Clinical parameters that predict the need for medium or intensive care admission in intentional drug overdose patients: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with intentional drug overdose (IDO) are admitted to a medium (MC) or intensive care unit (IC) without ever requiring MC/IC related interventions. The objective of this study was to develop a decision tool, using parameters readily available in the emergency room (ER) for patients with an IDO, to identify patients requiring admission to a monitoring unit. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study among cases of IDO with drugs having potentially acute effects on neurological, circulatory or ventilatory function, admitted to the MC/IC unit between 2007 and 2013. A decision tool was developed, using 6 criteria, representing intubation, breathing, oxygenation, cardiac conduction, blood pressure, and consciousness. Cases were labeled as 'high acuity' if one or more criteria were present. RESULTS: Among 255 cases of IDO that met the inclusion criteria, 197 were identified as "high acuity". Only 70 of 255 cases underwent one or more MC/IC related interventions, of which 67 were identified as 'high acuity by the decision tool (sensitivity 95.7%). CONCLUSION: In a population of patients with intentional drug overdose with agents having potentially acute effect on vital functions, 95.7% of MC/IC interventions could be predicted by clinical assessment, supplemented with electrocardiogram and blood gas analysis, in the ER.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial).

OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are at increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality. The Dutch nationwide disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT trial) showed that induction of labour and expectant monitoring were comparable with respect to composite adverse neonatal outcome and operative delivery. In this study we compare the costs of both strategies. STUDY DESIGN: A cost analysis was performed alongside the DIGITAT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial in which 650 women with a singleton pregnancy with suspected IUGR beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy were allocated to induction or expectant management. Resource utilization was documented by specific items in the case report forms. Unit costs for clinical resources were calculated from the financial reports of participating hospitals. For primary care costs Dutch standardized prices were used. All costs are presented in Euros converted to the year 2009. RESULTS: Antepartum expectant monitoring generated more costs, mainly due to longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. During delivery and the postpartum stage, induction generated more direct medical costs, due to longer stay in the labour room and longer duration of neonatal high care/medium care admissions. From a health care perspective, both strategies generated comparable costs: on average €7106 per patient for the induction group (N=321) and €6995 for the expectant management group (N=329) with a cost difference of €111 (95%CI: €-1296 to 1641). CONCLUSION: Induction of labour and expectant monitoring in IUGR at term have comparable outcomes immediately after birth in terms of obstetrical outcomes, maternal quality of life and costs. Costs are lower, however, in the expectant monitoring group before 38 weeks of gestation and costs are lower in the induction of labour group after 38 weeks of gestation. So if induction of labour is considered to pre-empt possible stillbirth in suspected IUGR, it is reasonable to delay until 38 weeks, with watchful monitoring.