Infection in surgical patients: effects on mortality, hospitalization, and postdischarge care.

In-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), and level of postdischarge care in infected and noninfected surgical patients were studied. An analysis was conducted of a database that included diagnostic, procedure, and drug data collected when surgical patients were discharged from the hospital. Hospitals consisted of 90 nongovernment, nonspecialty, teaching, and nonteaching acute care hospitals of more than 100 beds. Patients in the database included 288,906 patients of all ages hospitalized between July and September 1994. Patients selected of those who had undergone procedures likely to pose a moderate to high risk of infection. Of the 288,906 patients, 12,384 had undergone a moderate- to high-risk procedure; of these, 1,479 (11.9%) had had an infection during their hospitalization. Infection rates ranged from 1.9% to 25.4%, depending on the procedure. The in-hospital mortality rate in infected patients was 14.5%, versus 1.8% for noninfected patients. Similarly, LOS in infected patients (median, 14 days) was substantially greater than in noninfected patients (4 days). About 24% of infected patients required additional professional care after discharge, compared with 7% of noninfected patients. Infection occurs in a substantial portion of surgical patients and is associated with a higher death rate, longer hospitalization, and more intense postdischarge care.

Assessing cost effectiveness of antimicrobial treatment: monotherapy compared with combination therapy.

The obvious costs of antibiotic treatment include drugs, equipment with which to give them, and assays. Less obvious, but more important, are the costs of quality control to ensure safe and effective treatment. The more complex the regimen, the more expensive the quality control. None the less, there is considerable variation in both assay price and number of assays/patient. Our data show that the drug costs of a regimen such as ampicillin plus gentamicin plus metronidazole are outweighed by the costs of quality assurance to prevent drug toxicity and charges of malpractice. Trials show that monotherapy with various beta-lactams is more cost effective than aminoglycoside combinations for surgical infections. Compounds such as piperacillin/tazobactam, a new beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination that is classed as monotherapy, have the potential to solve many of these economic problems. Several completed and continuing clinical studies are showing that monotherapy is as effective as combination treatment. Cost studies in the future are likely to confirm the economic advantages of monotherapy.

Cost of gentamicin assays carried out by microbiology laboratories.

AIMS: To assess the current range of prices charged for gentamicin assays in United Kingdom laboratories; and to examine the laboratories' likely response to increases or decreases in the demand for the service. METHODS: A postal survey of the 420 members of the Association of Medical Microbiologists was used to establish the range of prices charged for aminoglycoside assays. Additionally, eight private institutions were contacted to determine what the private sector was charging for aminoglycoside assays. Reagent costs in the NHS laboratories were calculated by dividing the total cost of all aminoglycoside assay kits by the number of samples analysed. RESULTS: The NHS and the private institutions both showed a wide price variation. Prices charged to an in-hospital requester for a peak and trough assay ranged from 5.00 pounds to 68.20 pounds (n = 44), and to an external private hospital, under a bulk service contract, from 5.00 pounds to 96.00 pounds (n = 47). Prices charged by private laboratories ranged from 49.00 pounds to 84.00 pounds (n = 8). There was a log linear correlation in the NHS laboratories between the reagent costs per assay and the number of assays performed per year, and most laboratories thought that their price per assay would be sensitive to increases or decreases in demand. Laboratories which had purchased their assay machines had lower reagent costs per assay but higher repair and maintenance costs. Overall, number of assays performed and method of payment for assay machinery only accounted for 44.8% of the observed variation in assay kit costs. CONCLUSIONS: The price range for gentamicin assays in the United Kingdom is wide and is only partially explained by the number of assays performed. Most laboratories believe that they would experience a reduction in unit cost as output increases. The currently offered range of prices is, in part, due to variation in the laboratories' approach to costing the service provided and some laboratories charge prices which do not even cover the cost of assay kits. Overall, we believe that prices charged should be as close as possible to the marginal cost of the tests performed.