Cost efficiency analysis of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus liquid based (Cytyc Thinprep) processing of urinary samples.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Liquid based cytology (LBC) was developed as a replacement for cytocentrifugation in the treatment of cell suspensions. Because accurate data comparing the quality and total cost of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus LBC in non-gynaecological samples are not available, this study was designed to investigate these issues. METHODS: The study comprised 224 urine samples treated with the Thermo Shandon Cytospin 4 using reusable TPX chambers, disposable Cytofunnels for samples up to 0.5 ml, and disposable Megafunnels for samples up to 6 ml. Each method was compared with the Cytyc Thinprep processing of a paired sample. Quality was assessed by scoring cellularity, fixation, red blood cells, leucocytes, abnormalities of urothelial cells, and suitability for molecular studies. Wage costs, investment, and consumables allowed a "total cost" to be calculated on the basis of 200 specimens/month. Total cost and quality combined were used to calculate an index of total quality (ITQ). RESULTS: Cytocentrifugation with disposable chambers resulted in a global quality superior to that of Cytyc Thinprep LBC. Preparation and screening times were 2.25 and 1.33-2 times greater when using LBC compared with cytocentrifugation. The total cost each month reached 1960.23 $ to 2833.43 $ for cytocentrifugation methods and 5464.95 $ for Cytyc Thinprep LBC (92.8-178.8% increased cost). ITQ of cytocentrifugation with disposable chambers surpassed that of Cytyc Thinprep LBC (37.25/32.08 and 9.98, respectively). CONCLUSION: Cytyc Thinprep LBC and cytocentrifugation are both appropriate methods for cytology based molecular studies, but cytocentrifugation remains the quality standard for current treatment of urinary samples because of its lower cost.

The safety of immediate extubation after abdominal aortic surgery: a prospective, randomized trial.

UNLABELLED: We performed this study to assess the safety of immediate extubation after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into two groups after surgery: Group 1 (n = 29) immediate extubation; and Group 2 (n = 21) delayed (at least 4 h) extubation. All patients were assessed by a senior anesthesiologist or intensivist before extubation. The following data were collected: preoperative-demographics, presence of comorbid disease, body mass index, hemoglobin level, heart rate, and blood pressure; intraoperative-duration of surgery and cross-clamping, blood loss, amount of crystalloids, colloids, and blood transfused, temperature at end of procedure, urine output, and complications; and postoperative-time to extubation, scores on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II and Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System, total fentanyl dose, and complications. Outcome variables were length of intensive care unit and hospital stay and 28-day mortality. The results showed no significant differences in preoperative or intraoperative variables between the groups, apart from a longer duration of surgery in Group 1 (P = 0.045). Group 2 patients had a significantly higher Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System score (P = 0.04) and required a significantly larger dose of fentanyl (P < 0.001). One patient in Group 2 required reintubation after a cerebrovascular accident. The overall mortality rate was 4% (2 patients in Group 2). There were no significant differences in any of the outcome variables. We conclude that immediate extubation can safely be performed after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. IMPLICATIONS: In this prospective randomized study, we compared the outcome of patients undergoing elective aortic abdominal surgery who either were extubated immediately after surgery or after 4 h of stabilization in the intensive care unit. No significant differences were found in the length of intensive care unit or hospital stay, or 28-day mortality between the 2 groups.