Clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of single rooms versus multioccupancy accommodation on inpatient healthcare outcomes and processes. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence website up to 17 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible papers assessed the effect on inpatients staying in hospital of being assigned to a either a single room or shared accommodation, except where that assignment was for a direct clinical reason like preventing infection spread. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and synthesised narratively, according to the methods of Campbell et al. RESULTS: Of 4861 citations initially identified, 145 were judged to be relevant to this review. Five main method types were reported. All studies had methodological issues that potentially biased the results by not adjusting for confounding factors that are likely to have contributed to the outcomes. Ninety-two papers compared clinical outcomes for patients in single rooms versus shared accommodation. No clearly consistent conclusions could be drawn about overall benefits of single rooms. Single rooms were most likely to be associated with a small overall clinical benefit for the most severely ill patients, especially neonates in intensive care. Patients who preferred single rooms tended to do so for privacy and for reduced disturbances. By contrast, some groups were more likely to prefer shared accommodation to avoid loneliness. Greater costs associated with building single rooms were small and likely to be recouped over time by other efficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of difference between inpatient accommodation types in a large number of studies suggests that there would be little effect on clinical outcomes, particularly in routine care. Patients in intensive care areas are most likely to benefit from single rooms. Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022311689.

Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Minimally invasive surgical therapies for male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were developed to be safer and more tolerable than standard ablative techniques. These treatments have not been compared with each other in a randomised fashion, and for some treatments, there are no trials against a reference technique. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature for randomised controlled trials was performed. Trials meeting the selection criteria were assessed for the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Treatments were compared, using a network meta-analysis, in terms of outcomes including symptom score, quality of life, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual urine, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), and scales from the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search identified 63 trials. Symptoms and quality of life for PAE, PUL, and WVTT appeared similar to those for TURP, whereas TURP was found to have the most clinically significant improvement in flow rate. TUMT was less efficacious than TURP but provided similar results on quality of life. Comparisons of ejaculatory function favoured WVTT and PUL compared with TURP. The relative efficacy of iTIND was less clear because of the risk of bias in the respective trial. CONCLUSIONS: PAE, PUL, and WVTT appear favourable from a risk-benefit perspective despite probably having less efficacy than TURP for objective outcomes. These findings warrant confirmation through long-term randomised controlled trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper has summarised the evidence from 63 clinical trials on minimally invasive surgical therapies for men with symptoms of an enlarged prostate, including water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), temporary implantable nitinol device, and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). Improvement in symptoms for each of PAE, PUL, TUMT, and WVTT in short-term follow-up was similar to that for the standard surgical treatment, although standard surgery appeared to provide the greatest increase in urine flow. Men who had WVTT or PUL were less likely to have problems with sexual function than those who had standard surgery.

The Efficacy and Safety of Laser and Electrosurgical Transurethral Procedures for the Treatment of BPO in High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety outcomes of GreenLight, Holmium and Thulium laser  techniques with standard monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in high-risk patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies in patients undergoing BPO surgeries who may be considered high-risk for standard TURP, with higher risk defined as follows: large prostates (≥80 mL) and/or taking antithrombotic agents and/or urinary retention and/or age >80 years and/or significant comorbidity.  Outcomes summarised included bleeding complications, re-intervention rates, hospital length of stay, and standard measures of disease and symptom severity for all available timepoints. Results: A total of 276 studies of 32,722 patients reported relevant data. Studies were heterogeneous in methodology, population and outcomes reported. IPSS reduction, Qmax improvement and PVR were similar across all interventions. Mean values at baseline and after 12 months across interventions were 13.2-29 falling to 2.3-10.8 for IPSS, 0-19 mL/s increasing to 7.5-34.1 mL/s for Qmax and 41.4-954 mL falling to 5.1-138.3 mL for PVR. Laser treatments show some advantages compared with monopolar and bipolar TURP for some adverse events and safety parameters such as bleeding complications. Duration of hospital stay, reinterventions and recatheterisations were lower with GreenLight, HoLEP, Thulium lasers, and bipolar enucleation than TURP. Conclusions: Laser therapies are effective and well-tolerated treatment options in high-risk patients with BPO compared with monopolar or bipolar TURP. The advantageous safety profile of laser treatments means that patients with a higher bleeding risk should be offered laser surgery preferentially to mTURP or bTURP.

Reasons for discontinuing oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and can lead to significant comorbidities and mortality. Persistence with oral anticoagulation (OAC) is crucial to prevent stroke but rates of discontinuation are high. This systematic review explored underlying reasons for OAC discontinuation. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies that reported factors influencing discontinuation of OAC in AF, in 11 databases, grey literature and backwards citations from eligible studies published between 2000 and 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and papers against inclusion criteria and extracted data. Study quality was appraised using Gough's weight of evidence framework. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Of 6,619 sources identified, 10 full studies and 2 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Overall, these provided moderate appropriateness to answer the review question. Four reported clinical registry data, six were retrospective reviews of patients' medical records and two studies reported interviews and surveys. Nine studies evaluated outcomes relating to dabigatran and/or warfarin and three included rivaroxaban (n = 3), apixaban (n = 3) and edoxaban (n = 1). Bleeding complications and gastrointestinal events were the most common factors associated with discontinuation, followed by frailty and risk of falling. Patients' perspectives were seldom specifically assessed. Influence of family carers in decisions regarding OAC discontinuation was not examined. CONCLUSION: The available evidence is derived from heterogeneous studies with few relevant data for the newer direct oral anticoagulants. Reasons underpinning decision-making to discontinue OAC from the perspective of patients, family carers and clinicians is poorly understood.