Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep. OSA occurs when the throat muscles intermittently relax and block the airway during sleep. The condition is usually associated with several other chronic medical conditions leading to poor quality of life.

It is estimated that at least 25 million adults are affected by OSA in the United States. Further, the obesity epidemic has increased the prevalence of OSA in the last 2 decades. The prevalence of OSA can be higher in patients undergoing surgery. For example, 70% of the patients undergoing bariatric surgery have OSA, whereas 48% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery have moderate-severe OSA. Alarmingly, in 80% of patients with moderate-severe OSA, the disorder remains undiagnosed and untreated, threatening public health and safety.

Patients with OSA can experience multiple complications when receiving sedatives and opioids during anesthesia (Opperer. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 122[5]:1321). These drugs may diminish the protective arousal reflex triggered by bouts of hypoxia, thereby increasing the risk of prolonged periods of apnea and possibly respiratory arrest. Sedatives and narcotics can decrease pharyngeal muscle tone, which can worsen the existing OSA and increase upper airway resistance. Undiagnosed and untreated OSA may be a contributing factor in many of these complications. Effective screening/diagnosis and treatment of OSA are considered to be important steps to reduce health-care spending, improve chronic disease management, and reduce complications.

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire

The gold standard for the diagnosis of OSA is overnight polysomnography. However, it is time consuming, labor intensive, and costly. The STOP-Bang Questionnaire is considered to be the most validated screening tool for OSA for various populations (Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]:e0143697).

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire includes four questions used in the STOP Questionnaire plus four additional demographic queries, a total of eight dichotomous (yes/no) questions related to the clinical features of sleep apnea (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, high blood Pressure, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male gender). For each question, answering “yes” scores 1, a “no” response scores 0, and the total score ranges from 0 to 8 (see www.stopbang.ca). The Questionnaire can be completed quickly and easily (usually within 1-2 minutes), and the overall response rates are typically high (90%-100%). Because of its ease of use, efficiency, and high sensitivity, the STOP-Bang Questionnaire has been widely adopted in various populations, such as sleep clinics and the surgical and general population.

Reprinted from Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]: e0143697 (CC0 1.0)

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire has demonstrated a high sensitivity using a cutoff score of greater than or equal to 3: 84% in detecting any sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index greater than 5 events/h), 93% in detecting moderate to severe sleep apnea (AHI greater than 15 events/h), and almost 100% in detecting severe sleep apnea (AHI greater than 30 events/h). The corresponding specificities were 56.4%, 43%, and 37% (Chung et al. Anesthesiology. 2008;108[5]:812). If patients score 0-2 on the STOP-Bang Questionnaire, they are considered to be at low risk of OSA, and the possibility of moderate to severe sleep apnea can be ruled out.

The modest specificity of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire may yield moderately high false-positive cases. This may lead to unwanted sleep study referrals and increased health care expenditure. There are several ways by which the specificity can be improved, thereby decreasing false-positive rates.

Setting a threshold for the STOP-Bang scores in different population

The main advantage of the STOP-Bang scores is its flexibility to use different scores for different populations. For example, in a bariatric population, a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 4 can be used. On the other hand, in an ENT population, where we would like to identify a majority of patients with moderate-severe OSA, a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 5 can be used. In the sleep clinic population, as the STOP-Bang score cut-off increased from 3 to 8, the specificity increased from 52% to 100%, and the PPV increased continuously from 93% to 100% for any OSA (AHI greater than or equal to 5). A similar pattern was seen in the surgical population, as the STOP-Bang score cutoff increased from 3 to greater than or equal to 7, the specificity increased from 40% to 98%, and the PPV increased from 75% to 82% for any OSA (AHI greater than or equal to 5) (Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]:e0143697).

Regional practices should decide the appropriate threshold of screening tests, after considering the implications for missed diagnoses and cost of care. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. At lower thresholds, there is improved sensitivity with potentially increased resource utilization, whereas increasing the threshold will result in loss of sensitivity and increased false-negative rates but improved resource utilization. A higher threshold should be adopted in the population with a lower prevalence of OSA.

STOP-Bang score and probability of OSA

In both sleep clinic patients (Fig 1; Panel A) and surgical patients (Fig 1; Panel B), the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA or severe OSA increased a s the STOP-Bang score increased from 3 to 7/8. With higher scores, there is a more profound increase in the probability of severe OSA, compared with moderate OSA (Chung et al. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108[5]:768).

Alternative models for scoring the STOP-Bang Questionnaire

The individual items on the Questionnaire do not share an equal predictive weight for OSA. In the “Bang” components, body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², neck circumference greater than 40 cm, and male gender are more predictive than age greater than 50 years. The predictive performance of the specific combinations of items has been explored. Compared with the specificity of 31% for detecting moderate to severe OSA, specific combinations significantly improve the specificity to detect any OSA (AHI greater than 5), moderate to severe OSA (AHI greater than 15), and severe OSA (AHI greater than 30) at the expense of sensitivity. The specificity to detect moderate to severe OSA increases to 85% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + BMI greater than 35 kg/m²; to 79% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + neck circumference > greater than 40 cm (16 in); and to 77% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + male, respectively. These combinations can assist in accurately identifying more patients with moderate to severe OSA (Chung et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2014;10[9]:951).

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire and serum bicarbonate

Serum bicarbonate (HCO₃–) is significantly correlated to AHI, and the addition of serum HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L to a STOP-Bang score greater than or equal to 3 improves the specificity to predict moderate-severe OSA but decreases its sensitivity (Chung et al. Chest. 2013;143[5]:1284). For a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 3 + HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L), the specificity for detecting moderate to severe OSA increases from 30% to 82%, and from 28% to 80% for detecting severe OSA, respectively.

A two-step strategy for using STOP-Bang Questionnaire

A two-step algorithm using the STOP-Bang Questionnaire identifies patients effectively with a high probability of moderate to severe sleep apnea (Fig 2) (Chung et al. Chest. 2016;149[3]:631). The first step is to check the STOP-Bang score. If a patient scores 0-2 on the STOP-Bang Questionnaire, he or she is unlikely to have moderate to severe OSA. Conversely, a patient with a STOP-Bang score of 5-8 has a high probability of moderate to severe OSA.

Reprinted from Chung et al. Chest. 2016; 149[3]:631

The second step is for the patients with STOP-Bang scores of 3 or 4. These patients can be further classified as having a higher risk for moderate to severe OSA if one of the following conditions is met: (1) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + BMI greater than 35 kg/m²; (2) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + male gender; (3) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + neck circumference greater than 40 cm (16 in); or (4) a STOP-Bang score greater than or equal to 3 + serum HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L.

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire and perioperative complications

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire not only identifies the high-risk patients with OSA but also may have a strong association toward predicting perioperative complications (Vasu et al. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136[10]:1020). The important step of screening patients with OSA using the STOP-Bang Questionnaire may create an awareness among the perioperative team resulting in decreased complications (Veenstra et al. Crit Care Nurs Clin N Am. 2014;26[4]:499).

The Joint Commission’s Division of Healthcare Improvement has raised strong concerns regarding the lack of training for health-care professionals to recognize OSA. A recent guideline published by the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends using a screening tool to identify high-risk patients with OSA (Chung et al. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2016;June 1: Epub ahead of print).

There is preliminary evidence that patients with diagnosed OSA and a CPAP prescription had significantly reduced postoperative cardiovascular complications (cardiac arrest and shock) by more than 50% vs patients with undiagnosed OSA (Mutter et al. Anesthesiology. 2014;121[4]:707).

Conclusion

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire is a simple, practical, and flexible screening tool to identify the high-risk OSA patients. More information is available at www.stopbang.ca.

Dr. Chung is with the department of anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital – University Health Network, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; Dr. Nagappa is with the department of anesthesia & perioperative medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and St. Joseph Health Care London, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep. OSA occurs when the throat muscles intermittently relax and block the airway during sleep. The condition is usually associated with several other chronic medical conditions leading to poor quality of life.

