Economic Burden of Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy Compared to Alternative Therapy Methods in Patients with Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy.
Anastomotic leak
Endoscopic vacuum therapy
Esophageal cancer
Profit center analysis
Stent
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
ISSN: 1873-4626
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9706084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
18
11
2020
accepted:
01
02
2021
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
entrez:
25
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become a promising option in the management of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. However, EVT is an effortful approach associated with multiple interventions. In this study, we conduct a comparative cost analysis for methods of management of AL. All patients who experienced AL treated by EVT, stent, or reoperation following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were included. Cases that were managed by more than one modality were excluded. For the remaining cases, in-patient treatment cost was collected for material, personnel, (par)enteral nutrition, intensive care, operating room, and imaging. 42 patients were treated as follows: EVT n = 25, stent n = 13, and reoperation n = 4. The mean duration of therapy as well as length of overall hospital stay was significantly shorter in the stent than the EVT group (30 vs. 44d, p = 0.046; 34 vs. 53d, p = 0.02). The total mean cost for stent was €33.685, and the total cost for EVT was €46.136, resulting in a delta increase of 37% for EVT vs. stent cost. 75% (€34.320, EVT), respectively, 80% (€26.900, stent) of total costs were caused by ICU stay. Mean pure costs for endoscopic management were relatively low and comparable between both groups (EVT: €1.900, stent: €1.100, p = 0.28). Management of AL represents an effortful approach that results in high overall costs. The expenses directly related to EVT and stent therapy were however comparatively low with more than 75% of costs being attributable to the ICU stay. Reduction of ICU care should be a central part of cost reduction strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become a promising option in the management of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. However, EVT is an effortful approach associated with multiple interventions. In this study, we conduct a comparative cost analysis for methods of management of AL.
METHODS
All patients who experienced AL treated by EVT, stent, or reoperation following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were included. Cases that were managed by more than one modality were excluded. For the remaining cases, in-patient treatment cost was collected for material, personnel, (par)enteral nutrition, intensive care, operating room, and imaging.
RESULTS
42 patients were treated as follows: EVT n = 25, stent n = 13, and reoperation n = 4. The mean duration of therapy as well as length of overall hospital stay was significantly shorter in the stent than the EVT group (30 vs. 44d, p = 0.046; 34 vs. 53d, p = 0.02). The total mean cost for stent was €33.685, and the total cost for EVT was €46.136, resulting in a delta increase of 37% for EVT vs. stent cost. 75% (€34.320, EVT), respectively, 80% (€26.900, stent) of total costs were caused by ICU stay. Mean pure costs for endoscopic management were relatively low and comparable between both groups (EVT: €1.900, stent: €1.100, p = 0.28).
CONCLUSION
Management of AL represents an effortful approach that results in high overall costs. The expenses directly related to EVT and stent therapy were however comparatively low with more than 75% of costs being attributable to the ICU stay. Reduction of ICU care should be a central part of cost reduction strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33629233
doi: 10.1007/s11605-021-04955-w
pii: 10.1007/s11605-021-04955-w
pmc: PMC8523444
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2447-2454Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Feb;43(2):258-269
pubmed: 27396305
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 May 16;11(5):329-344
pubmed: 31205594
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 28;14(8):e0221406
pubmed: 31461487
Chirurg. 2015 Sep;86(9):874-80
pubmed: 25662991
Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):433-8
pubmed: 23733727
Digestion. 2021;102(3):469-479
pubmed: 32045916
Chirurg. 2018 Mar;89(3):229-236
pubmed: 29417163
J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Jul;19(7):1229-35
pubmed: 25967140
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;43(4):696-702
pubmed: 28012715
Dis Esophagus. 2018 Nov 1;31(11):
pubmed: 29939229
World J Surg. 2020 Apr;44(4):1173-1189
pubmed: 31686158
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2017 Jan 10;38(1):102-109
pubmed: 28100387
Dis Esophagus. 2020 Mar 16;33(3):
pubmed: 31957798
Chirurg. 2019 Jan;90(Suppl 1):1-6
pubmed: 30456644
Surg Endosc. 2013 Oct;27(10):3883-90
pubmed: 23708716
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jun;31(6):2687-2696
pubmed: 27709328
Ann Surg. 2014 May;259(5):852-60
pubmed: 24509201
Endoscopy. 2010 Sep;42(9):693-8
pubmed: 20806153
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 May;157(5):2086-2092
pubmed: 30558876
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Apr;69(3):216-222
pubmed: 32114691
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Aug;22(8):2615-23
pubmed: 25605511
Dis Esophagus. 2017 Feb 1;30(3):1-8
pubmed: 27060908