Project description:The impact of pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic compared with nonpharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Three databases were searched through April 2018, including those for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for nonrandomized controlled studies (NRSs). Independent reviewers assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seven RCTs and 3 NRSs proved eligible. No studies reported on symptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two RCTs reported on screening-detected proximal and distal DVTs. We used the findings of these 2 RCTs as the closest surrogate outcomes to inform the proximal and distal DVT outcomes. These 2 RCTs suggest that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may decrease the risk of developing asymptomatic proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; low certainty). Findings were uncertain for mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.57-2.86; low certainty), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.03-27.42; very low certainty), asymptomatic distal DVT (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; very low certainty), and reoperation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-2.84; very low certainty) outcomes. NRSs also reported uncertain findings for whether pharmacologic prophylaxis affects mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; low certainty) and PE (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01-3.76). For risk of bleeding, findings were uncertain in both RCTs (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.70-3.50; low certainty) and NRSs (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.30-7.12; very low certainty). In patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, low certainty of evidence suggests that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis confers benefit for preventing asymptomatic (screening-detected) proximal DVT with very low certainty regarding its impact on patient-important outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsWe identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.ConclusionsThere is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018095980.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Many patients encounter a variety of problems after discharge from hospital and many discharge (planning and support) interventions have been developed and studied. These primary studies have already been synthesized in several literature reviews with conflicting conclusions. We therefore set out a systematic review of the reviews examining discharge interventions. The objective was to synthesize the evidence presented in literature on the effectiveness of interventions aimed to reduce post-discharge problems in adults discharged home from an acute general care hospital. METHODS: A comprehensive search of seventeen literature databases and twenty-five websites was performed for the period 1994-2004 to find relevant reviews. A three-stage inclusion process consisting of initial sifting, checking full-text papers on inclusion criteria, and methodological assessment, was performed independently by two reviewers. Data on effects were synthesized by use of narrative and tabular methods. RESULTS: Fifteen systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. All reviews had to deal with considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and outcomes, making synthesizing and pooling difficult. Although a statistical significant effect was occasionally found, most review authors reached no firm conclusions that the discharge interventions they studied were effective. We found limited evidence that some interventions may improve knowledge of patients, may help in keeping patients at home or may reduce readmissions to hospital. Interventions that combine discharge planning and discharge support tend to lead to the greatest effects. There is little evidence that discharge interventions have an impact on length of stay, discharge destination or dependency at discharge. We found no evidence that discharge interventions have a positive impact on the physical status of patients after discharge, on health care use after discharge, or on costs. CONCLUSION: Based on fifteen high quality systematic reviews, there is some evidence that some interventions may have a positive impact, particularly those with educational components and those that combine pre-discharge and post-discharge interventions. However, on the whole there is only limited summarized evidence that discharge planning and discharge support interventions have a positive impact on patient status at hospital discharge, on patient functioning after discharge, on health care use after discharge, or on costs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although some geriatric trauma patients may be at low risk of complications, poor outcomes are pronounced if complications do occur. Prevention in this group decreases the risk of excess morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a case-control study of trauma patients 65 years or older treated from January 2015 to August 2016 at a Level I trauma center with a Trauma Quality Improvement Program-predicted probability of complication of less than 20%. Cases had one of the following complications: unplanned admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), unplanned intubation, pneumonia, or unplanned return to the operating room. Two age-matched controls were randomly selected for each case. We collected information on comorbidities, home medications, and early medical care and calculated odds ratios using multivariable conditional logistic regression. RESULTS:Ninety-four patients experienced unplanned admission to ICU (n = 51), unplanned intubation (n = 14), pneumonia (n = 21), and unplanned return to the operating room (n = 8). The 188 controls were more frequently intubated and had higher median ISS but were otherwise similar to cases. The adjusted odds of complication were higher for patients on a home ?-blocker (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-4.0) and home anticoagulation (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.1). Patients with diabetes (aOR 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7) and dementia (aOR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.3) also had higher odds of complication. The adjusted odds of complication for patients receiving geriatrics consultation was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-1.0; p = 0.05). Pain service consultation and indwelling pain catheter placement may be protective, but CIs included 1. There was no association between opiates, benzodiazepines, fluid administration, or blood products in the first 24 hours and odds of complication. CONCLUSIONS:Geriatrics consultation was associated with lower odds of unplanned admission to the ICU, unplanned intubation, pneumonia, and unplanned return to the operating room in low-risk older adult trauma patients. Pathways that support expanding comanagement strategies with geriatricians are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic/Care management, Level IV.

Dataset Information

Ethical case interventions for adult patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure