Influence of intraoperative conversion from off-pump to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on costs and quality of life: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery has become a widely accepted alternative to standard coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass; however, the influence of intraoperative conversion from OPCAB to standard CABG on costs and quality of life is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine whether intraoperative conversion affects costs and quality of life. DESIGN: A decision-analysis model and Monte Carlo simulation. SETTING: The US healthcare system over a maximum 10-year lifetime horizon. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old male patients undergoing elective OPCAB surgery or standard CABG surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient was entered into the decision tree with varying transition probabilities. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in US dollars. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In base-case analysis, OPCAB surgery led to a discounted lifetime cost of $91,282 and 7.64 discounted QALYs, and standard CABG surgery led to $91,685 and 7.52 QALYs. Patients who required conversion from off-pump to on-pump surgery incurred a cost of $103,909 and gained 6.63 QALYs. OPCAB is dominant (less costly and more effective) if the conversion rate is below 8.5%, whereas costs increase exponentially if the probability of conversion exceeds 15%. Sixty-one percent of the Monte Carlo simulations favored cost-effectiveness of the OPCAB strategy. CONCLUSION: In low-risk patients, OPCAB surgery, in comparison to standard CABG surgery, would increase QALYs by reducing complications related to cardiopulmonary bypass, but it would result in lifetime costs similar to those of standard CABG surgery. The benefit of OPCAB may be offset by the risk of intraoperative conversion.     

Aprotinin in cardiac surgery: a different point of view

Aprotinin is widely used in cardiac surgery to reduce postoperative bleeding and the need for blood transfusion. Controversy exists regarding the influence of aprotinin on renal function and its effect on the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular incidents (CVI). In the present study, we analyzed the incidence of these adverse events in patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery under full-dose aprotinin and compared the data with those recently reported by Mangano et al [2006]. For 751 consecutive patients undergoing CABG surgery under full-dose aprotinin (>4 million kalikrein-inhibitor units) we analyzed in-hospital data on renal dysfunction or failure, MI (defined as creatine kinase-myocardial band > 60 iU/L), and CVI (defined as persistent or transient neurological symptoms and/or positive computed tomographic scan). Average age was 67.0 +/- 9.9 years, and patient pre- and perioperative characteristics were similar to those in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. The mortality (2.8%) and incidence of renal failure (5.2%) ranged within the reported results. The incidence rates of MI (8% versus 16%; P < .01) and CVI (2% versus 6%; P < .01) however, were significantly lower than those reported by Mangano et al. Thus the data of our single center experience do not confirm the recently reported negative effect of full-dose aprotinin on the incidence of MI and CVI. Therefore, aprotinin may still remain a valid option to reduce postoperative bleeding, especially because of the increased use of aggressive fibrinolytic therapy following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.     

Is carotid angioplasty and stenting more cost effective than carotid endarterectomy?

OBJECTIVE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been advocated as a minimally invasive and inexpensive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, a precise comparative analysis of the immediate and long-term costs associated with these two procedures has not been performed. To accomplish this, a Markov decision analysis model was created to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of these two interventions. METHODS: Procedural morbidity/mortality rate for CEA and costs (not charges) were derived from a retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell (n = 447). Data for CAS were obtained from the literature. We incorporated into this model both the immediate procedural costs and the long-term cost of morbidities, such as stroke (major stroke in the first year = $52,019; in subsequent years = $27,336/y; minor stroke = $9419). We determined long-term survival rate in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetic cohort of 70-year-old patients undergoing either CEA or CAS. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The immediate procedural costs of CEA and CAS were $7871 and $10,133 respectively. We assumed major plus minor stroke rates for CEA and CAS of 0.9% and 5%, respectively. We assumed a 30-day mortality rate of 0% for CEA and 1.2% for CAS. In our base case analysis, CEA was cost saving (lifetime savings = $7017/patient; increase in quality-adjusted life years saved = 0.16). Sensitivity analysis revealed major stroke and death rates as the major contributors to this differential in cost effectiveness. Procedural costs were less important, and minor stroke rates were least important. CAS became cost effective only if its major stroke and mortality rates were made equivalent to those of CEA. CONCLUSION: CEA is cost saving compared with CAS. This is related to the higher rate of stroke with CAS and the high cost of stents and protection devices. To be economically competitive, the mortality and major stroke rates of CAS must be at least equivalent if not less than those of CEA.     

Economic evaluation of high-dose and low-dose aprotinin therapy during cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: Aprotinin therapy is now widely used during cardiac surgery. This study examined the clinical and economic effectiveness of high-dose or low-dose aprotinin in comparison to placebo. METHODS: In a double blind, randomized study, three groups of 50 patients received high-dose aprotinin costing AUS$614 per patient (AUS$ = Australian dollars), low-dose aprotinin costing AUS$220 per patient or placebo. Resource use influenced by aprotinin therapy was measured. RESULTS: Both doses were effective in reducing chest drainage and postoperative transfusion requirements, high-dose being more effective than low-dose. Both doses reduced the rate of reoperations for hemostasis. A base case of statistically significant differences associated with the high-dose and low-dose aprotinin showed cost savings of AUS$77 and AUS$348 per patient, respectively. If the demonstrated less significant reductions in operating room and ward stay are included, these savings become AUS$463 and AUS$715, respectively. Alternately, if cross-matches are replaced by group-and-hold and cell savers are not used, the savings per patient would be AUS$196 and AUS$467, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While high-dose aprotinin is clinically more effective than low-dose aprotinin, low-dose therapy demonstrates greater cost savings.     

Economic analysis of basiliximab in renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Basiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal directed against the alpha-chain of the interleukin-2 receptor. International studies have shown that it is highly effective in preventing acute rejection in patients receiving Neoral, and causes no measurable incremental toxicity, but its economic value remains unknown. METHODS: This study employed an economic model to examine the potential economic benefit of basiliximab. Parameter estimates were derived from a randomized, prospective, double-blind study conducted in 21 renal transplant centers in seven countries in which 380 adult primary allograft recipients were randomized within center to receive basiliximab (20 mg i.v.) on days 0 and 4 or placebo in addition to dual immunosuppression with Neoral and steroids. Key clinical events included primary hospitalization, immunosuppressive drug use, patient and graft survival, graft rejection, treatment of rejection, dialysis, and repeat hospitalization. Health resources were valued via a comprehensive electronic cost dictionary, based upon a detailed economic evaluation of renal transplantation in Canada. Medication costs were calculated from hospital pharmacy acquisition costs; basiliximab was assessed a zero cost. RESULTS: The average estimated cost per patient for the first year after transplant was $55,393 (Canadian dollars) for placebo and $50,839 for basiliximab, rising to $141,690 and $130,592, respectively, after 5 years. A principal component of the cost in both groups was accrued during the initial transplant hospitalization ($14,663 for standard therapy and $14,099 for basiliximab). An additional $15,852 and $14,130 was attributable to continued care, graft loss, and dialysis in the two groups, whereas follow-up hospitalization consumed an additional $15,538 for placebo and $13,916 for basiliximab. The mean incremental cost of dialysis was $5,397 for placebo compared with $3,821 for basiliximab, whereas incremental costs of graft loss were $2,548 compared with $2,295 in the two treatment groups. The principal costs associated with repeat admission to the transplant ward and the general ward were marginally higher for placebo ($7,395 vs. $6,300 and $5,986 vs. $4,625). Treatment of acute rejection and maintenance immunosuppressive drug use were associated with only limited savings as a result of basiliximab (savings <$200 each). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the most influential parameters affecting the savings as a result of using basiliximab were a reduction in the duration of initial and repeat hospitalization followed by the reduced risks of acute rejection and graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Before accounting for the cost of the therapy itself, basiliximab produces an estimated economic saving of $4,554 during the first year after transplant, of which $3,344 is attributable to the reduced costs of graft dysfunction, including graft loss and dialysis ($1,722) and follow-up hospitalizations ($1,622). When marketed, basiliximab is expected to cost approximately $3,000 per course (two doses of 20 mg), resulting in a net first-year saving of $1,554. Under these circumstances, basiliximab can be considered a dominant therapy in renal transplantation.     

