Direct cost variance analysis of peroral endoscopic myotomy
Achalasia
Cost analysis
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy
Peroral endoscopic myotomy
Journal
World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1948-5190
Titre abrégé: World J Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532474
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Oct 2023
16 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
06
07
2023
revised:
23
08
2023
accepted:
11
09
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the traditional surgical treatment for achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated similar clinical outcomes with shorter procedure times. Studies comparing the direct cost-effectiveness of POEM To compare costs of POEM This retrospective chart review aimed to compare the outcomes and cost of clinical care between patients who underwent POEM and LHM procedures for achalasia. The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center from January 2019 to December 2020. Clinical outcomes, including post-operative Eckardt scores and adverse events, were assessed and compared between the two groups. Direct cost variance analysis was utilized to evaluate the cost of clinical care incurred by patients undergoing POEM in the year preceding the procedure, during the index admission, and one year post-procedure, in comparison to patients undergoing LHM. Of 30 patients were included (15 POEM and 15 LHM) in the study. Patients in the POEM group had a mean Eckardt score of 0.5 ± 0.5 post-procedure, which was no different from patients in the LHM group (0.7 ± 0.6, Despite similar clinical outcomes, the cost of the index procedure admission for POEM was significantly lower than for LHM. The difference was primarily related to shorter time increments utilized in the operating room during the index procedure, and shorter length of hospital stay following POEM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the traditional surgical treatment for achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated similar clinical outcomes with shorter procedure times. Studies comparing the direct cost-effectiveness of POEM
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare costs of POEM
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective chart review aimed to compare the outcomes and cost of clinical care between patients who underwent POEM and LHM procedures for achalasia. The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center from January 2019 to December 2020. Clinical outcomes, including post-operative Eckardt scores and adverse events, were assessed and compared between the two groups. Direct cost variance analysis was utilized to evaluate the cost of clinical care incurred by patients undergoing POEM in the year preceding the procedure, during the index admission, and one year post-procedure, in comparison to patients undergoing LHM.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 30 patients were included (15 POEM and 15 LHM) in the study. Patients in the POEM group had a mean Eckardt score of 0.5 ± 0.5 post-procedure, which was no different from patients in the LHM group (0.7 ± 0.6,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite similar clinical outcomes, the cost of the index procedure admission for POEM was significantly lower than for LHM. The difference was primarily related to shorter time increments utilized in the operating room during the index procedure, and shorter length of hospital stay following POEM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37900115
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v15.i10.593
pmc: PMC10600690
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
593-601Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Références
Surgery. 2013 Oct;154(4):893-7; discussion 897-900
pubmed: 24074429
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Jan 3;14(1):1
pubmed: 30606216
Thorac Surg Clin. 2011 Nov;21(4):519-25
pubmed: 22040634
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Ann Surg. 2014 Jun;259(6):1098-103
pubmed: 24169175
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jan;32(1):39-45
pubmed: 29218664
Endosc Int Open. 2015 Jun;3(3):E195-201
pubmed: 26171430
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017 Feb;27(1):60-64
pubmed: 28145968
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Nov;8(11):E1673-E1680
pubmed: 33140023
Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411
pubmed: 32773454
Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1636-1642
pubmed: 27534662
Surg Endosc. 2020 Apr;34(4):1704-1711
pubmed: 31292743
J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022 Apr 30;28(2):247-254
pubmed: 35362451
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 May;81(5):1087-100.e1
pubmed: 25799295
Dig Endosc. 2018 Sep;30(5):563-579
pubmed: 30022514