It is estimated that at least 25 million adults are affected by OSA in the United States. Further, the obesity epidemic has increased the prevalence of OSA in the last 2 decades. The prevalence of OSA can be higher in patients undergoing surgery. For example, 70% of the patients undergoing bariatric surgery have OSA, whereas 48% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery have moderate-severe OSA. Alarmingly, in 80% of patients with moderate-severe OSA, the disorder remains undiagnosed and untreated, threatening public health and safety.

Patients with OSA can experience multiple complications when receiving sedatives and opioids during anesthesia (Opperer. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 122[5]:1321). These drugs may diminish the protective arousal reflex triggered by bouts of hypoxia, thereby increasing the risk of prolonged periods of apnea and possibly respiratory arrest. Sedatives and narcotics can decrease pharyngeal muscle tone, which can worsen the existing OSA and increase upper airway resistance. Undiagnosed and untreated OSA may be a contributing factor in many of these complications. Effective screening/diagnosis and treatment of OSA are considered to be important steps to reduce health-care spending, improve chronic disease management, and reduce complications.

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire

The gold standard for the diagnosis of OSA is overnight polysomnography. However, it is time consuming, labor intensive, and costly. The STOP-Bang Questionnaire is considered to be the most validated screening tool for OSA for various populations (Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]:e0143697).

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire includes four questions used in the STOP Questionnaire plus four additional demographic queries, a total of eight dichotomous (yes/no) questions related to the clinical features of sleep apnea (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, high blood Pressure, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male gender). For each question, answering “yes” scores 1, a “no” response scores 0, and the total score ranges from 0 to 8 (see www.stopbang.ca). The Questionnaire can be completed quickly and easily (usually within 1-2 minutes), and the overall response rates are typically high (90%-100%). Because of its ease of use, efficiency, and high sensitivity, the STOP-Bang Questionnaire has been widely adopted in various populations, such as sleep clinics and the surgical and general population.

Reprinted from Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]: e0143697 (CC0 1.0)

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire has demonstrated a high sensitivity using a cutoff score of greater than or equal to 3: 84% in detecting any sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index greater than 5 events/h), 93% in detecting moderate to severe sleep apnea (AHI greater than 15 events/h), and almost 100% in detecting severe sleep apnea (AHI greater than 30 events/h). The corresponding specificities were 56.4%, 43%, and 37% (Chung et al. Anesthesiology. 2008;108[5]:812). If patients score 0-2 on the STOP-Bang Questionnaire, they are considered to be at low risk of OSA, and the possibility of moderate to severe sleep apnea can be ruled out.

The modest specificity of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire may yield moderately high false-positive cases. This may lead to unwanted sleep study referrals and increased health care expenditure. There are several ways by which the specificity can be improved, thereby decreasing false-positive rates.

Setting a threshold for the STOP-Bang scores in different population

The main advantage of the STOP-Bang scores is its flexibility to use different scores for different populations. For example, in a bariatric population, a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 4 can be used. On the other hand, in an ENT population, where we would like to identify a majority of patients with moderate-severe OSA, a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 5 can be used. In the sleep clinic population, as the STOP-Bang score cut-off increased from 3 to 8, the specificity increased from 52% to 100%, and the PPV increased continuously from 93% to 100% for any OSA (AHI greater than or equal to 5). A similar pattern was seen in the surgical population, as the STOP-Bang score cutoff increased from 3 to greater than or equal to 7, the specificity increased from 40% to 98%, and the PPV increased from 75% to 82% for any OSA (AHI greater than or equal to 5) (Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]:e0143697).

Regional practices should decide the appropriate threshold of screening tests, after considering the implications for missed diagnoses and cost of care. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. At lower thresholds, there is improved sensitivity with potentially increased resource utilization, whereas increasing the threshold will result in loss of sensitivity and increased false-negative rates but improved resource utilization. A higher threshold should be adopted in the population with a lower prevalence of OSA.

STOP-Bang score and probability of OSA

In both sleep clinic patients (Fig 1; Panel A) and surgical patients (Fig 1; Panel B), the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA or severe OSA increased a s the STOP-Bang score increased from 3 to 7/8. With higher scores, there is a more profound increase in the probability of severe OSA, compared with moderate OSA (Chung et al. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108[5]:768).

Alternative models for scoring the STOP-Bang Questionnaire

The individual items on the Questionnaire do not share an equal predictive weight for OSA. In the “Bang” components, body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², neck circumference greater than 40 cm, and male gender are more predictive than age greater than 50 years. The predictive performance of the specific combinations of items has been explored. Compared with the specificity of 31% for detecting moderate to severe OSA, specific combinations significantly improve the specificity to detect any OSA (AHI greater than 5), moderate to severe OSA (AHI greater than 15), and severe OSA (AHI greater than 30) at the expense of sensitivity. The specificity to detect moderate to severe OSA increases to 85% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + BMI greater than 35 kg/m²; to 79% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + neck circumference > greater than 40 cm (16 in); and to 77% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + male, respectively. These combinations can assist in accurately identifying more patients with moderate to severe OSA (Chung et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2014;10[9]:951).

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire and serum bicarbonate

Serum bicarbonate (HCO₃–) is significantly correlated to AHI, and the addition of serum HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L to a STOP-Bang score greater than or equal to 3 improves the specificity to predict moderate-severe OSA but decreases its sensitivity (Chung et al. Chest. 2013;143[5]:1284). For a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 3 + HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L), the specificity for detecting moderate to severe OSA increases from 30% to 82%, and from 28% to 80% for detecting severe OSA, respectively.

A two-step strategy for using STOP-Bang Questionnaire

A two-step algorithm using the STOP-Bang Questionnaire identifies patients effectively with a high probability of moderate to severe sleep apnea (Fig 2) (Chung et al. Chest. 2016;149[3]:631). The first step is to check the STOP-Bang score. If a patient scores 0-2 on the STOP-Bang Questionnaire, he or she is unlikely to have moderate to severe OSA. Conversely, a patient with a STOP-Bang score of 5-8 has a high probability of moderate to severe OSA.

Reprinted from Chung et al. Chest. 2016; 149[3]:631

The second step is for the patients with STOP-Bang scores of 3 or 4. These patients can be further classified as having a higher risk for moderate to severe OSA if one of the following conditions is met: (1) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + BMI greater than 35 kg/m²; (2) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + male gender; (3) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + neck circumference greater than 40 cm (16 in); or (4) a STOP-Bang score greater than or equal to 3 + serum HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L.

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire and perioperative complications

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire not only identifies the high-risk patients with OSA but also may have a strong association toward predicting perioperative complications (Vasu et al. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136[10]:1020). The important step of screening patients with OSA using the STOP-Bang Questionnaire may create an awareness among the perioperative team resulting in decreased complications (Veenstra et al. Crit Care Nurs Clin N Am. 2014;26[4]:499).

The Joint Commission’s Division of Healthcare Improvement has raised strong concerns regarding the lack of training for health-care professionals to recognize OSA. A recent guideline published by the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends using a screening tool to identify high-risk patients with OSA (Chung et al. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2016;June 1: Epub ahead of print).

There is preliminary evidence that patients with diagnosed OSA and a CPAP prescription had significantly reduced postoperative cardiovascular complications (cardiac arrest and shock) by more than 50% vs patients with undiagnosed OSA (Mutter et al. Anesthesiology. 2014;121[4]:707).

Conclusion

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire is a simple, practical, and flexible screening tool to identify the high-risk OSA patients. More information is available at www.stopbang.ca.

Dr. Chung is with the department of anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital – University Health Network, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; Dr. Nagappa is with the department of anesthesia & perioperative medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and St. Joseph Health Care London, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep. OSA occurs when the throat muscles intermittently relax and block the airway during sleep. The condition is usually associated with several other chronic medical conditions leading to poor quality of life.

It is estimated that at least 25 million adults are affected by OSA in the United States. Further, the obesity epidemic has increased the prevalence of OSA in the last 2 decades. The prevalence of OSA can be higher in patients undergoing surgery. For example, 70% of the patients undergoing bariatric surgery have OSA, whereas 48% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery have moderate-severe OSA. Alarmingly, in 80% of patients with moderate-severe OSA, the disorder remains undiagnosed and untreated, threatening public health and safety.

