Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery in the UK National Health Service.
Journal
The Annals of thoracic surgery
ISSN: 1552-6259
Titre abrégé: Ann Thorac Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 15030100R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
14
04
2020
revised:
04
07
2020
accepted:
06
08
2020
pubmed:
18
10
2020
medline:
3
8
2021
entrez:
17
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the UK National Health Service, finite resources make the adoption of minimally invasive (MI) mitral valve surgery challenging unless greater operative costs (vs sternotomy [ST]) are balanced by postoperative savings. This study examined whether the cost analysis now became unfavorable. All patients (n = 380) undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery with or without a maze procedure over a 3-year period by either MI or ST approaches were included. Propensity matching (2 cohorts, 1:1 matched;, n = 75 per group) and multivariable regression were used to assess for the effect on cost. Cost data were prospectively collected from Service Line Reporting and reported in Sterling (£) as median (interquartile range [IQR]). Matched data revealed that total hospital costs were equivalent (MI vs ST, £16,672 [IQR, £15,044, £20,611] vs £15,875 [IQR, £12,281, £20,687]; P .33). Three of 15 costing pools were significantly different: operative costs were higher for the MI group (MI vs ST, £7458 [IQR, £6738, £8286] vs £5596 iIQR, £4204, £6992]; P < .001), whereas ward costs (boarding, nursing) (MI vs ST, £1464 [IQR, £1146, £1864] vs £1733 [IQR, £1403, £2445] P = .006) and pharmacy services (MI vs ST, £187 [IQR, £140, £239] vs £244 [IQR, £179, £375] P < .001) were lower for the MI group. Hospital stay was shorter in the MI group (MI vs ST, 6 days [IQR, 5, 8 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6, 11 days]; P < .001). Multivariable regression produced similar findings. There was no difference in overall hospital cost between MI and ST mitral valve surgery: higher operative costs of MI surgery were offset by lower postoperative costs, with a 2-day shorter hospital stay.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the UK National Health Service, finite resources make the adoption of minimally invasive (MI) mitral valve surgery challenging unless greater operative costs (vs sternotomy [ST]) are balanced by postoperative savings. This study examined whether the cost analysis now became unfavorable.
METHODS
All patients (n = 380) undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery with or without a maze procedure over a 3-year period by either MI or ST approaches were included. Propensity matching (2 cohorts, 1:1 matched;, n = 75 per group) and multivariable regression were used to assess for the effect on cost. Cost data were prospectively collected from Service Line Reporting and reported in Sterling (£) as median (interquartile range [IQR]).
RESULTS
Matched data revealed that total hospital costs were equivalent (MI vs ST, £16,672 [IQR, £15,044, £20,611] vs £15,875 [IQR, £12,281, £20,687]; P .33). Three of 15 costing pools were significantly different: operative costs were higher for the MI group (MI vs ST, £7458 [IQR, £6738, £8286] vs £5596 iIQR, £4204, £6992]; P < .001), whereas ward costs (boarding, nursing) (MI vs ST, £1464 [IQR, £1146, £1864] vs £1733 [IQR, £1403, £2445] P = .006) and pharmacy services (MI vs ST, £187 [IQR, £140, £239] vs £244 [IQR, £179, £375] P < .001) were lower for the MI group. Hospital stay was shorter in the MI group (MI vs ST, 6 days [IQR, 5, 8 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6, 11 days]; P < .001). Multivariable regression produced similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no difference in overall hospital cost between MI and ST mitral valve surgery: higher operative costs of MI surgery were offset by lower postoperative costs, with a 2-day shorter hospital stay.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33068544
pii: S0003-4975(20)31685-4
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.08.020
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
124-131Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.