BackgroundThe tourniquet is a common medical instrument used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there has always been a debate about the use of a tourniquet and there is no published meta-analysis to study the effects of a tourniquet on blood loss in primary TKA for patients with osteoarthritis.MethodsWe performed a literature review on high-quality clinical studies to determine the effects of using a tourniquet or not on blood loss in cemented TKA. PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2018 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a meta-analysis following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook. We used the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias of each trial. The statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager statistical software (version 5.3).ResultsEleven RCTs involving 541 patients (541 knees) were included in this meta-analysis. There were 271 patients (271 knees) in the tourniquet group and 270 patients (270 knees) in the no tourniquet group. The results showed that using a tourniquet significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.002), calculated blood loss (P < 0.002), and the time of operation (P < 0.002), but tourniquet use did not significantly decrease postoperative blood loss (P > 0.05), total blood loss (P > 0.05), the rate of transfusion (P > 0.05), and of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (P > 0.05) in TKA.ConclusionsUsing a tourniquet can significantly decrease intraoperative blood loss, calculated blood loss, and operation time but does not significantly decrease the rate of transfusion or the rate of DVT in TKA. More research is needed to determine if there are fewer complications in TKA without the use of tourniquets.

Hospitals have become increasingly interested in maximizing patient throughput and bed utilization in all units to improve efficiency. To study tradeoffs in blocking and system efficiency, a simulation model using a path-based approach is developed for an obstetric unit. The model focuses on patient flow, considering patient classification, blocking effects, time dependent arrival and departure patterns, and statistically supported distributions for length of stay (LOS). The model is applied to DeKalb Medical's Women's Center, a large obstetrics hospital in Atlanta, GA, to analyze the hospital's readiness for potential changes to patient mix and patient volume. A comparison of results predicted by the simulation model and actual performance after implementation of "swing" rooms is presented, suggesting the value of implementing "swing" rooms to balance bed allocation.

Oral dabigatran etexilate is indicated for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom anticoagulation is appropriate. Based on the RE-LY study we investigated the cost-effectiveness of Health Canada approved dabigatran etexilate dosing (150 mg bid for patients <80 years, 110 mg bid for patients ≥80 years) versus warfarin and "real-world" prescribing (i.e. warfarin, aspirin, or no treatment in a cohort of warfarin-eligible patients) from a Canadian payer perspective. A Markov model simulated AF patients at moderate to high risk of stroke while tracking clinical events [primary and recurrent ischaemic strokes, systemic embolism, transient ischaemic attack, haemorrhage (intracranial, extracranial, and minor), acute myocardial infarction and death] and resulting functional disability. Acute event costs and resulting long-term follow-up costs incurred by disabled stroke survivors were based on a Canadian prospective study, published literature, and national statistics. Clinical events, summarized as events per 100 patient-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Over a lifetime, dabigatran etexilate treated patients experienced fewer intracranial haemorrhages (0.49 dabigatran etexilate vs. 1.13 warfarin vs. 1.05 "real-world" prescribing) and fewer ischaemic strokes (4.40 dabigatran etexilate vs. 4.66 warfarin vs. 5.16 "real-world" prescribing) per 100 patient-years. The ICER of dabigatran etexilate was $10,440/QALY versus warfarin and $3,962/QALY versus "real-world" prescribing. This study demonstrates that dabigatran etexilate is a highly cost-effective alternative to current care for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism among Canadian AF patients.

Background Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the United States, yet a significant proportion of adults at high risk remain undetected by standard screening practices. Polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD‐PRS) improves precision in determining the 10‐year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but health benefits and health care costs associated with CAD‐PRS are unknown. We examined the cost‐effectiveness of including CAD‐PRS as a risk‐enhancing factor in the pooled cohort equation (PCE)—the standard of care for determining the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—versus PCE alone. Methods and Results We applied a Markov model on a cohort of 40‐year‐old individuals with borderline or intermediate 10‐year risk (5% to <20%) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to identify those in the top quintile of the CAD‐PRS distribution who are at high risk and eligible for statin prevention therapy. Health outcomes examined included coronary artery disease (CAD; ie, myocardial infarction) and ischemic stroke. The model projected medical costs (2019 US$) of screening for CAD, statin prevention therapy, treatment, and monitoring patients living with CAD or ischemic stroke and quality‐adjusted life‐years for PCE+CAD‐PRS versus PCE alone. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to examine uncertainty in parameter inputs. PCE+CAD‐PRS was dominant compared with PCE alone in the 5‐ and 10‐year time horizons. We found that, respectively, PCE+CAD‐PRS had 0.003 and 0.011 higher mean quality‐adjusted life‐years and $40 and $181 lower mean costs per person screened, with 29 and 50 fewer events of CAD and ischemic stroke in a cohort of 10 000 individuals compared with PCE alone. The risk of developing CAD, the effectiveness of statin prevention therapy, and the cost of treating CAD had the largest impact on the cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained. However, this cost remained below the $50 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold except when the annual risk of developing CAD was <0.006 in the 5‐year time horizon. Results from Monte Carlo simulation indicated that PCE+CAD‐PRS would be cost‐effective. with the probability of 94% and 99% at $50 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold in the 5‐ and 10‐year time horizon, respectively. Conclusions Implementing CAD‐PRS as a risk‐enhancing factor in the PCE to determine the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease reduced the mean cost per individual, improved quality‐adjusted life‐years, and averted future events of CAD and ischemic stroke when compared with PCE alone.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily versus warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation initiating treatment before age 75 (<75), at or after age 75 (≥ 75), and the overall population (All) from a US Medicare payer perspective. Clinical event rates by age cohort with dabigatran or warfarin for safety-on-treatment and intent-to-treat populations were estimated from Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY). An economic model was adapted using these data to evaluate the impact of starting age on clinical and economic outcomes. Costs were obtained from Medicare payment schedules and utilities from publications. Model outputs included event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The RE-LY analysis shows that the <75 cohort has lower rates of all events than the ≥ 75 cohort; versus warfarin, dabigatran performed better in main efficacy and safety in all age cohorts with the exception of extracranial hemorrhage in the ≥ 75 cohort. The clinical event costs avoided per patient for dabigatran were $1,100, $135, and $713 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. Extrapolating over a lifetime horizon, the model found that dabigatran resulted in lower rates of stroke and intracranial hemorrhage and higher rates for extracranial hemorrhage versus warfarin for all age cohorts. Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and costs were higher for dabigatran than warfarin, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $52,773, $65,946, and $56,131 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. In conclusion, dabigatran was cost-effective versus warfarin in US patients with atrial fibrillation regardless of age of treatment initiation.