Aprotinin decreases the incidence of cognitive deficit following CABG and cardiopulmonary bypass: A pilot randomized controlled study

PURPOSE: Cognitive deficit after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has a high prevalence and is persistent. Meta-analysis of clinical trials demonstrates a decreased incidence of stroke after CABG when aprotinin is administrated perioperatively. We hypothesized that aprotinin administration would decrease the incidence of cognitive deficit after CABG. METHODS: Thirty-six ASA III-IV patients undergoing elective CABG were included in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded pilot study. Eighteen patients received aprotinin 2 x 10(6) KIU (loading dose), 2 x 10(6) KIU (added to circuit prime) and a continuous infusion of 5 x 10(5) KIU.hr(-1). A battery of cognitive tests was administered to patients and spouses (n = 18) the day before surgery, four days and six weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Four days postoperatively new cognitive deficit (defined by a change in one or more cognitive domains using the Reliable Change Index method) was present in ten (58%) patients in the aprotinin group compared to 17 (94%) in the placebo group [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.62, P = 0.005); (P = 0.01)]. Six weeks postoperatively, four (23%) patients in the aprotinin group had cognitive deficit compared to ten (55%) in the placebo group (95% CI 0.80-0.16, P = 0.005); (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this prospective pilot study, the incidence of cognitive deficit after CABG and cardiopulmonary bypass is decreased by the administration of high-dose aprotinin.     

Is perioperative plasma aprotinin concentration more predictable and constant after a weight-related dose regimen?

To determine whether a weight-related dose had advantages over a fixed, large-dose regimen, we measured plasma concentrations of aprotinin by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method at set time points in 30 patients having heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. A weight-related dose comprising a preincision bolus injection of 40,000 kallikrein-inhibiting units (KIU)/kg (5.6 mg/kg) with the same amount given in the oxygenator prime was compared with a large-dose regimen of 2 x 10(6) KIU (280 mg) preincision bolus and addition to prime, together with an infusion of 500,000 KIU/h (70 mg/h). Peak plasma concentration in the Weight-Related group was less variable than with the fixed-dose regimen. Forty percent of patients allocated to the fixed-dose regimen had an aprotinin concentration of more than 400 KIU/mL, compared with none in the Weight-Related group; this suggests a relative overdosing in the early surgical period in the Fixed-Dose group. There was great individual variability between patients in the time-concentration curves for aprotinin, with no difference between the two regimens. The weight-related dose regimen benefited by not requiring an intraoperative infusion while achieving the same plasma concentrations of aprotinin. IMPLICATIONS: Peak plasma concentrations of aprotinin were less variable with a weight-related dose schedule. This has implications for safety with regard to control of anticoagulation and cost in patients with small body mass. Plasma concentrations varied greatly with time between patients. This observation has implications for determining an optimal dose on the basis of aprotinin's currently known mechanisms of action.     

Is carotid endarterectomy cost-effective in symptomatic patients with moderate (50% to 69%) stenosis?

OBJECTIVE: Recently published data from the North American Carotid Endarterectomy Trial revealed a benefit for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic patients with moderate (50% to 69%) carotid stenosis. This benefit was significant but small (absolute stroke risk reduction at 5 years, 6.5%; 22.2% vs 15.7%), and thus, the authors of this study were tentative in the recommendation of operation for these patients. To better elucidate whether CEA in symptomatic patients with moderate carotid stenosis is a proper allocation of societal resources, we examined the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov process model was constructed to determine the cost-effectiveness of CEA versus medical treatment for a hypothetical cohort of 66-year-old patients with moderate carotid stenosis. This model allowed the comparison of not only the immediate hospitalization but also the lifetime costs and benefits of these two strategies. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), defined as the incremental lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life year saved. We assumed an operative stroke and death rate of 6.6% and a declining risk of ipsilateral stroke after the ischemic event with medical treatment (first year, 9.3%; second year, 4%; subsequent years, 3%). The hospitalization cost of CEA ($6,420) and the annual costs of major stroke ($26,880), minor stroke ($798), and aspirin therapy ($63) were estimated from a hospital cost accounting system and the literature. RESULTS: CEA for moderate carotid stenosis increased the survival rate by 0.13 quality-adjusted life years as compared with medical treatment at an additional lifetime cost of $580. Thus, CEA was cost-effective with a CER of $4,462. Society is usually willing to pay for interventions with CERs of less than $60,000 (eg, CERs for coronary artery bypass grafting at $9,100 and for dialysis at $53,000). CEA was not cost-effective if the perioperative risk was greater than 11.3%, if the ipsilateral stroke rate associated with medical treatment at 1 year was reduced to 4.3%, if the age of the patient exceeded 83 years, or if the cost of CEA exceeded $13,200. CONCLUSION: CEA in patients with symptomatic moderate carotid stenosis of 50% to 69% is cost-effective. Perioperative risk of stroke or death, medical and surgical stroke risk, cost of CEA, and age are important determinants of the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.     