Patients with OSA can experience multiple complications when receiving sedatives and opioids during anesthesia (Opperer. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 122[5]:1321). These drugs may diminish the protective arousal reflex triggered by bouts of hypoxia, thereby increasing the risk of prolonged periods of apnea and possibly respiratory arrest. Sedatives and narcotics can decrease pharyngeal muscle tone, which can worsen the existing OSA and increase upper airway resistance. Undiagnosed and untreated OSA may be a contributing factor in many of these complications. Effective screening/diagnosis and treatment of OSA are considered to be important steps to reduce health-care spending, improve chronic disease management, and reduce complications.

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire

The gold standard for the diagnosis of OSA is overnight polysomnography. However, it is time consuming, labor intensive, and costly. The STOP-Bang Questionnaire is considered to be the most validated screening tool for OSA for various populations (Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]:e0143697).

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire includes four questions used in the STOP Questionnaire plus four additional demographic queries, a total of eight dichotomous (yes/no) questions related to the clinical features of sleep apnea (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, high blood Pressure, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male gender). For each question, answering “yes” scores 1, a “no” response scores 0, and the total score ranges from 0 to 8 (see www.stopbang.ca). The Questionnaire can be completed quickly and easily (usually within 1-2 minutes), and the overall response rates are typically high (90%-100%). Because of its ease of use, efficiency, and high sensitivity, the STOP-Bang Questionnaire has been widely adopted in various populations, such as sleep clinics and the surgical and general population.

Reprinted from Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]: e0143697 (CC0 1.0)

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire has demonstrated a high sensitivity using a cutoff score of greater than or equal to 3: 84% in detecting any sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index greater than 5 events/h), 93% in detecting moderate to severe sleep apnea (AHI greater than 15 events/h), and almost 100% in detecting severe sleep apnea (AHI greater than 30 events/h). The corresponding specificities were 56.4%, 43%, and 37% (Chung et al. Anesthesiology. 2008;108[5]:812). If patients score 0-2 on the STOP-Bang Questionnaire, they are considered to be at low risk of OSA, and the possibility of moderate to severe sleep apnea can be ruled out.

The modest specificity of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire may yield moderately high false-positive cases. This may lead to unwanted sleep study referrals and increased health care expenditure. There are several ways by which the specificity can be improved, thereby decreasing false-positive rates.

Setting a threshold for the STOP-Bang scores in different population

The main advantage of the STOP-Bang scores is its flexibility to use different scores for different populations. For example, in a bariatric population, a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 4 can be used. On the other hand, in an ENT population, where we would like to identify a majority of patients with moderate-severe OSA, a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 5 can be used. In the sleep clinic population, as the STOP-Bang score cut-off increased from 3 to 8, the specificity increased from 52% to 100%, and the PPV increased continuously from 93% to 100% for any OSA (AHI greater than or equal to 5). A similar pattern was seen in the surgical population, as the STOP-Bang score cutoff increased from 3 to greater than or equal to 7, the specificity increased from 40% to 98%, and the PPV increased from 75% to 82% for any OSA (AHI greater than or equal to 5) (Nagappa et al. PLoS One. 2015;10[12]:e0143697).

Regional practices should decide the appropriate threshold of screening tests, after considering the implications for missed diagnoses and cost of care. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. At lower thresholds, there is improved sensitivity with potentially increased resource utilization, whereas increasing the threshold will result in loss of sensitivity and increased false-negative rates but improved resource utilization. A higher threshold should be adopted in the population with a lower prevalence of OSA.

STOP-Bang score and probability of OSA

In both sleep clinic patients (Fig 1; Panel A) and surgical patients (Fig 1; Panel B), the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA or severe OSA increased a s the STOP-Bang score increased from 3 to 7/8. With higher scores, there is a more profound increase in the probability of severe OSA, compared with moderate OSA (Chung et al. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108[5]:768).

Alternative models for scoring the STOP-Bang Questionnaire

The individual items on the Questionnaire do not share an equal predictive weight for OSA. In the “Bang” components, body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², neck circumference greater than 40 cm, and male gender are more predictive than age greater than 50 years. The predictive performance of the specific combinations of items has been explored. Compared with the specificity of 31% for detecting moderate to severe OSA, specific combinations significantly improve the specificity to detect any OSA (AHI greater than 5), moderate to severe OSA (AHI greater than 15), and severe OSA (AHI greater than 30) at the expense of sensitivity. The specificity to detect moderate to severe OSA increases to 85% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + BMI greater than 35 kg/m²; to 79% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + neck circumference > greater than 40 cm (16 in); and to 77% for a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + male, respectively. These combinations can assist in accurately identifying more patients with moderate to severe OSA (Chung et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2014;10[9]:951).

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire and serum bicarbonate

Serum bicarbonate (HCO₃–) is significantly correlated to AHI, and the addition of serum HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L to a STOP-Bang score greater than or equal to 3 improves the specificity to predict moderate-severe OSA but decreases its sensitivity (Chung et al. Chest. 2013;143[5]:1284). For a STOP-Bang score of greater than or equal to 3 + HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L), the specificity for detecting moderate to severe OSA increases from 30% to 82%, and from 28% to 80% for detecting severe OSA, respectively.

A two-step strategy for using STOP-Bang Questionnaire

A two-step algorithm using the STOP-Bang Questionnaire identifies patients effectively with a high probability of moderate to severe sleep apnea (Fig 2) (Chung et al. Chest. 2016;149[3]:631). The first step is to check the STOP-Bang score. If a patient scores 0-2 on the STOP-Bang Questionnaire, he or she is unlikely to have moderate to severe OSA. Conversely, a patient with a STOP-Bang score of 5-8 has a high probability of moderate to severe OSA.

Reprinted from Chung et al. Chest. 2016; 149[3]:631

The second step is for the patients with STOP-Bang scores of 3 or 4. These patients can be further classified as having a higher risk for moderate to severe OSA if one of the following conditions is met: (1) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + BMI greater than 35 kg/m²; (2) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + male gender; (3) a STOP score greater than or equal to 2 + neck circumference greater than 40 cm (16 in); or (4) a STOP-Bang score greater than or equal to 3 + serum HCO₃– greater than or equal to 28 mmol/L.

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire and perioperative complications

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire not only identifies the high-risk patients with OSA but also may have a strong association toward predicting perioperative complications (Vasu et al. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136[10]:1020). The important step of screening patients with OSA using the STOP-Bang Questionnaire may create an awareness among the perioperative team resulting in decreased complications (Veenstra et al. Crit Care Nurs Clin N Am. 2014;26[4]:499).

The Joint Commission’s Division of Healthcare Improvement has raised strong concerns regarding the lack of training for health-care professionals to recognize OSA. A recent guideline published by the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends using a screening tool to identify high-risk patients with OSA (Chung et al. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2016;June 1: Epub ahead of print).

There is preliminary evidence that patients with diagnosed OSA and a CPAP prescription had significantly reduced postoperative cardiovascular complications (cardiac arrest and shock) by more than 50% vs patients with undiagnosed OSA (Mutter et al. Anesthesiology. 2014;121[4]:707).

Conclusion

The STOP-Bang Questionnaire is a simple, practical, and flexible screening tool to identify the high-risk OSA patients. More information is available at www.stopbang.ca.

Dr. Chung is with the department of anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital – University Health Network, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; Dr. Nagappa is with the department of anesthesia & perioperative medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and St. Joseph Health Care London, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

CHEST has been informed of the following members’ deaths and extends sincere condolences.

Vincent C. Manganiello, MD, PhD, died January 2016.

Lawrence H. Cohn, MD, FCCP – Past President, died January 9, 2016.

Suzanne K. Wedel, MD, FCCP, died March 2016.

CHEST has been informed of the following members’ deaths and extends sincere condolences.

Vincent C. Manganiello, MD, PhD, died January 2016.

