ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in people undergoing elective total hip replacement.MethodsSystematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were conducted for 3 outcomes: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and major bleeding (MB). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist. Fixed- and random-effects models were fitted and compared. The median relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) compared with no prophylaxis, with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs), rank, and probability of being the best, were calculated.ResultsForty-two (n = 24 374, 26 interventions), 30 (n = 28 842, 23 interventions), and 24 (n = 31 792, 15 interventions) randomized controlled trials were included in the DVT, PE, and MB networks, respectively. Rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for DVT (RR 0.06 [95% CrI 0.01-0.29]). Strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin followed by aspirin had the highest probability of reducing the risk of PE and MB (RR 0.0011 [95% CrI 0.00-0.096] and OR 0.37 [95% CrI 0.00-26.96], respectively). The ranking of efficacy estimates across the 3 networks, particularly PE and MB, had very wide CrIs, indicating high degree of uncertainty.ConclusionsA strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin given for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days had the best benefit-risk balance, with the highest probability of being the best on the basis of the results of the PE and MB network meta-analyses. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty around the median ranks of the interventions.

Background: Major orthopedic surgery, such as elective total hip replacement (eTHR) and elective total knee replacement (eTKR), are associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than other surgical procedures. Little is known, however, about the cost-effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis strategies in people undergoing these procedures. Aim: The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the English National Health Service perspective to inform NICE guideline (NG89) recommendations. Materials and Methods: Cost-utility analysis, using decision modeling, was undertaken to compare 15 VTE prophylaxis strategies for eTHR and 12 for eTKR, in addition to "no prophylaxis" strategy. The analysis complied with the NICE Reference Case. Structure and assumptions were agreed with the guideline committee. Incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) was calculated, vs. the model comparator (LMWH+ antiembolism stockings), at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The model was run probabilistically. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (SAs) were undertaken to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The most cost-effective strategies were LMWH for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days (INMB = £530 [95% CI: -£784 to £1,103], probability of being most cost-effective = 72%) for eTHR, and foot pump (INMB = £353 [95% CI: -£101 to £665]; probability of being most cost-effective = 18%) for eTKR. There was considerable uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness ranking in the eTKR analysis. The results were robust to change in all SAs. Conclusions: For eTHR, LMWH (standard dose) for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days is the most cost-effective VTE prophylaxis strategy. For eTKR, the results are highly uncertain but foot pump appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy, followed closely by aspirin (low dose). Future research should focus on assessing cost-effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis in the eTKR population.

Recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended computed tomography for patients with head injury who are taking warfarin. We understand Heywood’s concerns that other anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs were not included.1 2 The …

Head injury is the commonest cause of death and disability in people aged 1-40 years in the UK. Each year, 1.4 million people attend emergency departments in England and Wales with a recent head injury. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance on managing head injury in 2003 (clinical guideline 4)1 and updated this in 2007 (clinical guideline 56),2 which resulted in computed tomography (CT) replacing skull radiography as the primary imaging modality for assessing head injury. Key changes driving this update include the introduction of regional trauma networks with prehospital major trauma triage in England; the extension of indications for anticoagulation therapy; the establishment of local safeguarding boards in the UK, requiring front-line clinical staff to assess not only the severity of the head injury but also why it occurred; and new evidence on the initial assessment and early management of head injury. This article summarises the most recent recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).3 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of best available evidence and explicit consideration of cost effectiveness. When minimal evidence is available, recommendations are based on the Guideline Development Group's experience and opinion of what constitutes good practice. Evidence levels for the recommendations are given in italic in square brackets. ### Transport to hospital

Since the publication of the landmark meta-analysis from the Oxford group in 19881 it has been known that the use of subcutaneous heparin reduces the rate of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in surgical patients. It is generally accepted that DVT and PE have a common cause with an event ratio of about 10:1. For the purpose of an evidence base from which to make recommendations for prophylaxis, DVT and PE are considered together as venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). A strategy which results in a demonstrable reduction in the incidence of DVT can be expected to reduce PE and fatal PE commensurately.

A model that can accurately predict post–liver transplant mortality would be useful for clinical decision making, would help to provide patients with prognostic information, and would facilitate fair comparisons of surgical performance between transplant units. A systematic review of the literature was carried out to assess the quality of the studies that developed and validated prognostic models for mortality after liver transplantation and to validate existing models in a large data set of patients transplanted in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland between March 1994 and September 2003. Five prognostic model papers were identified. The quality of the development and validation of all prognostic models was suboptimal according to an explicit assessment tool of the internal, external, and statistical validity, model evaluation, and practicality. The discriminatory ability of the identified models in the UK and Ireland data set was poor (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve always smaller than 0.7 for adult populations). Due to the poor quality of the reporting, the methodology used for the development of the model could not always be determined. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that currently available prognostic models of mortality after liver transplantation can have only a limited role in clinical practice, audit, and research. (Liver Transpl 2005;11:814–825.)

Purpose: We performed a systematic review and critique of the literature of the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in patients undergoing radical surgery for cancer of the bladder, kidney or prostate.Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes.Results: All included studies were performed in North America. A total of 12 studies were found that related hospital volume to outcomes. For radical prostatectomy and cystectomy all 8 included studies showed improvement in at least 1 outcome measure with increasing volume and never deterioration. For nephrectomy the 4 included studies produced conflicting results. Four studies were found that related surgeon volume to outcomes. All radical prostatectomy and cystectomy studies showed that some outcomes were better with higher surgeon volume and never deterioration. We did not find any studies of the effect of surgeon volume on outcomes after nephrectomy. The 3 studies of the combined effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy or cystectomy suggest that high volume hospitals have better outcomes, in part because of the effect of surgeon volume and vice versa.Conclusions: Outcomes after radical prostatectomy and cystectomy are on average likely to be better if these procedures are performed by and at high volume providers. For radical nephrectomy the evidence is unclear. The impact of volume based policies (increasing volume to improve outcomes) depends on the extent to which "practice makes perfect" explains the observed results. Further studies should explicitly address selective referral and confounding as alternative explanations. Longitudinal studies should be performed to evaluate the impact of volume based policies.