A cost analysis of nonelective coronary artery bypass graft surgery

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that nonelective coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is more costly than elective CABG. The goal of this study was to examine why cost differences exist between patients undergoing nonelective and elective CABG. METHODS: We compared the outcomes and costs of treating 1613 consecutive patients undergoing nonelective (N = 1071) and elective (N = 542) CABG at three U.S. hospitals. Participating centers each used the same cost accounting system to provide patient-level clinical and cost data. Total, direct, and overhead costs were examined as were department-level costs. RESULTS: Compared to elective patients, nonelective patients were of similar age (66.4 years vs 67.0 years, respectively, p = NS), but were more likely to be female (32.7% vs 24.0%, p = 0.0003). Nonelective patients had longer lengths of stay (LOS) than elective patients (9.7 +/- 0.2 days vs 6.6 +/- 0.3 days, p < 0.0001). The longer LOS among nonelective patients was primarily due to a longer preoperative LOS (2.6 +/- 0.08 days vs 0.4 +/- 0.05 days). Unadjusted in-hospital costs of treatment were 38% higher among nonelective patients ($25,111 +/-$550 vs $18,445 +/-$752, p < 0.0001). After controlling for baseline demographic and clinical differences, the increase in cost among nonelective patients was reduced to 33% (cost ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.27 to 1.39, p < 0.0001). The difference in cost among nonelective patients was further reduced to 16% after controlling for rates of preoperative angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 14% after adjusting for the use of a pacemaker or a balloon pump, and 7% after adjusting for preoperative LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing nonelective CABG have longer LOS and higher costs than patients undergoing elective CABG. The increased cost among nonelective patients is largely due to differences in rates of preoperative LOS, angiography, and PCI. This differential reflects increased nonsurgical costs among patients undergoing nonelective CABG rather than surgical costs.     

Cost savings analysis of intrawound vancomycin powder in posterior spinal surgery

Background contextRecent studies have shown that prophylactic use of intrawound vancomycin in posterior instrumented spine surgery substantially decreases the incidence of wound infections requiring repeat surgery. Significant cost savings are thought to be associated with the use of vancomycin in this setting.PurposeTo elucidate cost savings associated with the use of intrawound vancomycin in posterior spinal surgeries using a budget-impact model.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Patient sampleData from a cohort of 303 patients who underwent spinal surgery (instrumented and noninstrumented) over 2 years were analyzed; 96 of these patients received prophylactic intrawound vancomycin powder in addition to normal intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis, and 207 received just routine IV antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients requiring repeat surgical procedures for infection were identified, and the costs of these additional procedures were elucidated.Outcome measureCost associated with the additional procedure to remediate infection in the absence of vancomycin prophylaxis.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the cost of return procedures for treatment of surgical site infection (SSI). The total reimbursement received by the health care facility was used to model the costs associated with repeat surgery, and this cost was compared with the cost of a single local application of vancomycin costing about $12.ResultsOf the 96 patients in the treatment group, the return-to-surgery rate for SSI was 0. In the group without vancomycin, seven patients required a total of 14 procedures. The mean cost per episode of surgery, based on the reimbursement, the health care facility received was $40,992 (range, $14,459–$114,763). A total of $573,897 was spent on 3% of the 207-patient cohort that did not receive intrawound vancomycin, whereas a total of $1,152 ($12×96 patients) was spent on the cohort treated with vancomycin.ConclusionsThis study shows a reduction in SSIs requiring a return-to-surgery—with large cost savings—with use of intrawound vancomycin powder. In our study population, the cost savings totaled more than half a million dollars.     