Lawrence H. Cohn, MD, FCCP – Past President, died January 9, 2016.

Suzanne K. Wedel, MD, FCCP, died March 2016.

CHEST has been informed of the following members’ deaths and extends sincere condolences.

Vincent C. Manganiello, MD, PhD, died January 2016.

Lawrence H. Cohn, MD, FCCP – Past President, died January 9, 2016.

Suzanne K. Wedel, MD, FCCP, died March 2016.

EDITORIAL

Burnout syndrome in ICU caregivers: Time to extinguish! By Dr. S. Pastores, FCCP

COMMENTARY

An Official Critical Care Societies Collaborative Statement – Burnout syndrome in critical care health-care professionals: A call for action. By Dr. M. Moss et al.

GIANTS IN CHEST MEDICINE

Neil R. MacIntyre, MD, FCCP. By Dr. Lisa K. Moores, FCCP

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Protective cardiovascular effect of sleep apnea severity in obesity hypoventilation

Syndrome. By Dr. J. R. Masa et al.

Treprostinil administered to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension using a fully implantable programmable intravascular delivery system: Results of the DeliVery for PAH Trial. By Dr. R. C. Bourge et al.

Improving quality of acute asthma care in US hospitals: Changes between 1999-2000 and 2012-2013. By Dr. K. Hasegawa et al.

EDITORIAL

Burnout syndrome in ICU caregivers: Time to extinguish! By Dr. S. Pastores, FCCP

COMMENTARY

An Official Critical Care Societies Collaborative Statement – Burnout syndrome in critical care health-care professionals: A call for action. By Dr. M. Moss et al.

GIANTS IN CHEST MEDICINE

Neil R. MacIntyre, MD, FCCP. By Dr. Lisa K. Moores, FCCP

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Protective cardiovascular effect of sleep apnea severity in obesity hypoventilation

Syndrome. By Dr. J. R. Masa et al.

Treprostinil administered to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension using a fully implantable programmable intravascular delivery system: Results of the DeliVery for PAH Trial. By Dr. R. C. Bourge et al.

Improving quality of acute asthma care in US hospitals: Changes between 1999-2000 and 2012-2013. By Dr. K. Hasegawa et al.

EDITORIAL

Burnout syndrome in ICU caregivers: Time to extinguish! By Dr. S. Pastores, FCCP

COMMENTARY

An Official Critical Care Societies Collaborative Statement – Burnout syndrome in critical care health-care professionals: A call for action. By Dr. M. Moss et al.

GIANTS IN CHEST MEDICINE

Neil R. MacIntyre, MD, FCCP. By Dr. Lisa K. Moores, FCCP

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Protective cardiovascular effect of sleep apnea severity in obesity hypoventilation

Syndrome. By Dr. J. R. Masa et al.

Treprostinil administered to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension using a fully implantable programmable intravascular delivery system: Results of the DeliVery for PAH Trial. By Dr. R. C. Bourge et al.

Improving quality of acute asthma care in US hospitals: Changes between 1999-2000 and 2012-2013. By Dr. K. Hasegawa et al.

Do you ever wonder how CHEST decides where to have its annual meeting? It’s a science! We know that venue is an important consideration for busy clinicians who are trying to decide whether to invest time and money in attending a national meeting. Evaluation of criteria that determine the attractiveness of a given location for a national meeting is a job for professionals! At CHEST, we are very fortunate to work with Heather Nash, CMP, who is the senior director, meetings and training center operations, along with her talented meetings team in choosing a top-notch destination for the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The site selection of an annual meeting is a very important decision an association makes for its members. There is a variety of factors considered in making this decision, and the site selection process begins approximately 5-7 years in advance. Why so early, you might ask. The size of the CHEST Annual Meeting is the answer! Our annual meeting requires a significant amount of meeting, exhibits, ballroom, and public foyer space. Additionally, the host city needs a minimum of 3,000 hotel rooms in the vicinity of the Convention Center. What this means is that the CHEST Annual Meeting does not fit into all convention centers and cities within the United States and Canada. Plus, other important criteria that are also considered are cost, travel, weather, and the amenities that a destination offers.

The site selection process starts with each destination’s Convention and Visitors Bureau that is presented with a Request for Proposal, which includes a list of all the CHEST Annual Meeting specifications, requirements, and preferred dates. Based on those specifications, each city will compile a proposal of its full offerings, including meeting space, hotels, air and ground transportation, weather, cost, and key amenities of the destination. The puzzle that each city goes through is to determine whether the destination has all of the requirements needed by CHEST and to submit a complete proposal. It’s fierce competition out there, which is why the process must start 5-7 years prior. The last step is to compile a site selection report that outlines, in order of priority, all components that CHEST needs to create a short list of locations and propose a final decision.

Why is the convention center size so important? The CHEST Meeting Director must determine whether a certain venue and city can accommodate the CHEST Annual Meeting. A few key factors that are reviewed include exhibit space; a minimum of 300,000+ gross square feet, 30+ flexible size meeting rooms that can accommodate 75-400 people each for educational sessions, opening keynote session space for 2,500 people, a Simulation Center space, not to mention the additional needs for registration, self-study stations, games, and other e-learning opportunities. More often than not, the largest convention centers that attract CHEST fall into a category that we refer to as first-tier cities (i.e., Chicago, New Orleans, Toronto, Boston, and Los Angeles). The second category of cities that have smaller convention centers but still may be an option for CHEST are second-tier cities (i.e., Montreal, Austin, Honolulu, and Atlanta).

Of course, there are the other aspects of an annual meeting that are very important to clinicians, guests, and attendees. How easy is it to get a flight at a reasonable cost? How close are the hotels and what are the room rates of the official meeting hotels? Can I walk to the convention center or do we need to get on a bus? Can I walk to a restaurant after a full day of sessions? These are just a few questions we receive often by our CHEST Help Team representatives. We track these types of questions so that when we engage a prospective destination, these questions are answered in the final proposal and site selection report.

The CHEST Annual Meeting 2016 will be held in Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles was confirmed as the location in 2011, based upon the improved infrastructure in the downtown Los Angeles area and the renovations made within the Los Angeles Convention Center. The infrastructure mentioned is an area called L.A. LIVE, which is the sports and entertainment district that surrounds the STAPLES Center and Microsoft Theater, JW Marriott, and the Los Angeles Convention Center. The campus features sports and music venues, nightclubs, restaurants, a bowling alley, the GRAMMY museum, and movie theaters. L.A. LIVE is the premier destination for live entertainment in downtown Los Angeles and very walkable! We hope you have learned a little bit about the process we adhere to in the site selection process of the CHEST Annual Meeting, and we look forward to welcoming you in October.

See you in Los Angeles!

Do you ever wonder how CHEST decides where to have its annual meeting? It’s a science! We know that venue is an important consideration for busy clinicians who are trying to decide whether to invest time and money in attending a national meeting. Evaluation of criteria that determine the attractiveness of a given location for a national meeting is a job for professionals! At CHEST, we are very fortunate to work with Heather Nash, CMP, who is the senior director, meetings and training center operations, along with her talented meetings team in choosing a top-notch destination for the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The site selection of an annual meeting is a very important decision an association makes for its members. There is a variety of factors considered in making this decision, and the site selection process begins approximately 5-7 years in advance. Why so early, you might ask. The size of the CHEST Annual Meeting is the answer! Our annual meeting requires a significant amount of meeting, exhibits, ballroom, and public foyer space. Additionally, the host city needs a minimum of 3,000 hotel rooms in the vicinity of the Convention Center. What this means is that the CHEST Annual Meeting does not fit into all convention centers and cities within the United States and Canada. Plus, other important criteria that are also considered are cost, travel, weather, and the amenities that a destination offers.

The site selection process starts with each destination’s Convention and Visitors Bureau that is presented with a Request for Proposal, which includes a list of all the CHEST Annual Meeting specifications, requirements, and preferred dates. Based on those specifications, each city will compile a proposal of its full offerings, including meeting space, hotels, air and ground transportation, weather, cost, and key amenities of the destination. The puzzle that each city goes through is to determine whether the destination has all of the requirements needed by CHEST and to submit a complete proposal. It’s fierce competition out there, which is why the process must start 5-7 years prior. The last step is to compile a site selection report that outlines, in order of priority, all components that CHEST needs to create a short list of locations and propose a final decision.

Why is the convention center size so important? The CHEST Meeting Director must determine whether a certain venue and city can accommodate the CHEST Annual Meeting. A few key factors that are reviewed include exhibit space; a minimum of 300,000+ gross square feet, 30+ flexible size meeting rooms that can accommodate 75-400 people each for educational sessions, opening keynote session space for 2,500 people, a Simulation Center space, not to mention the additional needs for registration, self-study stations, games, and other e-learning opportunities. More often than not, the largest convention centers that attract CHEST fall into a category that we refer to as first-tier cities (i.e., Chicago, New Orleans, Toronto, Boston, and Los Angeles). The second category of cities that have smaller convention centers but still may be an option for CHEST are second-tier cities (i.e., Montreal, Austin, Honolulu, and Atlanta).

Of course, there are the other aspects of an annual meeting that are very important to clinicians, guests, and attendees. How easy is it to get a flight at a reasonable cost? How close are the hotels and what are the room rates of the official meeting hotels? Can I walk to the convention center or do we need to get on a bus? Can I walk to a restaurant after a full day of sessions? These are just a few questions we receive often by our CHEST Help Team representatives. We track these types of questions so that when we engage a prospective destination, these questions are answered in the final proposal and site selection report.

The CHEST Annual Meeting 2016 will be held in Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles was confirmed as the location in 2011, based upon the improved infrastructure in the downtown Los Angeles area and the renovations made within the Los Angeles Convention Center. The infrastructure mentioned is an area called L.A. LIVE, which is the sports and entertainment district that surrounds the STAPLES Center and Microsoft Theater, JW Marriott, and the Los Angeles Convention Center. The campus features sports and music venues, nightclubs, restaurants, a bowling alley, the GRAMMY museum, and movie theaters. L.A. LIVE is the premier destination for live entertainment in downtown Los Angeles and very walkable! We hope you have learned a little bit about the process we adhere to in the site selection process of the CHEST Annual Meeting, and we look forward to welcoming you in October.

See you in Los Angeles!

Do you ever wonder how CHEST decides where to have its annual meeting? It’s a science! We know that venue is an important consideration for busy clinicians who are trying to decide whether to invest time and money in attending a national meeting. Evaluation of criteria that determine the attractiveness of a given location for a national meeting is a job for professionals! At CHEST, we are very fortunate to work with Heather Nash, CMP, who is the senior director, meetings and training center operations, along with her talented meetings team in choosing a top-notch destination for the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The site selection of an annual meeting is a very important decision an association makes for its members. There is a variety of factors considered in making this decision, and the site selection process begins approximately 5-7 years in advance. Why so early, you might ask. The size of the CHEST Annual Meeting is the answer! Our annual meeting requires a significant amount of meeting, exhibits, ballroom, and public foyer space. Additionally, the host city needs a minimum of 3,000 hotel rooms in the vicinity of the Convention Center. What this means is that the CHEST Annual Meeting does not fit into all convention centers and cities within the United States and Canada. Plus, other important criteria that are also considered are cost, travel, weather, and the amenities that a destination offers.

The site selection process starts with each destination’s Convention and Visitors Bureau that is presented with a Request for Proposal, which includes a list of all the CHEST Annual Meeting specifications, requirements, and preferred dates. Based on those specifications, each city will compile a proposal of its full offerings, including meeting space, hotels, air and ground transportation, weather, cost, and key amenities of the destination. The puzzle that each city goes through is to determine whether the destination has all of the requirements needed by CHEST and to submit a complete proposal. It’s fierce competition out there, which is why the process must start 5-7 years prior. The last step is to compile a site selection report that outlines, in order of priority, all components that CHEST needs to create a short list of locations and propose a final decision.

Why is the convention center size so important? The CHEST Meeting Director must determine whether a certain venue and city can accommodate the CHEST Annual Meeting. A few key factors that are reviewed include exhibit space; a minimum of 300,000+ gross square feet, 30+ flexible size meeting rooms that can accommodate 75-400 people each for educational sessions, opening keynote session space for 2,500 people, a Simulation Center space, not to mention the additional needs for registration, self-study stations, games, and other e-learning opportunities. More often than not, the largest convention centers that attract CHEST fall into a category that we refer to as first-tier cities (i.e., Chicago, New Orleans, Toronto, Boston, and Los Angeles). The second category of cities that have smaller convention centers but still may be an option for CHEST are second-tier cities (i.e., Montreal, Austin, Honolulu, and Atlanta).

Of course, there are the other aspects of an annual meeting that are very important to clinicians, guests, and attendees. How easy is it to get a flight at a reasonable cost? How close are the hotels and what are the room rates of the official meeting hotels? Can I walk to the convention center or do we need to get on a bus? Can I walk to a restaurant after a full day of sessions? These are just a few questions we receive often by our CHEST Help Team representatives. We track these types of questions so that when we engage a prospective destination, these questions are answered in the final proposal and site selection report.

The CHEST Annual Meeting 2016 will be held in Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles was confirmed as the location in 2011, based upon the improved infrastructure in the downtown Los Angeles area and the renovations made within the Los Angeles Convention Center. The infrastructure mentioned is an area called L.A. LIVE, which is the sports and entertainment district that surrounds the STAPLES Center and Microsoft Theater, JW Marriott, and the Los Angeles Convention Center. The campus features sports and music venues, nightclubs, restaurants, a bowling alley, the GRAMMY museum, and movie theaters. L.A. LIVE is the premier destination for live entertainment in downtown Los Angeles and very walkable! We hope you have learned a little bit about the process we adhere to in the site selection process of the CHEST Annual Meeting, and we look forward to welcoming you in October.

See you in Los Angeles!

1-Day Registration for CHEST 2016

If you’d like to attend the CHEST Annual Meeting 2016 but have trouble scheduling time away from your practice, consider the 1-day registration. Register for any given day, Sunday through Wednesday. Or attend for the weekend by registering for a postgraduate course on Saturday and 1 day on Sunday. If you come for the weekend, consider bringing your family. You won’t be alone – there’s so much for everyone to do in Los Angeles.

Postgraduate Courses

Saturday, Oct. 22

Attend a postgraduate course for an intensive learning experience. CME/CE credits and MOC points are available. Additional registration is required for all courses:

• Advanced Critical Care Echocardiography

• ICU Management: An Interactive Course for ICU Directors and Their Critical Care Team

• Lung Cancer: Update 2016

• Pulmonary Hypertension Interactive Summit (InPHOCUS)

• Pulmonary Medicine 2016: Year in Review and Clinical Update

• Sleep Medicine 2016: Year in Review and Clinical Update

• 24th Annual Assembly of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

Program Highlights

CHEST 2016 is your connection to focused clinical education that will help optimize your patient care. The relevant sessions and community of innovative problem solvers in attendance will be sure to inspire and energize you and your career. Don’t miss these highlights:

• Simulation and interactive learning. Challenge your clinical skills in a hands-on environment or with interactive learning opportunities. Work with expert faculty to sharpen your skills and apply your knowledge.

• Interdisciplinary programs. Bring your entire care team to attend these very popular programs that address clinical issues across the disciplines. Faculty represent each role on a team and present from their respective perspective.

• Problem-based learning sessions. Study and discuss real clinical cases during small-group, interactive sessions designed to exercise your critical thinking skills.

• Keynotes and honor lectures. Attend our opening sessions to hear featured speakers discuss issues impacting chest medicine. And be sure to attend honor and memorial lectures, where chest medicine professionals will be recognized for their distinguished work.

Sean Pavone/ThinkStock

• Industry-supported sessions. Don’t miss these sessions focusing on current issues impacting the field.

Explore Los Angeles!

Los Angeles is known for its beautiful beaches, moderate temperatures, Hollywood glamour, and ritzy shopping. You’ll enjoy the sunshine, moderate temperatures, and a bevy of sights and activities you can explore. Spend a few hours golfing, attend a TV show taping, shop on Rodeo Drive, or hike Runyon Canyon. During your free time at CHEST 2016, you’ll want to check out everything that Los Angeles has to offer.

Learn more about Los Angeles at discoverlosangeles.com, and find information about CHEST 2016 at chestmeeting.chestnet.org.

1-Day Registration for CHEST 2016

If you’d like to attend the CHEST Annual Meeting 2016 but have trouble scheduling time away from your practice, consider the 1-day registration. Register for any given day, Sunday through Wednesday. Or attend for the weekend by registering for a postgraduate course on Saturday and 1 day on Sunday. If you come for the weekend, consider bringing your family. You won’t be alone – there’s so much for everyone to do in Los Angeles.

Postgraduate Courses

Saturday, Oct. 22

Attend a postgraduate course for an intensive learning experience. CME/CE credits and MOC points are available. Additional registration is required for all courses:

• Advanced Critical Care Echocardiography

• ICU Management: An Interactive Course for ICU Directors and Their Critical Care Team

• Lung Cancer: Update 2016

• Pulmonary Hypertension Interactive Summit (InPHOCUS)

• Pulmonary Medicine 2016: Year in Review and Clinical Update

• Sleep Medicine 2016: Year in Review and Clinical Update

• 24th Annual Assembly of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

Program Highlights

CHEST 2016 is your connection to focused clinical education that will help optimize your patient care. The relevant sessions and community of innovative problem solvers in attendance will be sure to inspire and energize you and your career. Don’t miss these highlights:

• Simulation and interactive learning. Challenge your clinical skills in a hands-on environment or with interactive learning opportunities. Work with expert faculty to sharpen your skills and apply your knowledge.

• Interdisciplinary programs. Bring your entire care team to attend these very popular programs that address clinical issues across the disciplines. Faculty represent each role on a team and present from their respective perspective.

• Problem-based learning sessions. Study and discuss real clinical cases during small-group, interactive sessions designed to exercise your critical thinking skills.

• Keynotes and honor lectures. Attend our opening sessions to hear featured speakers discuss issues impacting chest medicine. And be sure to attend honor and memorial lectures, where chest medicine professionals will be recognized for their distinguished work.

Sean Pavone/ThinkStock

• Industry-supported sessions. Don’t miss these sessions focusing on current issues impacting the field.

Explore Los Angeles!

Los Angeles is known for its beautiful beaches, moderate temperatures, Hollywood glamour, and ritzy shopping. You’ll enjoy the sunshine, moderate temperatures, and a bevy of sights and activities you can explore. Spend a few hours golfing, attend a TV show taping, shop on Rodeo Drive, or hike Runyon Canyon. During your free time at CHEST 2016, you’ll want to check out everything that Los Angeles has to offer.

Learn more about Los Angeles at discoverlosangeles.com, and find information about CHEST 2016 at chestmeeting.chestnet.org.

1-Day Registration for CHEST 2016

If you’d like to attend the CHEST Annual Meeting 2016 but have trouble scheduling time away from your practice, consider the 1-day registration. Register for any given day, Sunday through Wednesday. Or attend for the weekend by registering for a postgraduate course on Saturday and 1 day on Sunday. If you come for the weekend, consider bringing your family. You won’t be alone – there’s so much for everyone to do in Los Angeles.

Postgraduate Courses

Saturday, Oct. 22

Attend a postgraduate course for an intensive learning experience. CME/CE credits and MOC points are available. Additional registration is required for all courses:

• Advanced Critical Care Echocardiography

• ICU Management: An Interactive Course for ICU Directors and Their Critical Care Team

• Lung Cancer: Update 2016

• Pulmonary Hypertension Interactive Summit (InPHOCUS)

• Pulmonary Medicine 2016: Year in Review and Clinical Update

• Sleep Medicine 2016: Year in Review and Clinical Update

• 24th Annual Assembly of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

Program Highlights

CHEST 2016 is your connection to focused clinical education that will help optimize your patient care. The relevant sessions and community of innovative problem solvers in attendance will be sure to inspire and energize you and your career. Don’t miss these highlights:

• Simulation and interactive learning. Challenge your clinical skills in a hands-on environment or with interactive learning opportunities. Work with expert faculty to sharpen your skills and apply your knowledge.

• Interdisciplinary programs. Bring your entire care team to attend these very popular programs that address clinical issues across the disciplines. Faculty represent each role on a team and present from their respective perspective.

• Problem-based learning sessions. Study and discuss real clinical cases during small-group, interactive sessions designed to exercise your critical thinking skills.

• Keynotes and honor lectures. Attend our opening sessions to hear featured speakers discuss issues impacting chest medicine. And be sure to attend honor and memorial lectures, where chest medicine professionals will be recognized for their distinguished work.

Sean Pavone/ThinkStock

• Industry-supported sessions. Don’t miss these sessions focusing on current issues impacting the field.

Explore Los Angeles!

Los Angeles is known for its beautiful beaches, moderate temperatures, Hollywood glamour, and ritzy shopping. You’ll enjoy the sunshine, moderate temperatures, and a bevy of sights and activities you can explore. Spend a few hours golfing, attend a TV show taping, shop on Rodeo Drive, or hike Runyon Canyon. During your free time at CHEST 2016, you’ll want to check out everything that Los Angeles has to offer.

Learn more about Los Angeles at discoverlosangeles.com, and find information about CHEST 2016 at chestmeeting.chestnet.org.

In 2012, Dr. Renli Qiao, FCCP, won the D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP Humanitarian Award for his critical work with village doctors in rural China. Because medical schools in China are located in larger metropolitan areas where graduates are likely to stay, medical resources are unevenly distributed across the country. Physicians with shortened medical education often staff rural hospitals, and smaller villages usually house a single village doctor with a high-school diploma and 3-6 months of medical training.

Inspired by his work with the China California Heart Watch (CCHW), Dr. Qiao created a program to train rural medical professionals so that their efforts would have a sustaining impact on the care that residents of these villages receive. Volunteer physicians traveled through as many villages on foot to spend several days in each village where they would see about 250 villagers a day. In these villages, the doctors were also able to perform heart examinations for hundreds of children in the village schools. The team observed that although hypertension is the leading cause of death in China and the antihypertensive drugs are relatively affordable, there is a high incidence of hypertension, and up to 95% of patients with hypertension were never diagnosed or treated.

Realizing the need to train doctors on the importance of preventive care, early diagnoses, and treatment of hypertension, Dr. Qiao led the initiative to educate thousands of doctors in the Yunnan province. His model involved 2-day seminars and included participatory workshops, lectures, group collaboration, and the dissection of clinical cases.

Dr. Qiao’s effort not only improved the lives of thousands of patients but also achieved a lasting model to educate rural doctors. He is now aiding in the China-CHEST PCCM program efforts to establish PCCM as a subspecialty in China.

In 2012, Dr. Renli Qiao, FCCP, won the D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP Humanitarian Award for his critical work with village doctors in rural China. Because medical schools in China are located in larger metropolitan areas where graduates are likely to stay, medical resources are unevenly distributed across the country. Physicians with shortened medical education often staff rural hospitals, and smaller villages usually house a single village doctor with a high-school diploma and 3-6 months of medical training.

Inspired by his work with the China California Heart Watch (CCHW), Dr. Qiao created a program to train rural medical professionals so that their efforts would have a sustaining impact on the care that residents of these villages receive. Volunteer physicians traveled through as many villages on foot to spend several days in each village where they would see about 250 villagers a day. In these villages, the doctors were also able to perform heart examinations for hundreds of children in the village schools. The team observed that although hypertension is the leading cause of death in China and the antihypertensive drugs are relatively affordable, there is a high incidence of hypertension, and up to 95% of patients with hypertension were never diagnosed or treated.

Realizing the need to train doctors on the importance of preventive care, early diagnoses, and treatment of hypertension, Dr. Qiao led the initiative to educate thousands of doctors in the Yunnan province. His model involved 2-day seminars and included participatory workshops, lectures, group collaboration, and the dissection of clinical cases.

