Project description:BackgroundThe current study was undertaken to examine total hospital costs per patient of a consecutive implantation series of two 3rd generation Left Ventricle Assist Devices (LVAD). Further we analyzed if increased clinical experience would reduce total hospital costs and the gap between costs and the diagnosis related grouped (DRG)-reimbursement.MethodCost data of 20 LVAD implantations (VentrAssist™) from 2005-2009 (period 1) were analyzed together with costs from nine patients using another LVAD (HeartWare™) from 2009-June 2011 (period 2). For each patient, total costs were calculated for three phases - the pre-LVAD implantation phase, the LVAD implantation phase and the post LVAD implant phase. Patient specific costs were obtained prospectively from patient records and included personnel resources, medication, blood products, blood chemistry and microbiology, imaging and procedure costs including operating room costs. Overhead costs were registered retrospectively and allocated to the specific patient by predefined allocation keys. Finally, patient specific costs and overhead costs were aggregated into total hospital costs for each patient. All costs were calculated in 2011-prices. We used regression analyses to analyze cost variations over time and between the different devices.ResultsThe average total hospital cost per patient for the pre-LVAD, LVAD and post-LVAD for period 1 was $ 585, 513 (range 132, 640- 1 247, 299), and the corresponding DRG- reimbursement (2009) was $ 143, 192 . The mean LOS was 54 days (range 12- 127). For period 2 the total hospital cost per patient was $ 413, 185 (range 314, 540- 622, 664) and the corresponding DRG- reimbursement (2010) was $ 136, 963. The mean LOS was 49 days (range 31- 93).The estimates from the regression analysis showed that the total hospital costs, excluding device costs, per patient were falling as the number of treated patients increased. The estimate from the trend variable was -14, 096 US$ (CI -3, 842 to -24, 349, p < 0.01).ConclusionThere were significant reductions in total hospital costs per patient as the numbers of patients were increasing. This can possibly be explained by a learning effect including better logistics, selection and management of patients.
Project description:ObjectivesWe estimate the prevalence of sexually transmitted infection (STI) among patients after sexual assault, assess the possible value of azithromycin prophylaxis, and identify risk factors for assault-related STI and for not presenting at follow-up.DesignProspective observational cohort study.SettingSexual assault centre in Oslo, Norway.Participants645 patients, 602 (93.3%) women and 43 (6.7%) men, attending the centre from May 2017 to July 2019.Outcome measuresMicrobiological testing at the primary examination and at follow-up consultations after 2, 5 and 12 weeks. Estimated relative risk for assault-related STI and for not presenting at follow-up.ResultsAt primary examination, the prevalence of genital chlamydia was 8.4%, Mycoplasma genitalium 6.4% and gonorrhoea 0.6%. In addition, the prevalence of bacterial STI diagnosed at follow-up and possibly from the assault was 3.0% in total: 2.5% for M. genitalium, 1.4% for genital chlamydia and 0.2% for gonorrhoea. This prevalence did not change when azithromycin was no longer recommended from January 2018. There were no new cases of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV or syphilis. We found no specific risk factors for assault-related STI. Patients with previous contact with child welfare service less often presented to follow-up (relative risk (RR) 2.0 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.5)), as did patients with a history of sex work (RR 3.6 (1.2 to 11.0)) or substance abuse (RR 1.7 (1.1 to 2.7)).ConclusionsMost bacterial STIs were diagnosed at the primary examination, hence not influenced by prophylaxis. There was no increase in bacterial STI diagnosed at follow-up when azithromycin prophylaxis was not routinely recommended, supporting a strategy of starting treatment only when infection is diagnosed or when the patient is considered at high risk. Sex work, substance abuse and previous contact with child welfare services were associated with not presenting to follow-up.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03132389).