A study of a weight-adjusted aprotinin dosing schedule during cardiac surgery.

Aprotinin is effective during cardiac surgery for reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements, but it is expensive. Aprotinin is usually administered to adults according to a fixed protocol regardless of the patient's weight. We previously developed a weight-based dosing protocol for aprotinin. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to determine aprotinin levels in four patient groups (n = 10 each) using the new weight-based aprotinin dosing schedule that should achieve concentrations over 100, 150, 200, and 250 kallikrein inhibitory units/mL compared with full-dose aprotinin regimen (n = 10) by a simple functional aprotinin assay. There was no difference in patient demographic or surgical variables among groups. There was less within patient variation in plasma aprotinin concentrations over time in the new weight-based aprotinin dosing schedule groups compared with the full-dose aprotinin regimen group (P < 0.02 for all comparisons). The mean plasma aprotinin concentration achieved with the new weight-based aprotinin dosing schedule was similar to the desired concentrations, but we were unable to reduce between-patient variability in aprotinin concentrations. IMPLICATIONS: The current dosing schedule for aprotinin results in a large variation in aprotinin plasma concentrations between patients and a large variation within each patient over time. A new weight-based dosing schedule reduced variation of aprotinin concentration over time, but was unable to reduce between-patient variability in aprotinin concentration.     

Stroke after cardiac surgery: a retrospective analysis of the effect of aprotinin dosing regimens

BACKGROUND: Half-dose aprotinin (HDA) appears to be equivalent to full-dose aprotinin (FDA) in its ability to prevent bleeding. However, data regarding the potential effect of aprotinin use and dosage on other outcomes such as the occurrence of perioperative stroke are limited. It has been postulated that the higher level of kallikrein inhibition obtained with FDA dosing may be required for end-organ protection. Therefore, we performed a retrospective study in cardiac surgery patients at high risk for developing stroke to determine the relative effects of FDA and HDA regimens on the incidence of postoperative stroke. METHODS: Records of 1,524 patients undergoing cardiac surgery over a 15-month period were reviewed. Patients at high risk for stroke were selected if they met all of the following predefined criteria: age greater than 70 years, history of hypertension, history of diabetes mellitus, history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and presence of aortic atheroma. A validated preoperative stroke risk index was calculated for each patient. Postoperative stroke required confirmation by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were divided into three groups according to whether they were administered no aprotinin, HAD, or FDA. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients fulfilled the criteria for being at high risk for stroke. Stroke risk index was very similar (p = 0.56) in the three groups: those who received no aprotinin and served as a control group (124 +/- 15, n = 56), those who were given HDA (123 +/- 12, n = 67), and those who received FDA (122 +/- 11 n = 26). Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics were also similar between the three study groups. Overall, the incidence of stroke was 16% (24/149). The incidence of stroke differed (p < 0.05) among the three groups: no aprotinin 16% (9/56), HDA 22% (15/67), and FDA 0% (0/26). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of cardiac surgery patients at high risk for postoperative stroke, the administration of FDA but not HDA was associated with a lower incidence of stroke.     

Cost-Benefit and Efficacy of Aprotinin Compared with epsilon-Aminocaproic Acid in Patients Having Repeated Cardiac Operations: A Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial

Background: Aprotinin and epsilon-aminocaproic acid are routinely used to reduce bleeding during cardiac surgery. The marked difference in average wholesale cost between these two drug therapies (aprotinin, $1,080 vs. epsilon-aminocaproic acid, $11) has generated significant controversy regarding their relative efficacies and costs.

