Dataset Information

Cost analysis and outcomes of endoscopic, minimal access and open pancreatic necrosectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess both individual patient and institutional costs as well as outcomes in patients with pancreatic necrosis who underwent either endoscopic, minimal access or open pancreatic necrosectomy. These data can be used to evaluate clinical effectiveness with a view to informing local health care providers.

Summary background data

Intervention for infected pancreatic necrosis is associated with a high morbidity, mortality and long hospital stays. Minimal access surgical step-up approaches have been the gold standard of care, however endoscopic approaches are now offered preferentially.

Methods

All patients undergoing endoscopic (EN), minimal access retroperitoneal (MARPN) and open (OPN) necrosectomy at a single institution from April 2015-March 2017 were included. Patients were selected for intervention based on morphology and position of the necrosis and on clinical factors. Patient level costing systems were used to determine inpatient and outpatient costs.

Results

86 patients were included: 38 underwent EN, 35 MARPN and 13 OPN. Pre-operative APACHEII was 6 vs 9 vs 9 (p=0.017) and CRP 107 vs 204 vs 278, (p=0.012), respectively. Post-operative stay was 19 days for EN vs. 41 for MARPN vs. 42 for OPN (p=0.007). Complications occurred in 68.4%, 68.6% and 46.2% (p=0.298) while mortality was 10.5%, 22.9% and 15.4% (p=0.379) respectively. Mean total cost was £31,364 for EN, £52,770 for MARPN (p=0.008) and £60,346 for OPN. Ward and critical care costs for EN were lower than for MARPN (ward: £9,430 vs. £14,033, p=0.024; critical care: £5,317 vs. £16,648, p=0.056).

SUBMITTER: Saunders R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7610877 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs).ResultsECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations.ConclusionsFrom a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia.Level of evidenceEconomic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundBulbar urethral stricture is a common cause for urinary symptoms in men and its two main treatment options both have drawbacks with little evidence on their relative cost-effectiveness. Current guidelines on the management of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture have been predominantly based on expert opinion and panel consensus.ObjectiveTo assess the relative cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty and endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men.MethodsSet in the UK National Health Service with recruitment from 38 hospital sites, a randomised controlled trial of open urethroplasty and endoscopic urethrotomy with 6-monthly follow-up over 24 months was conducted. Two hundred and twenty-two men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture and having had at least one previous intervention for stricture were recruited. Effectiveness was measured by quality- adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D 5L. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per QALY gained over 24 months using a within trial analysis and a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon.ResultsIn the within trial, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference: £2148 [95% CI 689, 3606]) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs on average (QALY difference: - 0.01 [95% CI - 0.17, 0.14)] over 24 months. The Markov model produced similar results. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation, suggested that the results were robust, despite observed missing data.ConclusionsBased on current practice and evidence, urethrotomy is a cost-effective treatment compared with urethroplasty.KeypointsUrethrotomy and urethroplasty both led to symptom improvement for men with bulbar urethral stricture-a common cause for urinary symptoms in men; Urethroplasty appeared unlikely to offer good value for money compared to urethrotomy based on current evidence.Trial registrationISRCTN: 98009168 (date: 29 November 2012) and it is also in the UK NIHR Portfolio (reference 13507). Trial protocol: The latest version (1.8) of the full protocol is available at: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/105723/ #/ and a published version is also available: Stephenson R, Carnell S, Johnson N, Brown R, Wilkinson J, Mundy A, et al. Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy-clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1120-4. Trial main clinical results publication: Goulao B, Carnell S, Shen J, MacLennan G, Norrie J, Cook J, et al. Surgical Treatment for Recurrent Bulbar Urethral Stricture: A Randomised Open-label Superiority Trial of Open Urethroplasty Versus Endoscopic Urethrotomy (the OPEN Trial), European Urology, Volume 78, Issue 4, 2020, Pages 572-580.