Dr. Qiao’s effort not only improved the lives of thousands of patients but also achieved a lasting model to educate rural doctors. He is now aiding in the China-CHEST PCCM program efforts to establish PCCM as a subspecialty in China.

In 2012, Dr. Renli Qiao, FCCP, won the D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP Humanitarian Award for his critical work with village doctors in rural China. Because medical schools in China are located in larger metropolitan areas where graduates are likely to stay, medical resources are unevenly distributed across the country. Physicians with shortened medical education often staff rural hospitals, and smaller villages usually house a single village doctor with a high-school diploma and 3-6 months of medical training.

Inspired by his work with the China California Heart Watch (CCHW), Dr. Qiao created a program to train rural medical professionals so that their efforts would have a sustaining impact on the care that residents of these villages receive. Volunteer physicians traveled through as many villages on foot to spend several days in each village where they would see about 250 villagers a day. In these villages, the doctors were also able to perform heart examinations for hundreds of children in the village schools. The team observed that although hypertension is the leading cause of death in China and the antihypertensive drugs are relatively affordable, there is a high incidence of hypertension, and up to 95% of patients with hypertension were never diagnosed or treated.

Realizing the need to train doctors on the importance of preventive care, early diagnoses, and treatment of hypertension, Dr. Qiao led the initiative to educate thousands of doctors in the Yunnan province. His model involved 2-day seminars and included participatory workshops, lectures, group collaboration, and the dissection of clinical cases.

Dr. Qiao’s effort not only improved the lives of thousands of patients but also achieved a lasting model to educate rural doctors. He is now aiding in the China-CHEST PCCM program efforts to establish PCCM as a subspecialty in China.

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan has conferred its highest award on Dr. Darcy Marciniuk, FCCP. The Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes 25 years of outstanding service by Dr. Marciniuk to improving respiratory health in Saskatchewan. Dr. Marciniuk is currently associate vice president of research (Acting) at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, in addition to continuing to serve as professor of medicine in the division of respirology, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Dr. Marciniuk led the development of both respiratory services and chronic disease management in general in the Saskatoon Health Region, which is now spreading to the province as a whole. He began the LiveWell program that started with respiratory health and was used as a model to expand the chronic disease management program to other health areas. He was a leader in the development of the Lung Health Institute and is currently spearheading the establishment of a respiratory research center at the University of Saskatchewan. He has done extensive research in the area of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for which he is nationally and internationally recognized with more than 100 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Marciniuk is currently a leader in the CHEST initiative to develop a national respirology training program in China, which is being implemented in collaboration with the Chinese government.

CHEST congratulates Dr. Marciniuk on this prestigious honor.

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan has conferred its highest award on Dr. Darcy Marciniuk, FCCP. The Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes 25 years of outstanding service by Dr. Marciniuk to improving respiratory health in Saskatchewan. Dr. Marciniuk is currently associate vice president of research (Acting) at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, in addition to continuing to serve as professor of medicine in the division of respirology, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Dr. Marciniuk led the development of both respiratory services and chronic disease management in general in the Saskatoon Health Region, which is now spreading to the province as a whole. He began the LiveWell program that started with respiratory health and was used as a model to expand the chronic disease management program to other health areas. He was a leader in the development of the Lung Health Institute and is currently spearheading the establishment of a respiratory research center at the University of Saskatchewan. He has done extensive research in the area of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for which he is nationally and internationally recognized with more than 100 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Marciniuk is currently a leader in the CHEST initiative to develop a national respirology training program in China, which is being implemented in collaboration with the Chinese government.

CHEST congratulates Dr. Marciniuk on this prestigious honor.

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan has conferred its highest award on Dr. Darcy Marciniuk, FCCP. The Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes 25 years of outstanding service by Dr. Marciniuk to improving respiratory health in Saskatchewan. Dr. Marciniuk is currently associate vice president of research (Acting) at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, in addition to continuing to serve as professor of medicine in the division of respirology, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Dr. Marciniuk led the development of both respiratory services and chronic disease management in general in the Saskatoon Health Region, which is now spreading to the province as a whole. He began the LiveWell program that started with respiratory health and was used as a model to expand the chronic disease management program to other health areas. He was a leader in the development of the Lung Health Institute and is currently spearheading the establishment of a respiratory research center at the University of Saskatchewan. He has done extensive research in the area of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for which he is nationally and internationally recognized with more than 100 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Marciniuk is currently a leader in the CHEST initiative to develop a national respirology training program in China, which is being implemented in collaboration with the Chinese government.

CHEST congratulates Dr. Marciniuk on this prestigious honor.

FROM CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY OUTCOMES

Insufficient evidence exists to routinely recommend surgical closure of the left atrial appendage, either surgically or with a LAA exclusion device, for patients who have atrial fibrillation, a large data review has concluded.

None of the devices so far examined is more effective than oral anticoagulation therapy in reducing AF-related stroke risk, but they appear to be riskier, with up to 1 in 15 patients experiencing a serious adverse event during or after percutaneous placement, North Noelck, MD, and his colleagues wrote (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 Jul 12. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002539).

Surgical studies, which also have found no benefit, are poor in quality and provide no strong data in favor of any technique, wrote Dr. Noelck of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The meta-analysis comprised 13 studies of the benefits and risks of percutaneous LAA exclusion and 7 of the benefits and harms of surgical LAA closure.

The team found “limited evidence” that one device, the Watchman (Boston Scientific), may be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation treatment in some patients. But the Watchman was also associated with “significant, procedural-related harms,” in almost 11% of patients in one large study, PROTECT-AF. These included pericardial effusions with and without associated tamponade, bleeding, device thrombus, and device embolization. However, the benefit conferred by the device appeared marginal. Neither PROTECT-AF nor the subsequent PREVAIL studies of the Watchman found that it conferred significant clinical benefit above the comparator arm of warfarin therapy. Indeed, in PREVAIL, a composite outcome of death, ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, or systemic embolism occurred in 5.2% of the device group and in 2.9% of the warfarin group.

Three randomized studies and two observational studies examined surgical LAA closure relative to usual medical care. The authors said the randomized studies were underpowered to show clinical benefit. Neither of the observational studies showed significant advantages in stroke-free survival, but the team noted, “data such as information about anticoagulation use among the groups [were] lacking.”

“Overall, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of surgical LAA exclusion to reduce stroke risk or the future need for anticoagulant therapy,” wrote Dr. Noelck and his coinvestigators. However, they said, several ongoing studies “should add substantively to this body of evidence during the next several years.”

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. None of the authors had any relevant financial disclosure.

[email protected]

FROM CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY OUTCOMES

Insufficient evidence exists to routinely recommend surgical closure of the left atrial appendage, either surgically or with a LAA exclusion device, for patients who have atrial fibrillation, a large data review has concluded.

None of the devices so far examined is more effective than oral anticoagulation therapy in reducing AF-related stroke risk, but they appear to be riskier, with up to 1 in 15 patients experiencing a serious adverse event during or after percutaneous placement, North Noelck, MD, and his colleagues wrote (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 Jul 12. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002539).

Surgical studies, which also have found no benefit, are poor in quality and provide no strong data in favor of any technique, wrote Dr. Noelck of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The meta-analysis comprised 13 studies of the benefits and risks of percutaneous LAA exclusion and 7 of the benefits and harms of surgical LAA closure.

The team found “limited evidence” that one device, the Watchman (Boston Scientific), may be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation treatment in some patients. But the Watchman was also associated with “significant, procedural-related harms,” in almost 11% of patients in one large study, PROTECT-AF. These included pericardial effusions with and without associated tamponade, bleeding, device thrombus, and device embolization. However, the benefit conferred by the device appeared marginal. Neither PROTECT-AF nor the subsequent PREVAIL studies of the Watchman found that it conferred significant clinical benefit above the comparator arm of warfarin therapy. Indeed, in PREVAIL, a composite outcome of death, ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, or systemic embolism occurred in 5.2% of the device group and in 2.9% of the warfarin group.