Methods: In a multicenter, randomized, prospective, blinded trial, patients having repeated cardiac surgery received either a high-dose regimen of aprotinin (total dose, 6 x 106 kallikrein inactivator units) or epsilon-aminocaproic acid (total dose, 270 mg/kg).

Results: Two hundred four patients were studied. Overall (data are median [25th-75th percentiles]), aprotinin-treated patients had less postoperative thoracic drainage (511 ml [383-805 ml] vs. 655 ml [464-1,045 ml]; P = 0.016) and received fewer platelet transfusions (0 [range, 0-1] vs. 1 [range, 0-2]; P = 0.036). The surgical field was more likely to be considered free of bleeding in aprotinin-treated patients (44% vs. 26%; P = 0.012). No differences, however, were seen in allogeneic erythrocyte transfusions or in the time required for chest closure. Overall, direct and indirect bleeding-related costs were greater in aprotinin- than in epsilon-aminocaproic acid-treated patients ($1,813 [$1,476-2,605] vs. $1,088 [range, $511-2,057]; P = 0.0001). This difference in cost per case varied in magnitude among sites but not in direction.     

Early Tracheal Extubation after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Reduces Costs and Improves Resource Use: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background: Economics has caused the trend of early tracheal extubation after cardiac surgery, yet no prospective randomized study has directly validated that early tracheal extubation anesthetic management decreases costs when compared with late extubation after cardiac surgery.

Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was designed to evaluate the cost savings of early (1-6 h) versus late tracheal extubation (12-22 h) in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The total cost for the services provided for each patient was determined for both the early and late groups from hospital admission to discharge home. All costs applicable to each of the services were classified into direct variables, direct fixed costs, and overhead (an indirect cost). Physician fees and heart catheterization costs were included. The total service cost was the sum of unit workload and overhead costs.

Results: One hundred patients having elective CABG who were younger than 75 yr were studied. Including all complications, early extubation (n = 50) significantly reduced cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) costs by 53% (P < 0.026) and the total CABG surgery cost by 25% (P <0.019) when compared with late extubation (n = 50). Forty-one patients (82%) in each group were tracheally extubated within the defined period. In the early extubation group, the actual departmental cost savings in CVICU nursing and supplies was 23% (P < 0.005), in ward nursing and supplies was 11% (P < 0.05), and in respiratory therapy was 12% (P <0.05). The total cost savings per patient having CABG was 9% (P < 0.001). Further cost savings using discharge criteria were 51% for CVICU nursing and supplies (Pt < 0.001), 9% for ward nursing and supplies (P <0.05), and 29% for respiratory therapy (P < 0.001), for a total cost savings per patient of 13% (P < 0.001). Early extubation also reduced elective case cancellations (P < 0.002) without any increase in the number of postoperative complications and readmissions.     

Elimination of routine testing in patients undergoing cataract surgery allows substantial savings in laboratory costs. A brief report

PURPOSE: To evaluate the possible cost savings when routine preoperative testing is discontinued in ambulatory cataract surgery patients. METHODS: A policy was introduced at our hospital to stop routine testing in ambulatory cataract patients. Consecutive patients' medical records were analyzed in a four-month period pre- and a four-month period post-discontinuation of routine laboratory tests. Ambulatory cataract surgery is performed under topical (and sometimes retrobulbar block) anesthesia with iv sedation. Co-morbidities, perioperative events, frequency and cost of tests ordered were compared for the two groups. Average costs per patient pre- and post-discontinuation of routine tests, and total possible cost savings were calculated. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and thirty-one patients were studied; 636 had routine laboratory tests and 595 had no routine laboratory tests. The ratios of gender, co-morbidities and perioperative events were similar in the two groups. There was a significant reduction in the number of tests ordered after the new policy was introduced, from 5.8 tests per patient to 0.4 tests per patient. The cost of tests per patient was reduced from Can $39.67 to $4.01. CONCLUSION: In ambulatory cataract surgery, over 90% savings in laboratory costs is possible after elimination of routine tests.     

Cost-saving effect of treatment algorithm for chronic anal fissure: A prospective analysis

Evidence-based medicine suggests that in the management of chronic anal fissure (CAF), lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is far more effective than medical treatment in lowering the anal sphincter tone and curing the fissure. In the current study, we developed a treatment algorithm from topical nitroglycerin (NTG) to botulinum toxin type A (Botox [BTX]) to LIS and analyzed its cost benefit by calculating the effective and potential costs based on the treatment success and the rate of avoided surgeries. Patients presenting between November 2003 and December 2004 with CAF and symptoms for greater than 3 months were prospectively treated according to a treatment algorithm which started with (1) topical NTG, in case of failure (2) injection of BTX, thus limiting (3) surgery to those who failed both nonsurgical options or at any point chose the surgical approach. Based on the primary end points of fissure healing or surgery, we calculated the true cost (algorithm) and the potential incremental cost (BTX plus surgery or surgery in all patients, respectively). Sixty-seven patients with CAF (25 men and 42 women; median duration of symptoms, 16 weeks) were treated according to the algorithm. NTG alone was successful in fissure healing in 31 of 67 patients (46.2%). Two developed a recurrent fissure and then received BTX as part of the protocol. Of the 36 patients who failed NTG trial, 3 requested surgery; the others were treated with BTX, which was successful in 84.8%. Five patients (15.2%) failed BTX and subsequently required surgery. The overall surgery rate in the whole study group was 11.9%, whereas CAF healed in 88.1% of our patients with medical treatment alone. Cost for NTG is $10; for 100 units BTX, $528; and for outpatient surgery, $1119. The total cost for these 67 patients therefore was $33,252 ($290 for NTG, $20,580 for NTG plus BTX, $3,357 for NTG plus LIS, and $9,025 for NTG plus BTX plus LIS). If all patients had received BTX with a 15% failure rate, the total cost would have been $56,688 (70.3% cost increase). If all patients had undergone surgery as initial/only treatment, the total cost would have been $74,973 (125% cost increase). Our treatment algorithm for CAF with stepwise escalation can avoid surgery in 88% of the patients. It is highly cost-efficient and resulted in savings of 41% (compared with BTX plus LIS) and up to 70% (compared with surgery in all patients), respectively. Presented at the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Chicago, Illinois, May 14–18, 2005 (oral presentation).     

The cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: A decision analysis model

PURPOSE: Endovascular repair (EVR) is a less-invasive method for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) as compared with open surgical repair (OSR). The potential benefits of EVR include increased patient acceptance, less resource utilization, and cost savings. This study was designed to determine whether the EVR of AAAs is a cost-effective alternative to OSR. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov decision analysis model to compute long-term survival rates in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of patients who underwent either OSR or EVR. Probability estimates of the different outcomes of the two alternative strategies were made on the basis of a review of the literature. The average costs of (1) the immediate hospitalization ($16,016 for OSR, $20,083 for EVR), (2) the complications that resulted from each procedure, (3) the subsequent interventions, and (4) the surveillance protocol were determined on the basis of average resource utilization as reported in the literature and from our hospital's cost accounting system. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For our base-case analysis (70-year-old men with 5-cm AAAs), EVR was cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $22,826-society usually is willing to pay for interventions with cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $60,000 (eg, cost-effectiveness ratios for coronary artery bypass grafting and dialysis are $9500 and $54,400, respectively). This conclusion did not vary significantly with increases in procedural costs for EVR (ie, if the cost of the endograft increased from $8000 to $12,000, EVR remained cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $32,881). The cost-effectiveness of EVR was critically dependent on EVR producing a large reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate (stroke, dialysis-dependent renal failure, major amputation, myocardial infarction) as compared with OSR (ie, a reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate of OSR from 9.1% to 4.7% made EVR no longer cost-effective). CONCLUSION: Despite the high cost of new technology and the need for close postoperative surveillance, EVR is a cost-effective alternative for the repair of AAAs. However, the cost-effectiveness of this new technology is critically dependent on its potential to reduce morbidity and mortality rates as compared with OSR. EVR may not be cost-effective in medical centers where OSR can be performed with low risk.     

