Free Access
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 46, Number 1, March 2014
Page(s) 23 - 27
Published online 15 March 2014
  1. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:e215–e367. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:e1–e142. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fisher DM. Surrogate outcomes: Meaningful not! Anesthesiology. 1999;90:355–356. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goshima KR, Mills JLSr, Awari K, Pike SL, Hughes JD. Measure what matters: Institutional outcome data are superior to the use of surrogate markers to define ‘center of excellence’ for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2008;22:328–334. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harskamp RE, Williams JB, Hill RC, de Winter RJ, Alexander JH, Lopes RD. Saphenous vein graft failure and clinical outcomes: Toward a surrogate end point in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery? Am Heart J. 2013;165:639–643. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Institute of Medicine. Evaluation of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in chronic disease. Available at: www.iomedu/Reports/2010/Evaluation-of-Biomarkers-and-Surrogate-Endpointsin-Chronic-Diseaseaspx. Accessed August 26, 2013. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: Meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ. 2009;338:b1665. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1283–1297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kastelein JJ, van Leuven SI, Burgess L, et al. Effect of torcetrapib on carotid atherosclerosis in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1620–1630. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cruz DN, Soni S, Ronco C. NGAL and cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53:565–566. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Angelini GD, Culliford L, Smith DK, et al. Effects of on- and offpump coronary artery surgery on graft patency, survival, and health-related quality of life: Long-term follow-up of 2 randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:295–303. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Haller G, Stoelwinder J, Myles P, McNeil J. Quality and safety indicators in anesthesia: A systematic review. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:1158–1175. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Majoor JW, Ibrahim JE, Cicuttini FM, Boyce NW, McNeil JJ. The extraction of quality-of-care clinical indicators from state health department administrative databases. Med J Aust. 1999;170:420–424. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Shekelle PG. Defining and measuring quality of care: A perspective from US researchers. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12:281–295. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, et al. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295:1912–1920. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shroyer AL, McDonald GO, Wagner BD, et al. Improving quality of care in cardiac surgery: Evaluating risk factors, processes of care, structures of care, and outcomes. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;12:140–152. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hannan EL, Cozzens K, King SB3rd, Walford G, Shah NR. The New York State cardiac registries: History, contributions, limitations, and lessons for future efforts to assess and publicly report healthcare outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2309–2316. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Paul S, Sedrakyan A, Chiu YL, et al. Outcomes after lobectomy using thoracoscopy vs thoracotomy: A comparative effectiveness analysis utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43:813–817. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bridgewater B. Cardiac registers: The adult cardiac surgery register. Heart Fail Rev. 2010;96:1441–1443. [Google Scholar]
  21. Shroyer AL, Coombs LP, Peterson ED, Eiken MC, DeLong ER, Chen A, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons: 30-day operative mortality and morbidity risk models. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75: 1856–1864. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ranucci M, Bozzetti G, Ditta A, Cotza M, Carboni G, Ballotta A. Surgical reexploration after cardiac operations: Why a worse outcome? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:1557–1562. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Myles PS, Devereaux PJ. Pros and cons of composite endpoints in anesthesia trials. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:776–778. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Montori VM, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, et al. Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ. 2005;330:594–596. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kip KE, Hollabaugh K, Marroquin OC, Williams DO. The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: The story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:701–707. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1839–1847. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Witlox J, Eurelings LS, de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Eikelenboom P, van Gool WA. Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia: A metaanalysis. JAMA. 2010;304:443–451. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Silbert B, Scott D, Evered L, et al. A comparison of the effect of high- and low-dose fentanyl on the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction after coronary artery bypass surgery in the elderly. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:1137–1145. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Silbert B, Maruff P, Evered L, et al. Detection of cognitive decline after coronary surgery: A comparison of computerized and conventional tests. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92:814–820. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Newman MF, Kirchner JL, Phillips-Bute B, et al. Longitudinal assessment of neurocognitive function after coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:395–402. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Evered L, Scott DA, Silbert B, Maruff P. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction is independent of type of surgery and anesthetic. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:1179–1185. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hakkinen A, Heinonen M, Kautiainen H, Huusko T, Sulkava R, Karppi P. Effect of cognitive impairment on basic activities of daily living in hip fracture patients: A 1-year follow-up. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2007;19:139–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lewis MS, Maruff P, Silbert BS, Evered LA, Scott DA. The influence of different error estimates in the detection of postoperative cognitive dysfunction using reliable change indices with correction for practice effects. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22:249–257. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewis MS, Maruff P, Silbert BS, Evered LA, Scott DA. The sensitivity and specificity of three common statistical rules for the classification of post-operative cognitive dysfunction following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:50–57. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: Systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mulley AG. Inconvenient truths about supplier induced demand and unwarranted variation in medical practice. BMJ. 2009;339:b4073. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Chalmers I, Clarke M. Outcomes that matter to patients in tombstone trials. Lancet. 2001;358:1649. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012;307:1583–1584. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee A, Lum M. Measuring anaesthetic outcomes. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1996;24:685. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Myles P, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S. Validity and reliability of a post-operative quality of recovery score: The QoR-40. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:11–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gornall BF, Myles PS, Smith CL, et al. Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: A quantitative systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:161–169. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Herrera FJ, Wong J, Chung F. A systematic review of postoperative recovery outcomes measurements after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:63–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kluivers KB, Riphagen I, Vierhout ME, Brolmann HA, de Vet HC. Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments. Surgery. 2008;143:206–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Cheema FN, Abraham NS, Berger DH, Albo D, Taffet GE, Naik AD. Novel approaches to perioperative assessment and intervention may improve long-term outcomes after colorectal cancer resection in older adults. Ann Surg. 2010;253:867–874. [Google Scholar]
  45. Myles P, Viira D, Hunt J. Quality of life at three years after cardiac surgery: relationship with preoperative status and quality of recovery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006;34:176–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Krumholz HM. Post-hospital syndrome—An acquired, transient condition of generalized risk. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:100–102. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Krumholz HM, Lin Z, Keenan PS, et al. Relationship between hospital readmission and mortality rates for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309:587–593. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nightingale CE, et al. Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:83–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Amemiya T, Oda K, Ando M, et al. Activities of daily living and quality of life of elderly patients after elective surgery for gastric and colorectal cancers. Ann Surg. 2007;246:222–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ettinger WHJr, Fried LP, Harris T, Shemanski L, Schulz R, Robbins J. Self-reported causes of physical disability in older people: The Cardiovascular Health Study. CHS Collaborative Research Group. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42:1035–1044. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Guralnik JM, LaCroix AZ, Branch LG, Kasl SV, Wallace RB. Morbidity and disability in older persons in the years prior to death. Am J Public Health. 1991;81:443–447. [Google Scholar]
  52. Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, et al. Validation of the ‘World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule,WHODAS-2’ in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.