Cost–benefit analysis of surveillance for surgical site infection following caesarean section

Objective To estimate the economic burden to the health service of surgical site infection following caesarean section and to identify potential savings achievable through implementation of a surveillance programme. Design Economic model to evaluate the costs and benefits of surveillance from community and hospital healthcare providers’ perspective. Setting England. Participants Women undergoing caesarean section in National Health Service hospitals. Main outcome measure Costs attributable to treatment and management of surgical site infection following caesarean section. Results The costs (2010) for a hospital carrying out 800 caesarean sections a year based on infection risk of 9.6% were estimated at £18,914 (95% CI 11,521 to 29,499) with 28% accounted for by community care (£5,370). With inflation to 2019 prices, this equates to an estimated cost of £5.0m for all caesarean sections performed annually in England 2018-19, approximately £1,866 and £93 per infection managed in hospital and community respectively. The cost of surveillance for a hospital for one calendar quarter was estimated as £3,747 (2010 costs). Modelling a decrease in risk of infection of 30, 20 or 10% between successive surveillance periods indicated that a variable intermittent surveillance strategy achieved higher or similar net savings than continuous surveillance. Breakeven was reached sooner with the variable surveillance strategy than continuous surveillance when the baseline risk of infection was 10 or 15% and smaller loses with a baseline risk of 5%. Conclusion Surveillance of surgical site infections after caesarean section with feedback of data to surgical teams offers a potentially effective means to reduce infection risk, improve patient experience and save money for the health service. Strengths and limitations • The model estimated both community (28%) and hospital costs (72%), providing a more representative estimate of overall economic burden to the health service. • Time-matching of patients with and without infection according to length of post-operative stay provided a more accurate assessment of excess bed-days attributable to surgical site infection (2.6 days) than average excess length of stay (median difference 5 days) comparison by disentangling the impact of prolonged length of stay on increased chance of detecting an infection. • Through capture and assessment of the costs and impact of surveillance, our model demonstrated the potential for savings through reductions in incidence of surgical site infections. • Costs were obtained from NHS National Schedule Reference Costs and other sources rather than observed expenditure and assumptions made about the number of extra midwife and general practitioner appointments resulting from infection. • The study was based on healthcare utilisation and did not assess direct and indirect costs borne by the patients or their carers

Postoperative continuous positive airway pressure to prevent pneumonia, re-intubation, and death after major abdominal surgery (PRISM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Respiratory complications are an important cause of postoperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) administered immediately after major abdominal surgery could prevent postoperative morbidity. Methods: PRISM was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 70 hospitals across six countries. Patients aged 50 years or older who were undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive CPAP within 4 h of the end of surgery or usual postoperative care. Patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm with inbuilt concealment. The primary outcome was a composite of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death within 30 days after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received CPAP. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56012545. Findings: Between Feb 8, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, 4806 patients were randomly assigned (2405 to the CPAP group and 2401 to the usual care group), of whom 4793 were included in the primary analysis (2396 in the CPAP group and 2397 in the usual care group). 195 (8\ub71%) of 2396 patients in the CPAP group and 197 (8\ub72%) of 2397 patients in the usual care group met the composite primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1\ub701 [95% CI 0\ub781-1\ub724]; p=0\ub795). 200 (8\ub79%) of 2241 patients in the CPAP group had adverse events. The most common adverse events were claustrophobia (78 [3\ub75%] of 2241 patients), oronasal dryness (43 [1\ub79%]), excessive air leak (36 [1\ub76%]), vomiting (26 [1\ub72%]), and pain (24 [1\ub71%]). There were two serious adverse events: one patient had significant hearing loss and one patient had obstruction of their venous catheter caused by a CPAP hood, which resulted in transient haemodynamic instability. Interpretation: In this large clinical effectiveness trial, CPAP did not reduce the incidence of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death after major abdominal surgery. Although CPAP has an important role in the treatment of respiratory failure after surgery, routine use of prophylactic post-operative CPAP is not recommended