Role of parenteral iron in the management of anaemia in the elderly patient undergoing displaced subcapital hip fracture repair: preliminary data.

INTRODUCTION: An important percentage of patients affected by hip fracture require the administration of allogenic blood transfusion (ABT) to avoid the risks of perioperative acute anaemia. However, concerns about ABT risks have led to the search for alternatives, especially in elective orthopaedic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have prospectively investigated the effect of preoperative intravenous 200-300 mg (group 2; n=20) iron sucrose on ABT requirements and postoperative morbid-mortality in patients undergoing surgery for displaced subcapital hip fracture (DSHF) repair. A previous series of 57 DSHF patients served as the control group (group 1). All patients were older than 65 years, were operated on the 3rd day after admission to the hospital, by the same medical team, and using the same implant. Age, gender, ASA classification, surgical procedure, perioperative haemoglobin, requirements for ABT, postoperative infection, length of hospital stay (LOS) and 30-day mortality rate were examined. RESULTS: No adverse reactions to the iron administration were observed. The iron group had a lower transfusion rate (15% vs 36.8%), lower transfusion index (0.26 vs 0.77 units per patient), lower 30d mortality rate (0 vs 19.3%), shorter LOS (11.9 vs 14.1 days), as well as a trend to a lower postoperative infection rate (15% vs 33%). CONCLUSION: Preoperative parenteral iron administration could be a safe and effective way to reduce the ABT requirements in DSHF patients. This reduction in the ABT requirements is accompanied by a reduction in the morbid-mortality rate and LOS. A large, randomised, controlled trial to confirm these results is warranted.

[Update of the cost of needlestick injuries in hospital healthcare personnel]. / Actualización del coste de las inoculaciones accidentales en el personal sanitario hospitalario.

OBJECTIVES: To update the mean cost of each hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV follow-up in health personnel accidentally exposed to blood and body fluids, to stratify the cost depending on the serological status of the source, and to identify the items that account for the main part of the cost. METHODS: A cost analysis was carried out. The postexposure program was modeled on a decision tree combining probabilities (percentage of each type of source depending on positivity for the three viruses and immunization status of the health worker against hepatitis B) and monetary costs (euros in 2002). Costs included salaries, laboratory, pharmacy (including postexposure prophylaxis), water, gas and electricity, cleaning, telephone, medical and office equipment, amortization and lost productivity. RESULTS: The mean cost was 388 euros, ranging from 1,502 euros (source positive for hepatitis C and HIV) to 172 euros (source negative for the three viruses). If the source was hepatitis B positive, the mean cost was 666 euros when the injured worker was not immunized and was 467 euros if the worker was immunized. Serologic tests and postexposure prophylaxis accounted for the main part of the cost. CONCLUSIONS: The high cost suggests the need for appropriate risk evaluation to avoid unnecessary follow-ups. The model used allows the cost of each potentially avoidable episode to be determined and could be used in any hospital to perform an economic evaluation of new preventive devices.

Actualización del coste de las inoculaciones accidentales en el personal sanitario hospitalario / Update of the cost of needlestick injuries in hospital healthcare personnel

Objetivos: Actualizar el coste medio a que asciende cada seguimiento de la hepatitis B y C, así como la infección por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH), en el personal sanitario que ha experimentado una inoculación accidental, desagregar el coste según el estado serológico de la fuente e identificar los apartados que influyen en mayor grado en la cuantía de este resultado. Métodos: Se realizó una descripción de los costes. El programa post exposición se modelizó en un árbol de decisión que combinaba las probabilidades (porcentaje de cada tipo de fuente en función de su positividad a los 3 virus e inmunización del accidentado frente a la hepatitis B) y los costes monetarios(en euros del año 2002) relacionados con los gastos de personal, laboratorio, farmacia (incluida la profilaxis post exposición frente al VIH), energéticos, de limpieza, teléfono, material médico y de oficina, amortización y pérdidas productivas. Resultados: El coste medio de cada inoculación fue de 388 euros, con un rango de 1.502 (fuente positiva a la hepatitis C y el VIH) a 172 euros (fuente negativa a los 3 virus). Si la fuente era la hepatitis B positiva, el coste medio fue de 666 euros cuando el accidentado no estaba inmunizado, y de 467 si efectivamente lo estaba. La mayor parte del coste residió en las pruebas serológicas y la administración de profilaxis post exposición. Conclusiones: El alto coste indica una evaluación adecuada del riesgo con el fin de evitar unos seguimientos innecesarios. El modelo permite conocer el coste de cada episodio potencialmente evitable y puede aplicarse en cualquier hospital, con el objetivo de evaluar económicamente los nuevos dispositivos preventivos

Objectives: To update the mean cost of each hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV follow-up in health personnel accidentally exposed to blood and body fluids, to stratify the cost depending on the serological status of the source, and to identify the items that account for the main part of the cost. Methods: A cost analysis was carried out. The post exposure program was modeled on a decision tree combining probabilities(percentage of each type of source depending on positivity for the three viruses and immunization status of the health worker against hepatitis B) and monetary costs (eurosin 2002). Costs included salaries, laboratory, pharmacy (including post exposure prophylaxis), water, gas and electricity, cleaning, telephone, medical and office equipment, amortization and lost productivity. Results: The mean cost was 388 euros, ranging from 1,502 euros (source positive for hepatitis C and HIV) to 172 euros(source negative for the three viruses). If the source was hepatitis B positive, the mean cost was 666 euros when the injured worker was not immunized and was 467 euros if the worker was immunized. Serologic tests and post exposure prophylaxis accounted for the main part of the cost. Conclusions: The high cost suggests the need for appropriate risk evaluation to avoid unnecessary follow-ups. The model used allows the cost of each potentially avoidable episode to be determined and could be used in any hospital to performan economic evaluation of new preventive devices