Dataset Information

Endoscopic stenting versus surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although stent placement is increasingly performed, colostomy still is considered the gold standard for emergent relief of malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). This study aimed to compare hospital costs and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing colostomy and those undergoing stenting for the management of MCO.

Methods

A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) data set was conducted to identify inpatient hospitalizations for colostomy or stent placement for the treatment of colon cancer (2007-2008). The outcomes evaluated using MedPAR compared the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and the costs associated with both techniques. Because MedPAR is a claims data set that does not provide outcomes at a patient level, a single-institution retrospective case-control study was conducted in which each stent placement patient was matched with two colostomy patients during the same period. Outcome measures (institutional data) were used to compare rates of treatment success, postprocedure LOS, and reinterventions between the two cohorts.

Results

The MedPAR data evaluated 778 stent placements and 5,868 colostomy hospitalizations. There were no differences in gender, age distribution, or comorbidity between the two groups. Compared with colostomy, the median LOS (8 vs. 12 days; p<0.0001) and the median cost ($15,071 vs. $24,695; p<0.001) per claim were significantly less for stent placement. Stent placement was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (84% vs. 16%; p<0.0001), teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (56% vs. 44%; p=0.0058) and larger versus smaller institutions (mean bed capacity, 331 vs. 227; p<0.0001). The institution data included 12 patients who underwent stent placement and 24 who underwent colostomy. Although both methods were technically successful, the median postprocedure LOS (2.17 vs. 10.58 days; p=0.0004) and the rate of readmissions for complications (0% vs. 25%; p=0.01) were significantly lower for stent placement.

Conclusion

Although the technical and clinical outcomes for colostomy and stent placement appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and associated with shorter LOS and fewer complications. Dissemination of stent placement beyond large teaching hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for MCO is important given its implications for patient care and resource use.

SUBMITTER: Varadarajulu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3116133 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endoscopic stenting versus surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes.

Varadarajulu Shyam S Roy Ann A Lopes Tercio T Drelichman Ernesto R ER Kim Micheline M

Surgical endoscopy 20110204 7

<h4>Background</h4>Although stent placement is increasingly performed, colostomy still is considered the gold standard for emergent relief of malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). This study aimed to compare hospital costs and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing colostomy and those undergoing stenting for the management of MCO.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) data set was conducted to identify inpatient hospitalization ...[more]

PMID: 21293882

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated similar rates of the primary composite end point between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although the risk of stroke was higher with CAS, and the risk of myocardial infarction was higher with CEA. Given the large number of patients who are candidates for these procedures, an understanding of their relative cost and cost-effectiveness may have important implications for health care policy and treatment guidelines.We performed a formal economic evaluation alongside the CREST trial. Costs were estimated from all trial participants over the first year of follow-up using a combination of resource use data and hospital billing data. Patient-level health use scores were obtained using data from the SF-36. We then used a Markov disease-simulation model calibrated to the CREST results to project 10-year costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy for the 2 treatment groups.Although initial procedural costs were $1025/patient higher with CAS, postprocedure costs and physician costs were lower such that total costs for the index hospitalization were similar for the CAS and CEA groups ($15 055 versus $14 816; mean difference, $239/patient; 95% CI for difference, -$297 to $775). Neither follow-up costs after discharge nor total 1-year costs differed significantly. For the CREST population, model-based projections over a 10-year time horizon demonstrated that CAS would result in a mean incremental cost of $524/patient and a reduction in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.008 years compared with CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that CEA was economically attractive at an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 54% of samples, whereas CAS was economically attractive in 46%.Despite slightly lower in-trial costs and lower rates of stroke with CEA compared with CAS, projected 10-year outcomes from this controlled clinical trial demonstrate only trivial differences in overall healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy between the 2 strategies. If the CREST results can be replicated in clinical practice, these findings suggest that factors other than cost-effectiveness should be considered when deciding between treatment options for carotid artery stenosis in patients at standard risk for surgical complications. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00004732.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic stenting versus surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Endoscopic stenting versus surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets