tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

/pdf/kdigo-clinical-practice-guidelines-for-acute-kidney-injury-27tybolw7l.pdf

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular riskThe Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297&type=printable

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.

Purpose— The aim of this guideline is to present current and comprehensive recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods— A formal literature search of MEDLINE was performed. Data were synthesized with the use of evidence tables. Writing committee members met by teleconference to discuss data-derived recommendations. The American Heart Association Stroke Council’s Levels of Evidence grading algorithm was used to grade each recommendation. Prerelease review of the draft guideline was performed by 6 expert peer reviewers and by the members of the Stroke Council Scientific Statements Oversight Committee and Stroke Council Leadership Committee. It is intended that this guideline be fully updated in 3 years’ time. Results— Evidence-based guidelines are presented for the care of patients presenting with intracerebral hemorrhage. The focus was subdivided into diagnosis, hemostasis, blood pressure management, inpatient and nursing management, preventing medical comorbidities, surgical treatment, outcome prediction, rehabilitation, prevention of recurrence, and future considerations. Conclusions— Intracerebral hemorrhage is a serious medical condition for which outcome can be impacted by early, aggressive care. The guidelines offer a framework for goal-directed treatment of the patient with intracerebral hemorrhage.

Guidelines for the Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage. A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Context Severe acute kidney injury among hospitalized patients often necessitates initiation of short-term dialysis. Little is known about the long-term outcome of those who survive to hospital discharge. Objective To assess the risk of chronic dialysis and all-cause mortality in individuals who experience an episode of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a population-based cohort study of all adult patients in Ontario, Canada, with acute kidney injury who required in-hospital dialysis and survived free of dialysis for at least 30 days after discharge between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 2006. These individuals were matched with patients without acute kidney injury or dialysis during their index hospitalization. Matching was by age plus or minus 5 years, sex, history of chronic kidney disease, receipt of mechanical ventilation during the index hospitalization, and a propensity score for developing acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Patients were followed up until March 31, 2007. Main Outcome Measures The primary end point was the need for chronic dialysis and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results We identified 3769 adults with acute kidney injury requiring in-hospital dialysis and 13 598 matched controls. The mean age was 62 years and median follow-up was 3 years. The incidence rate of chronic dialysis was 2.63 per 100 person-years among individuals with acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and 0.91 per 100 person-years among control participants (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.23; 95% confidence interval, 2.70-3.86). All-cause mortality rates were 10.10 and 10.85 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.02). Conclusions Acute kidney injury necessitating in-hospital dialysis was associated with an increased risk of chronic dialysis but not all-cause mortality.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/184587/joc90093_1179_1185.pdf

Chronic Dialysis and Death Among Survivors of Acute Kidney Injury Requiring Dialysis

Although confounding is an important problem of cohort studies, its effects can be minimised to enable valid comparison 

In cohort studies, who does or does not receive an intervention is determined by practice patterns, personal choice, or policy decisions. This raises the possibility that the intervention and comparison groups may differ in characteristics that affect the study outcome, a problem called selection bias. If these characteristics have independent effects on the observed outcome in each group, they will create differences in outcomes between the groups apart from those related to the interventions being assessed. This effect is known as confounding.1 In the first paper in the series we dealt with the design and use of cohort studies and how to identify selection bias.2 This paper focuses on the definition and assessment of confounders.

For a characteristic to be a confounder in a particular study, it must meet two criteria.1 The first is that it must be related to the outcome in terms of prognosis or susceptibility. For example, in the study of the association between antipsychotic use and hip fracture that we considered in the first paper,2 age is known to be related to risk of hip fracture and therefore has the potential to be a confounder.

The second criterion that defines a confounder is that the distribution of the characteristic is different in the groups being compared. It can differ in terms of either the mean or the degree of variation or variability in that characteristic. For example, for age to be a confounder in a cohort study, either the average age or the variation in the age in the groups being compared would have to be different. Assessing variation as well as average values is important because groups can have the same average value …

/pdf/reader-s-guide-to-critical-appraisal-of-cohort-studies-2-3fabxal1cu.pdf

Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(06)68041-0.pdf

Statins and sepsis in patients with cardiovascular disease: a population-based cohort analysis

Background Cholinesterase inhibitors are commonly prescribed to treat dementia, but their adverse effect profile has received little attention. These drugs can provoke symptomatic bradycardia and syncope, which may lead to permanent pacemaker insertion. Drug-induced syncope may also precipitate fall-related injuries, including hip fracture. Methods In a population-based cohort study, we investigated the relationship between cholinesterase inhibitor use and syncope-related outcomes using health care databases from Ontario, Canada, with accrual from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2004. We identified 19 803 community-dwelling older adults with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors and 61 499 controls who were not. Results Hospital visits for syncope were more frequent in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors than in controls (31.5 vs 18.6 events per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common among people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (6.9 vs 4.4 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (4.7 vs 3.3 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (22.4 vs 19.8 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). Results were consistent in additional analyses in which subjects were either matched on their baseline comorbidity status or matched using propensity scores. Conclusions Use of cholinesterase inhibitors is associated with increased rates of syncope, bradycardia, pacemaker insertion, and hip fracture in older adults with dementia. The risk of these previously underrecognized serious adverse events must be weighed carefully against the drugs' generally modest benefits.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/414936/ioi80226_867_873.pdf

Ping Li

Papers

Chronic Dialysis and Death Among Survivors of Acute Kidney Injury Requiring Dialysis

Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding

Statins and sepsis in patients with cardiovascular disease: a population-based cohort analysis

Syncope and its consequences in patients with dementia receiving cholinesterase inhibitors: a population-based cohort study.

Syncope and Its Consequences in Patients With Dementia Receiving Cholinesterase Inhibitors