Search

Background: Lymph node transfer (LNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB) have been described as 2 major surgical options for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) who have failed conservative therapy. The objective of our study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LNT and LVB for the treatment of BCRL., Study Design: Rates of infection, lymph leak, and failure of LNT and LVB were obtained from a previously published meta-analysis. Failure of surgery was defined as the inability to cease compression therapy postoperatively. Procedural costs were calculated from Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost of conservative management of postoperative surgical site infection, lymph leak, and continued decongestive physiotherapy after failed surgery were obtained from literature review. Average utility scores for each health state were calculated using a visual analog scale survey, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was constructed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed at $50,000/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of our findings., Results: LNT was less costly ($22,492 vs $31,927) and more effective (31.82 QALY vs 29.24 QALY) than LVB. One-way (deterministic) sensitivity analysis demonstrated that LNT became cost-ineffective when its failure rate was more than 43.8%. LVB became more cost-effective than LNT when its failure rate was less than 21.4%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation indicated that even with uncertainty present in the variables analyzed, the majority of simulations (97%) favored LNT as the more cost-effective strategy., Conclusions: LNT is a dominant, cost-effective strategy compared to LVB for the treatment of BCRL., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prolonged postoperative ileus (POI) is the predominant cause of extended hospitalization after bowel resection surgery. Alvimopan accelerates gastrointestinal recovery, potentially reducing health care costs. We examined the value of alvimopan in reducing prolonged POI and length of stay for patients undergoing abdominal surgery using different definitions of POI., Study Design: We developed a decision analytic model to examine costs and outcomes associated with postoperative treatment with either an accelerated care pathway (ACP) only or alvimopan+ACP. To represent an overall perspective for alvimopan, data from four phase 3 bowel resection trials and one phase 4 radical cystectomy trial were used to populate the model with 3 different definitions of POI. The period analyzed included start of surgery to 7 days post discharge. Costs were obtained from standard US costing sources and are reported in 2015 US dollars. Due to variations in published definitions of POI, alternative definitions based on adverse event reports, NG tube insertion, and time to food toleration were examined., Results: The combined clinical trial data included 1,003 ACP and 1,013 alvimopan+ACP patients. When POI was reported as an adverse event, the incidence of POI was significantly lower with alvimopan+ACP (n = 70 [7%]) vs ACP alone (n = 148 [15%]; p < 0.0001). Time to discharge order written was shorter for patients with POI who were treated with alvimopan+ACP than with ACP (202 ± 115 hours vs 266 ± 138 hours; p < 0.0001). As a result, costs were $731 lower with alvimopan+ACP ($17,835) vs ACP ($18,566). Alternative definitions of POI produced similar results., Conclusions: The addition of alvimopan to existing treatment pathways for patients undergoing abdominal surgery can reduce overall hospital costs., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Traditionally, for patients with colorectal cancer with resectable synchronous liver metastases, resections were performed separately. However, the safety and efficacy of simultaneous resection have been demonstrated in selected patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and economic implications of simultaneous and staged resections., Study Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with resectable synchronous liver metastases treated between 1993 and 2010, constructing a decision tree comparing simultaneous and staged resections. For generalizability, the analysis was conducted from a payer perspective, using costs derived from 2010 Medicare reimbursement. Decision models incorporated the severity-refined DRG complications (complicating condition/major complicating condition) modifiers. Sensitivity analyses used alternative models of DRG reimbursement., Results: There were 144 patients analyzed. Sixty (41.7%) underwent simultaneous resection and 84 (58.3%) underwent staged resection. Median overall survival did not differ between the simultaneous and the staged cohorts (66.3 vs 65.6 months, respectively), nor did the overall complication rate (38.3% vs 40.5%, respectively). Median total length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the simultaneous cohort (8 vs 14 days; p = 0.001). In the base model, the simultaneous strategy cost less than the staged strategy ($20,983 vs $25,298 per case)--a savings of 17.1%. Sensitivity analyses examining alternative severity-refined DRG reimbursements demonstrated potential cost savings, in all but 1 extreme sensitivity analysis, ranging from 9.8% to 27.3% favoring simultaneous resection., Conclusions: The simultaneous resection strategy was oncologically equivalent and more cost efficient for patients with primary colorectal cancer presenting with resectable liver metastases. A reduction in overall length of hospital stay was an associated benefit. Future studies should explore the feasibility and clinical implications of policies to maximize the potential for simultaneous resection in this cohort of patients., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Regionalization of trauma care reduces mortality and has clear guidelines for transport to the highest level of trauma care. Whether prehospital providers follow the CDC triage algorithm remains to be determined., Study Design: We performed a 5-year retrospective cohort analysis of linked data from Washington State's Central Region Trauma Registry (CRTR) and King County Emergency Medical Services (KCEMS). Patients were analyzed based on transport to their designated hospital, as determined by geocode mapping, or directly to the level I center (no level II center is available in this region)., Results: Of the 12,106 patients in the study, 5,976 (49.4%) were transported directly to a level I center from the scene. Of the remaining 6,130 patients initially transported to level III to V centers, 5,024 (41.5%) remained in the respective level III to V centers and 1,106 (9.1%) were transferred to the level I center. Patients transported directly to a level I center were more likely to be male, younger, have a penetrating injury, lower scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), lower scene blood pressure, and be more severely injured. Level I direct scene transport was significantly less likely for older patients. Compared with patients ages 18 to 45, the adjusted odds ratio for direct transport to the level I center was 0.7 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.83) for patients aged 46 to 55 years; 0.47 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.57) for those 56 to 65 years; 0.28 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.34) for patients 66 to 80 years; and 0.11 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.14) for those older than 81 years., Conclusions: Prehospital providers follow physiologic, anatomic, and mechanistic parameters in steps 1 to 3 of the CDC field triage guidelines. However, contrary to the special considerations guideline in step 4, older age was associated with transport to the lower level of trauma care in our region., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: First-line treatment for Graves disease is frequently 18 months of antithyroid medication (ATM). Controversy exists concerning the next best line of treatment for patients who have failed to achieve euthyroidism; options include lifelong ATM, radioactive iodine (RAI), or total thyroidectomy (TT). We aim to determine the most cost-effective option., Study Design: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these different strategies. Treatment efficacy and complication data were derived from a literature review. Costs were examined from a health-care system perspective using actual Medicare reimbursement rates to an urban university hospital. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Costs and effectiveness were converted to present values; all key variables were subjected to sensitivity analysis., Results: TT was the most cost-effective strategy, resulting in a gain of 1.32 QALYs compared with RAI (at an additional cost of 9,594 US dollars) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 7,240 US dollars/QALY. RAI was the least costly option at 23,600 US dollars but also provided the least QALY (25.08 QALY). Once the cost of TT exceeds 19,300 US dollars, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of lifelong ATM and TT reverse and lifelong ATM becomes the more cost-effective strategy at 15,000US dollars/QALY., Conclusions: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness study in the US of the optimal treatment for patients with Graves disease who fail to achieve euthyroidism after 18 months of ATM. Our findings demonstrate that TT is more cost effective than RAI or lifelong ATM in these patients; this continues until the cost of TT becomes > 19,300 US dollars.