Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass has become an established treatment option for symptomatic aortoiliac obstructive disease at dedicated centers. Minimally invasive surgical techniques like laparoscopic surgery have often been shown to reduce expenses and increase patients' health-related quality of life. The main objective of our study was to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs after totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass.This was a within trial analysis in a larger ongoing randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial. Fifty consecutive patients suffering from symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease suitable for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either totally laparoscopic (n=25) or open surgical procedure (n=25). One patient dropped out of the study before surgery. We measured health-related quality of life using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire at 4 different time points, before surgery and for 6 months during follow-up. We calculated the QALYs gained by using the area under the curve for both groups. Costs were calculated based on prices for surgical equipment, vascular prosthesis and hospital stay.We found a significantly higher increase in QALYs after laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery, with a difference of 0.07 QALYs, (p=0.001) in favor of laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass. The total cost of surgery, equipment and hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery (9,953 €) was less than open surgery (17,260 €), (p=0.001).Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass seems to be cost-effective compared with open surgery, due to an increase in QALYs and lower procedure-related costs.

SUBMITTER: Krog AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5482399 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Krog Anne Helene AH Sahba Mehdi M Pettersen Erik M EM Wisløff Torbjørn T Sundhagen Jon O JO Kazmi Syed Sh SS

Vascular health and risk management 20170619

<h4>Objectives</h4>Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass has become an established treatment option for symptomatic aortoiliac obstructive disease at dedicated centers. Minimally invasive surgical techniques like laparoscopic surgery have often been shown to reduce expenses and increase patients' health-related quality of life. The main objective of our study was to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs after totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass.<h4>Patients and metho ...[more]

PMID: 28670132

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Numerous study findings suggest that the use of laparoscopy is associated with lower health care costs for many operations, including colectomy. The extent to which these differences are due to the laparoscopic approach itself or selection bias from healthier patients undergoing the less invasive procedure is unclear. Objective:To evaluate the differences in Medicare expenditures for laparoscopic and open colectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants:A population-based study was conducted of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing laparoscopic or open colectomy between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012. The dates of the analysis were November 13 to December 10, 2016. Using instrumental variable methods to account for selection bias, actual Medicare payments after each procedure were evaluated. To identify the mechanisms of potential cost savings, the frequency and amount of physician, readmission, and postacute care payments were evaluated. Several sensitivity analyses were performed restricting the study population by patient demographic or surgeon specialty. Main Outcomes and Measures:Actual Medicare expenditures up to 1 year after the index operation. Results:The study population included 428?799 patients (mean [SD] age, 74 [10] years; 57.0% female). When using standard methods, patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy (vs open) had lower total Medicare expenditures (mean, -$5547; 95% CI, -$5408 to -$5684; P?<?.01). When using instrumental variable methods, which account for potentially unmeasured patient characteristics, patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy (vs open) still had lower Medicare expenditures (mean, -$3676; 95% CI, -$2444 to -$4907; P?<?.01), although the magnitude of the association was reduced. When examining the root causes of the difference in costs between patients who underwent laparoscopic and open colectomy, the key drivers were a reduction in costs from readmissions (mean, -$1102; 95% CI, -$1373 to -$831) and postacute care (mean, -$1446; 95% CI, -$1988 to -$935; P?<?.01). Conclusions and Relevance:This population-based study demonstrates the influence of selection bias on cost estimates in comparative effectiveness research. While the use of laparoscopy reduced total episode payments, the source of savings is in the postacute care period, not the index hospitalization.

Project description:ImportanceSurgery represents the mainstay treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Indications for the laparoscopic approach in this setting have been widened and there is a need to confirm the benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in patients with complex disease states.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, focusing on the characteristics of modern MILS and therefore overcoming possible selection bias related to different policies for patients' eligibility for MILS over time.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 885 resections performed for liver metastases from colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2017, at the Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit of San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy, comprising 187 laparoscopic and 698 open resections. Procedures performed using the MILS approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of more than 30% were considered and were matched by propensity scores (ratio of 1:4) to procedures performed using the open approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of less than 30%.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was short-term outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, functional recovery, and interval between surgery and adjuvant treatments; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes.ResultsAmong this cohort (104 patients in the MILS group; 46 women and 58 men; median age, 62 years [range, 35-81 years]; and 412 patients in the open group; 181 women and 231 men; median age, 60 years [range, 37-80 years]), primary end-point data showed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent open resections compared with those who underwent MILS (94 [22.8%] vs 21 [20.2%]; P = .04). Patients in the MILS group had fewer major complications (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V) compared with patients in the open group (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V; 7 [6.7%] vs 35 [8.5%]; P = .03) as well as shorter lengths of stay (median [range] duration, 3 [2-35] vs 5 [4-37] days; P = .02). Oncologic results were not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the results of the propensity score matching analysis between modern laparoscopic surgery and previous open surgery appear to confer more comparable cohorts for complexity, further supporting the advantages of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. The increase in use that laparoscopy has experienced appears to be based on increased feasibility, widening of eligibility criteria for patients, enhanced clinical effectiveness, and oncologic outcomes. All these elements together suggest that up to 70% of patients appear to be candidates for this minimally invasive surgical approach in high-volume centers.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients operated with laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABFB) for atherosclerotic obstruction in aortoiliac segment, the main focus of the reports published during the last two decades has been morbidity and mortality. The primary objective of this study was to examine the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in these patients before and after LABFB.Patients and methodsFifty consecutive patients (27 females) with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II, type D lesions were prospectively included. Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire was used to get information about the HRQL before LABFB and at 1, 3 and 6 months after the operation. Main indication for LABFB was intermittent claudication. Linear mixed-effect models were used to assess changes in HRQL over time. Age, gender, smoking, blood loss, operation time, concomitant operation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists category, length of hospital stay, previous vascular procedures and aorta cross-clamping were used as fixed factors and their impact on the physical components of the SF-36, as well as the summary scores were determined with univariate analysis. Variables with P<0.2 were included in the multivariate regression analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsStatistically significant improvement was found in all SF-36 domains as well as in the summary scores after LABFB compared to the preoperative scores. The improvement in scores was substantial already at 1 month and the effect was maintained at 3 and 6 months survey time points. Concomitant operations had a statistically significant negative impact on the physical components of SF-36. Data completeness of item questionnaires was 93% in the whole material. Reliability scale and homogeneity estimates for the eight domains had high internal consistency.ConclusionPatients operated with LABFB for Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II, type D lesions have reduced HRQL. LABFB leads to substantial and statistically significant improvement in the patients' HRQL, when examined with SF-36. These results need to be replicated by a randomized clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsLA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.ConclusionsLA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.

Project description:BackgroundGlaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses.ResultsResults of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8368.51 vs. €7134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The cost-effectiveness accessibility curve (CEAC) showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective.

Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Publications

Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets