Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveEvaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic ileocaecal resection compared with infliximab in patients with ileocaecal Crohn’s disease failing conventional therapy.DesignA multicentre randomised controlled trial was performed in 29 centres in The Netherlands and the UK. Adult patients with Crohn’s disease of the terminal ileum who failed >3 months of conventional immunomodulators or steroids without signs of critical strictures were randomised to laparoscopic ileocaecal resection or infliximab. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol (EQ) 5D-3L Questionnaire and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated to show uncertainty.ResultsIn total, 143 patients were randomised. Mean Crohn’s disease total direct healthcare costs per patient at 1 year were lower in the resection group compared with the infliximab group (mean difference €−8931; 95% CI €−12 087 to €−5097). Total societal costs in the resection group were lower than in the infliximab group, however not statistically significant (mean difference €−5729, 95% CI €−10 606 to €172). The probability of resection being cost-effective compared with infliximab was 0.96 at a willingness to pay (WTP) of €0 per QALY gained and per point improvement in IBDQ Score. This probability increased to 0.98 at a WTP of €20 000/QALY gained and 0.99 at a WTP of €500/point of improvement in IBDQ Score.ConclusionLaparoscopic ileocaecal resection is a cost-effective treatment option compared with infliximab.Clinical trial registration numberDutch Trial Registry NTR1150; EudraCT number 2007-005042-20 (closed on 14 October 2015).

Background In the intensive care unit (ICU) relatives play a crucial role as surrogate decision-makers, since most patients cannot communicate due to their illness and treatment. Their level of involvement in decision-making can affect their psychological well-being. During the COVID-19 pandemic, relatives’ involvement probably changed. We aim to investigate relatives’ involvement in decision-making in the ICU before and during the pandemic and their experiences and preferences in this regard. Methods A mixed-methods study among relatives of ICU patients admitted to an ICU before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatives in six ICUs completed a questionnaire ( n  = 329), including two items on decision-making. These were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. Subsequently, relatives ( n  = 24) were interviewed about their experiences and preferences regarding decision-making. Thematic analysis was used for analysing the qualitative data. Results Nearly 55% of the relatives indicated they were at least occasionally asked to be involved in important treatment decisions and of these relatives 97.1% reported to have had enough time to discuss questions and concerns when important decisions were to be made. During the first COVID-19 wave relatives were significantly less likely to be involved in decision-making compared to relatives from pre-COVID-19. The interviews showed that involvement varied from being informed about an already made decision to deliberation about the best treatment option. Preferences for involvement also varied, with some relatives preferring no involvement due to a perceived lack of expertise and others preferring an active role as the patient’s advocate. Discussing a patient’s quality of life was appreciated by relatives, and according to relatives healthcare professionals also found this valuable. In some cases the preferred and actual involvement was in discordance, preferring either a larger or a smaller role. Conclusions As treatment alignment with a patient’s values and preferences and accordance between preferred and actual involvement in decision-making is very important, we suggest that the treatment decision-making process should start with discussions about a patient’s quality of life, followed by tailoring the process to relatives’ preferences as much as possible. Healthcare professionals should be aware of relatives’ heterogeneous and possibly changing preferences regarding the decision-making process.

Background Bereaved relatives of intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at increased risk of psychological complaints. Aftercare might help them cope with processing the ICU admission and their loved one’s death. There is little (qualitative) evidence on how bereaved relatives experience aftercare. Also, the COVID-19 pandemic likely impacted aftercare provision. We aim to examine how many relatives in Dutch ICUs received aftercare before and during the pandemic and to qualitatively describe their experiences and needs regarding aftercare. Methods A mixed-methods study among relatives of patients who died in an ICU before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bereaved relatives in six ICUs completed a questionnaire ( n  = 90), including two items on aftercare. These were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests. Subsequently, both relatives that received and relatives that did not receive aftercare were interviewed about their experiences and needs regarding aftercare. The interviews were thematically analyzed. Results After the passing of a loved one, 44% of the relatives were asked by a healthcare professional from the hospital how they were doing, and 26% had had a follow-up conversation. Both happened more often during the first wave of the pandemic than during the second wave or before the pandemic. The most common reason for not having had a follow-up conversation was not knowing about this option (44%), followed by not feeling a need (26%). Regarding the latter, interviewed relatives explained that this would not revive their loved one or that they had already discussed everything they wanted. Relatives who wanted a follow-up conversation, wanted this because this would help them realize the severity of their loved one’s illness, to exchange personal experiences, and/or to thank the ICU team. Those with a follow-up conversation said that they had reviewed the medical course of the admission and/or discussed their (mental) well-being. Conclusions ICU healthcare professionals may play a vital role in addressing aftercare needs by asking relatives how they are doing in the weeks following the death of their loved one and offering them a follow-up conversation with an ICU physician. We recommend to include aftercare for bereaved relatives in ICU guidelines.