RESUMEN
The effect of post-operative adverse events (AEs) on patient outcomes such as length of stay (LOS) and readmissions to hospital is not completely understood. This study examined the severity of AEs from a high-volume thoracic surgery center and its effect on the patient postoperative LOS and readmissions to hospital. This study includes patients who underwent an elective lung resection between September 2018 and January 2020. The AEs were grouped as no AEs, 1 or more minor AEs, and 1 or more major AEs. The effects of the AEs on patient LOS and readmissions were examined using a survival analysis and logistic regression, respectively, while adjusting for the other demographic or clinical variables. Among 488 patients who underwent lung surgery, (Wedge resection [n = 100], Segmentectomy [n = 51], Lobectomy [n = 310], Bilobectomy [n = 10], or Pneumonectomy [n = 17]) for either primary (n = 440) or secondary (n = 48) lung cancers, 179 (36.7%) patients had no AEs, 264 (54.1%) patients had 1 or more minor AEs, and 45 (9.2%) patients had 1 or more major AEs. Overall, the median of LOS was 3 days which varied significantly between AE groups; 2, 4, and 8 days among the no, minor, and major AE groups, respectively. In addition, type of surgery, renal disease (urinary tract infection [UTI], urinary retention, or acute kidney injury), and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) score were significant predictors of LOS. Finally, 58 (11.9%) patients were readmitted. Readmission was significantly associated with AE group (P = 0.016). No other variable could significantly predict patient readmission. Overall, postoperative AEs significantly affect the postoperative LOS and readmission rates.
RESUMEN
Guideline developers consider cost-effectiveness evidence in decision making to determine value for money. This consideration in the guideline development process can be informed either by formal and dedicated economic evaluations or by systematic reviews of existing studies. To inform the American Society of Hematology guideline on the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), we conducted a systematic review focused on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for VTE within the guideline scope. We systematically searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry; summarized; and critically appraised the economic evidence on diagnostic strategies for VTE. We identified 49 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 26 on pulmonary embolism (PE) and 24 on deep vein thrombosis (DVT). For the diagnosis of PE, strategies including d-dimer to exclude PE were cost-effective compared with strategies without d-dimer testing. The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) in relation to ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan was inconclusive. CTPA or V/Q scan following ultrasound or d-dimer results could be cost-effective or even cost saving. For DVT, studies supporting strategies with d-dimer and/or ultrasound were cost-effective, supporting the recommendation that for patients at low (unlikely) VTE risk, using d-dimer as the initial test reduces the need for diagnostic imaging. Our systematic review informed the American Society of Hematology guideline recommendations about d-dimer, V/Q scan and CTPA for PE diagnosis, and d-dimer and ultrasound for DVT diagnosis.
Asunto(s)
Embolia Pulmonar , Tromboembolia Venosa , Trombosis de la Vena , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Medicina Estatal , Tromboembolia Venosa/diagnóstico , Trombosis de la Vena/diagnósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Levels of knowledge about diabetes mellitus (DM) among newly diagnosed diabetics in Bangladesh are unknown. This study assessed the relationship between knowledge and practices among newly diagnosed type 2 DM patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed adults with type 2 diabetes (N = 508) were selected from 19 healthcare centers. Patients' knowledge and self-care practices were assessed via interviewer-administered questionnaires using a cross-sectional design. Knowledge questions were divided into basic and technical sections. Knowledge scores were categorized as poor (