The goal of this work was to evaluate the prevalence of aspiration due to swallowing disorders in long-term ventilated patients who were fed orally in the ICU while having a blocked tracheotomy tube. In all, 43 patients participated-each underwent a fiberoptic investigation of deglutition on the day of admission to the rehabilitation clinic. A total of 65 % of the patients aspirated, 71 % of these silently. There were no associations between aspiration and any of the following: gender, indication for mechanical ventilation (underlying disease) or the duration of intubation and ventilation by tracheotomy tube. However, the association between aspiration and age was statistically significant (p = 0.041). Aspirating patients were older (arithmetic mean = 70 years, median = 74 years) than patients who did not aspirate (arithmetic mean = 66 years, median = 67 years). Intubation and add-on tracheotomies can lead to potentially life-threatening swallowing disorders that cause aspiration, independent of the underlying disease. Before feeding long-term mechanically ventilated patients by mouth, their ability to swallow needs to be investigated using fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) or a saliva dye test, if a cuff deflation and the use of a speaking valve are possible during spontaneous respiration.

Background: So far, for center comparisons in inpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), the objective outcome quality was neglected because of challenges in quantifying the overall success of CR. In this article, a multifactorial benchmark model measuring the individual rehabilitation success is presented. Methods: In 21 rehabilitation centers, 5 123 patients were consecutively enrolled between 01/2010 and 12/2012 in the prospective multicenter registry EVA-Reha (R) Cardiology. Changes in 13 indicators in the areas cardiovascular risk factors, physical performance and subjective health during rehabilitation were evaluated according to levels of severity. Changes were only rated for patients who needed a medical intervention. Additionally, the changes had to be clinically relevant. Therefore Minimal Important Differences (MID) were predefined. Ratings were combined to a single score, the multiple outcome criterion (MEK). Results: The MEK was determined for all patients (71.7 +/- 7.4 years, 76.9 % men) and consisted of an average of 5.6 indicators. After risk adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical baseline parameters, MEK was used for center ranking. In addition, individual results of indicators were compared with means of all study sites. Conclusion: With the method presented here, the outcome quality can be quantified and outcome-based comparisons of providers can be made.