Impact of a medication reconciliation care bundle at hospital discharge on continuity of care: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of a care bundle including medication reconciliation at discharge by a pharmacist versus standard of care, on continuity of therapeutic changes between hospital and primary care and outcome of patients, within 1 month after discharge. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial in 120 adult patients with at least one chronic disease and three current medications before admission, hospitalised in an infectious disease department of a tertiary hospital and discharged home. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a discharge care bundle including medication reconciliation, counselling session and documentation transfer to primary care physician (PCP) (intervention group) or standard of care (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of in-hospital prescription changes, not maintained by the PCP, 1 month after discharge. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients experiencing early PCP's consultation, hospital readmissions or adverse reactions within 1-month postdischarge and cost of discharge prescriptions. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. One month after discharge, the proportion of in-hospital prescription changes, not maintained by the PCP, was 11% in the intervention group versus 24% in the control group (P = .007). The median delay before PCP's consultation was longer in the intervention group (30.5 vs 19.5 days, P = .013), there were fewer patients readmitted to hospital (3.4% vs 20.7%, P = .009, odds ratio (OR) = 0.13 [0.02-0.53]) and fewer patients who suffered from adverse drug reaction (7.0% vs 22.8%, P = .04, OR = 0.26 [0.07-0.78]). CONCLUSION: This care bundle resulted in the reduction of treatment changes between hospital discharge and primary care.

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Because of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. RESULTS: Of the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost-utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15-19) according to the CHEERS checklist. CONCLUSION: The current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

Evaluation of 3D printing costs in surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The use of three-dimensional (3D) printing in surgery is expanding and there is a focus on comprehensively evaluating the clinical impact of this technology. However, although additional costs are one of the main limitations to its use, little is known about its economic impact. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the costs associated with its use and highlight the first quantitative data available. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases and in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) at the University of York. Studies that reported an assessment of the costs associated with the use of 3D printing for surgical application and published between 2009 and 2019, in English or French, were included. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in our review. Nine types of costs were identified, the three main ones being printing material costs (n = 6), staff costs (n = 3), and operating room costs (n = 3). The printing cost ranged from less than U.S. dollars (USD) 1 to USD 146 (in USD 2019 values) depending on the criteria used to calculate this cost. Three studies evaluated the potential savings generated by the use of 3D printing technology in surgery, based on operating time reduction. CONCLUSION: This literature review highlights the lack of reliable economic data on 3D printing technology. Nevertheless, this review makes it possible to identify expenditures or items that should be considered in order to carry out more robust studies.

The learning curve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical studies: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has become an essential alternative to surgical aortic-valve replacement in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and this procedure requires technical expertise. The aim of this study was to identify prospective studies on TAVI from the past 10 years, and then to analyze the quality of information reported about the learning curve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of articles published between 2007 and 2017 was performed using PubMed and the EMBASE database. Prospective studies regarding TAVI were included. The quality of information reported about the learning curve was evaluated using the following criteria: mention of the learning curve, the description of a roll-in phase, the involvement of a proctor, and the number of patients suggested to maintain skills. RESULTS: A total of sixty-eight studies met the selection criteria and were suitable for analysis. The learning curve was addressed in approximately half of the articles (n = 37, 54 percent). However, the roll-in period was mentioned by only eight studies (12 percent) and with very few details. Furthermore, a proctorship was disclosed in three articles (4 percent) whereas twenty-five studies (37 percent) included authors that were proctors for manufacturers of TAVI. CONCLUSION: Many prospective studies on TAVI over the past 10 years mention learning curves as a core component of successful TAVI procedures. However, the quality of information reported about the learning curve is relatively poor, and uniform guidance on how to properly assess the learning curve is still missing.