Background Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. MethodsGBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk-outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk-outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk-outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each agesex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobac...

No abstract

Summary Background Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 has targeted elimination of preventable child mortality, reduction of neonatal death to less than 12 per 1000 livebirths, and reduction of death of children younger than 5 years to less than 25 per 1000 livebirths, for each country by 2030. To understand current rates, recent trends, and potential trajectories of child mortality for the next decade, we present the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 findings for all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in children younger than 5 years of age, with multiple scenarios for child mortality in 2030 that include the consideration of potential effects of COVID-19, and a novel framework for quantifying optimal child survival. Methods We completed all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality analyses from 204 countries and territories for detailed age groups separately, with aggregated mortality probabilities per 1000 livebirths computed for neonatal mortality rate (NMR) and under-5 mortality rate (U5MR). Scenarios for 2030 represent different potential trajectories, notably including potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of improvements preferentially targeting neonatal survival. Optimal child survival metrics were developed by age, sex, and cause of death across all GBD location-years. The first metric is a global optimum and is based on the lowest observed mortality, and the second is a survival potential frontier that is based on stochastic frontier analysis of observed mortality and Healthcare Access and Quality Index. Findings Global U5MR decreased from 71·2 deaths per 1000 livebirths (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 68·3–74·0) in 2000 to 37·1 (33·2–41·7) in 2019 while global NMR correspondingly declined more slowly from 28·0 deaths per 1000 live births (26·8–29·5) in 2000 to 17·9 (16·3–19·8) in 2019. In 2019, 136 (67%) of 204 countries had a U5MR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold and 133 (65%) had an NMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold, and the reference scenario suggests that by 2030, 154 (75%) of all countries could meet the U5MR targets, and 139 (68%) could meet the NMR targets. Deaths of children younger than 5 years totalled 9·65 million (95% UI 9·05–10·30) in 2000 and 5·05 million (4·27–6·02) in 2019, with the neonatal fraction of these deaths increasing from 39% (3·76 million [95% UI 3·53–4·02]) in 2000 to 48% (2·42 million; 2·06–2·86) in 2019. NMR and U5MR were generally higher in males than in females, although there was no statistically significant difference at the global level. Neonatal disorders remained the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years in 2019, followed by lower respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, congenital birth defects, and malaria. The global optimum analysis suggests NMR could be reduced to as low as 0·80 (95% UI 0·71–0·86) deaths per 1000 livebirths and U5MR to 1·44 (95% UI 1·27–1·58) deaths per 1...

Conclusion:There is no association between rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and adherence to the Surgical Care Improvement Program (SCIP) implemented measures to reduce VTE.Summary: SCIP was implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2006. The goal of SCIP is to reduce surgical complications, surgical site infections, adverse cardiac events, and thromboembolism by 25%. SCIP is a core measure collected by the Joint Commission. In-hospital adherence to SCIP measures is reported publicly. Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are known to be potentially significant causes of postoperative morbidity and mortality. SCIP introduced two VTE prophylactic measures for surgical procedures as reflected in guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians. SCIP-VTE-1 measures whether VTE prophylaxis was ordered, and SCIP-VTE-2 measures whether prophylaxis was received; both #24 hours of surgery. This study sought to determine the rates of adherence to SCIP-VTE guidelines, to identify factors for nonadherence, and to analyze relationships between SCIP guideline adherence and VTE events in the context of other patient and procedure factors. This was a retrospective cohort study of data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2006 to 2009. There were 30,531 surgeries analyzed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical characteristics associated with VTE were summarized. VTE rates were compared by SCIP-VTE adherence. VTE was modeled by adherence to SCIP and adjusting for multiple associated factors using multivariable logistic regression. Of the 30,531 surgeries evaluated, 89.9% adhered to SCIP-VTE, and 1.4% experienced VTE. Obesity, smoking, functional status, weight loss, emergency status, age >64 years, and surgical time were identified by logistic regression to be associated with VTE. SCIP-VTE adherence was not associated with VTE (1.4% vs 1.33%; P ¼ .3). The lack of association of SCIP-VTE with VTE remained even after adjustment for compounding variables.Comment: Most prior analyses of SCIP measures have focused on surgical site infection. These analyses have not provided convincing evidence that adherence to SCIP surgical site infection measures reduces the rate of surgical site infections. Similarly, this study suggests compliance with SCIP-VTE prevention measures has no measurable association with events that are intended to be prevented by adherence to the SCIP-VTE measures. SCIP-VTE measures may be ineffective or too limited to compensate for the large variation and complexity of patient and surgical factors contributing to VTE. No one will argue that reduction of surgical associated VTE is a desirable goal. However, the SCIP regulations should be considered for elimination or modification if they are not found to produce their intended results.

Since the publication of the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension, several high-quality studies, including randomised, sham-controlled trials on catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) were published, confirming both the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety of radiofrequency and ultrasound RDN in a broad range of patients with hypertension, including resistant hypertension. A clinical consensus document by the ESC Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on RDN in the management of hypertension was considered necessary to inform clinical practice. This expert group proposes that RDN is an adjunct treatment option in uncontrolled resistant hypertension, confirmed by ambulatory BP measurements, despite best efforts at lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. RDN may also be used in patients who are unable to tolerate antihypertensive medications in the long term. A shared decision-making process is a key feature and preferably includes a patient who is well informed on the benefits and limitations of the procedure. The decision-making process should take (i) the patient’s global cardiovascular (CV) risk and/or (ii) the presence of hypertension-mediated organ damage or CV complications into account. Multidisciplinary hypertension teams involving hypertension experts and interventionalists evaluate the indication and facilitate the RDN procedure. Interventionalists require expertise in renal interventions and specific training in RDN procedures. Centres performing these procedures require the skills and resources to deal with potential complications. Future research is needed to address open questions and investigate the impact of BP-lowering with RDN on clinical outcomes and potential clinical indications beyond hypertension.