Three randomized studies and two observational studies examined surgical LAA closure relative to usual medical care. The authors said the randomized studies were underpowered to show clinical benefit. Neither of the observational studies showed significant advantages in stroke-free survival, but the team noted, “data such as information about anticoagulation use among the groups [were] lacking.”

“Overall, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of surgical LAA exclusion to reduce stroke risk or the future need for anticoagulant therapy,” wrote Dr. Noelck and his coinvestigators. However, they said, several ongoing studies “should add substantively to this body of evidence during the next several years.”

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. None of the authors had any relevant financial disclosure.

[email protected]

FROM CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY OUTCOMES

Insufficient evidence exists to routinely recommend surgical closure of the left atrial appendage, either surgically or with a LAA exclusion device, for patients who have atrial fibrillation, a large data review has concluded.

None of the devices so far examined is more effective than oral anticoagulation therapy in reducing AF-related stroke risk, but they appear to be riskier, with up to 1 in 15 patients experiencing a serious adverse event during or after percutaneous placement, North Noelck, MD, and his colleagues wrote (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 Jul 12. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002539).

Surgical studies, which also have found no benefit, are poor in quality and provide no strong data in favor of any technique, wrote Dr. Noelck of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The meta-analysis comprised 13 studies of the benefits and risks of percutaneous LAA exclusion and 7 of the benefits and harms of surgical LAA closure.

The team found “limited evidence” that one device, the Watchman (Boston Scientific), may be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation treatment in some patients. But the Watchman was also associated with “significant, procedural-related harms,” in almost 11% of patients in one large study, PROTECT-AF. These included pericardial effusions with and without associated tamponade, bleeding, device thrombus, and device embolization. However, the benefit conferred by the device appeared marginal. Neither PROTECT-AF nor the subsequent PREVAIL studies of the Watchman found that it conferred significant clinical benefit above the comparator arm of warfarin therapy. Indeed, in PREVAIL, a composite outcome of death, ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, or systemic embolism occurred in 5.2% of the device group and in 2.9% of the warfarin group.

Three randomized studies and two observational studies examined surgical LAA closure relative to usual medical care. The authors said the randomized studies were underpowered to show clinical benefit. Neither of the observational studies showed significant advantages in stroke-free survival, but the team noted, “data such as information about anticoagulation use among the groups [were] lacking.”

“Overall, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of surgical LAA exclusion to reduce stroke risk or the future need for anticoagulant therapy,” wrote Dr. Noelck and his coinvestigators. However, they said, several ongoing studies “should add substantively to this body of evidence during the next several years.”

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. None of the authors had any relevant financial disclosure.

[email protected]

The incidence of human papillomavirus–associated cancers is increasing in the United States, but many of these cases could be prevented by the HPV vaccine, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Between 2008 and 2012 the incidence of HPV-associated cancers was 11.7/100,000 persons, up from 10.8/100,000 persons during the previous 4-year period, according to data from population-based cancer registries. An average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed in the most recent period, 30,700 (79%) of which can be attributed to HPV. Of those, 28,500 cancers are of HPV types that are preventable with the 9-valent HPV vaccine, reported Laura J. Viens, MD, and her associates.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Among the HPV-associated cancers, an average of 11,7771 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed each year. Rates of cervical cancer per 100,000 persons were higher among blacks (9.2) than among whites (7.1), and among Hispanics (9.7) than non-Hispanics (7.1).

“Increasing [HPV] vaccination coverage could decrease the cancer incidence and disparities in the United States,” the investigators concluded.

Find the full report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here.

The incidence of human papillomavirus–associated cancers is increasing in the United States, but many of these cases could be prevented by the HPV vaccine, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Between 2008 and 2012 the incidence of HPV-associated cancers was 11.7/100,000 persons, up from 10.8/100,000 persons during the previous 4-year period, according to data from population-based cancer registries. An average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed in the most recent period, 30,700 (79%) of which can be attributed to HPV. Of those, 28,500 cancers are of HPV types that are preventable with the 9-valent HPV vaccine, reported Laura J. Viens, MD, and her associates.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Among the HPV-associated cancers, an average of 11,7771 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed each year. Rates of cervical cancer per 100,000 persons were higher among blacks (9.2) than among whites (7.1), and among Hispanics (9.7) than non-Hispanics (7.1).

“Increasing [HPV] vaccination coverage could decrease the cancer incidence and disparities in the United States,” the investigators concluded.

Find the full report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here.

The incidence of human papillomavirus–associated cancers is increasing in the United States, but many of these cases could be prevented by the HPV vaccine, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Between 2008 and 2012 the incidence of HPV-associated cancers was 11.7/100,000 persons, up from 10.8/100,000 persons during the previous 4-year period, according to data from population-based cancer registries. An average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed in the most recent period, 30,700 (79%) of which can be attributed to HPV. Of those, 28,500 cancers are of HPV types that are preventable with the 9-valent HPV vaccine, reported Laura J. Viens, MD, and her associates.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Among the HPV-associated cancers, an average of 11,7771 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed each year. Rates of cervical cancer per 100,000 persons were higher among blacks (9.2) than among whites (7.1), and among Hispanics (9.7) than non-Hispanics (7.1).

“Increasing [HPV] vaccination coverage could decrease the cancer incidence and disparities in the United States,” the investigators concluded.

Find the full report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here.

The incidence of human papillomavirus–associated cancers is increasing in the United States, but many of these cases could be prevented by the HPV vaccine, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Between 2008 and 2012 the incidence of HPV-associated cancers was 11.7/100,000 persons, up from 10.8/100,000 persons during the previous 4-year period, according to data from population-based cancer registries. An average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed in the most recent period, 30,700 (79%) of which can be attributed to HPV. Of those, 28,500 cancers are of HPV types that are preventable with the 9-valent HPV vaccine, reported Laura J. Viens, MD, and her associates.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Among the HPV-associated cancers, an average of 11,7771 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed each year. Rates of cervical cancer per 100,000 persons were higher among blacks (9.2) than among whites (7.1), and among Hispanics (9.7) than non-Hispanics (7.1).

“Increasing [HPV] vaccination coverage could decrease the cancer incidence and disparities in the United States,” the investigators concluded.

Find the full report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here

[email protected]

The incidence of human papillomavirus–associated cancers is increasing in the United States, but many of these cases could be prevented by the HPV vaccine, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Between 2008 and 2012 the incidence of HPV-associated cancers was 11.7/100,000 persons, up from 10.8/100,000 persons during the previous 4-year period, according to data from population-based cancer registries. An average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed in the most recent period, 30,700 (79%) of which can be attributed to HPV. Of those, 28,500 cancers are of HPV types that are preventable with the 9-valent HPV vaccine, reported Laura J. Viens, MD, and her associates.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Among the HPV-associated cancers, an average of 11,7771 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed each year. Rates of cervical cancer per 100,000 persons were higher among blacks (9.2) than among whites (7.1), and among Hispanics (9.7) than non-Hispanics (7.1).

“Increasing [HPV] vaccination coverage could decrease the cancer incidence and disparities in the United States,” the investigators concluded.

Find the full report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here

[email protected]

The incidence of human papillomavirus–associated cancers is increasing in the United States, but many of these cases could be prevented by the HPV vaccine, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Between 2008 and 2012 the incidence of HPV-associated cancers was 11.7/100,000 persons, up from 10.8/100,000 persons during the previous 4-year period, according to data from population-based cancer registries. An average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed in the most recent period, 30,700 (79%) of which can be attributed to HPV. Of those, 28,500 cancers are of HPV types that are preventable with the 9-valent HPV vaccine, reported Laura J. Viens, MD, and her associates.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Among the HPV-associated cancers, an average of 11,7771 cervical cancer cases were diagnosed each year. Rates of cervical cancer per 100,000 persons were higher among blacks (9.2) than among whites (7.1), and among Hispanics (9.7) than non-Hispanics (7.1).

“Increasing [HPV] vaccination coverage could decrease the cancer incidence and disparities in the United States,” the investigators concluded.

Find the full report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here

[email protected]