The efficacy of antifibrinolytics in the reduction of blood loss during complex adult reconstructive spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Controlled study to assess the efficacy of aprotinin and Amicar in reducing blood loss during complex spinal fusions. OBJECTIVES: To compare blood loss and the clotting profile with a thromboelastogram in patients with spinal deformities undergoing sequential anterior and posterior spinal fusions treated intraoperatively with either aprotinin or Amicar. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion for correction of adult spinal deformities is associated with large blood losses despite the implementation of multiple factors to reduce this blood loss. The antifibrinolytics aprotinin and Amicar have both been shown to reduce blood loss in other surgical procedures with the potential for large blood loss. Hence, we compared their efficacy for reducing blood loss in complex spinal fusions. METHODS: Sixty patients for elective sequential anteroposterior thoracolumbosacral fusions were randomly assigned to three groups: control, aprotinin, and Amicar. Patients were assessed for blood loss, transfusion requirements, postoperative complications, and coagulation profile using a thromboelastogram. RESULTS: The study demonstrated a significant reduction in total blood loss (aprotinin 3628 mL, Amicar 4056 mL, control 5181 mL) and transfusion requirements using the half-dose aprotinin regimen compared with Amicar or control. Aprotinin also preserved the thromboelastogram mean clot formation time, clot strength, and clotting index compared with Amicar or control. CONCLUSIONS: For complex spinal operations with large blood losses, the half-dose aprotinin regimen will reduce blood loss and the need for blood components and may have a role in reducing postoperative lung injury.     

Is thrombolysis of lower extremity acute arterial occlusion cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: The TOPAS (thrombolysis or peripheral artery surgery) trial randomized 544 patients with acute lower extremity ischemia to either surgery or thrombolysis. Although statistically equivalent 1-year morbidities and mortalities were demonstrated, the comparative cost-effectiveness of these two interventions has not been explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis relative to surgery for a hypothetical cohort of patients with acute lower extremity arterial occlusion. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), defined as the incremental lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Estimates of 1-year outcomes were based on the TOPAS trial: mortality (lysis, 20%; surgery, 17%), amputation (lysis, 15%; surgery, 13%), the number of additional interventions required following the initial procedure (lysis, 544; surgery, 439). Procedural costs were estimated from the cost accounting system at the New York Presbyterian Hospital as well as from the literature. RESULTS: Operative intervention for acute lower extremity arterial occlusion extended life and was less costly compared to thrombolysis. The projected life expectancy for patients who underwent initial surgery was 5.04 years versus 4.75 years for initial thrombolysis. The lifetime costs were $57,429 for surgery versus $dollar;76,326 for thrombolysis. In performing sensitivity analyses, a threshold CER of $60,000 was considered what society would pay for accepted medical interventions. Thrombolysis became cost-effective if the 1-year mortality rate for lysis was lowered from 20 to 10.7%, if the amputation rate for lysis diminished from 15 to 3.9%, or if the 1-year cost of lysis could be reduced to a level below $13,000. CONCLUSIONS: Initial surgery provides the most efficient and economical utilization of resources for acute lower extremity arterial occlusion. The high cost of thrombolysis is related to the expense of the lytic agents, the need for subsequent interventions in patients treated with initial lysis, and the long-term costs of amputation in patients who fail lytic therapy.     

Comparison of lifetime incremental cost:utility ratios of surgery relative to failed medical management for the treatment of hip, knee and spine osteoarthritis modelled using 2-year postsurgical values

Background

Demand for surgery to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip, knee and spine has risen dramatically. Whereas total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been widely accepted as cost-effective, spine surgeries (decompression, decompression with fusion) to treat degenerative conditions remain underfunded compared with other surgeries.

Methods

An incremental cost–utility analysis comparing decompression and decompression with fusion to THA and TKA, from the perspective of the provincial health insurance system, was based on an observational matched-cohort study of prospectively collected outcomes and retrospectively collected costs. Patient outcomes were measured using short-form (SF)-36 surveys over a 2-year follow-up period. Utility was modelled over the lifetime, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined. We calculated the incremental cost per QALY gained by estimating mean incremental lifetime costs and QALYs of surgery compared with medical management of each diagnosis group after discounting costs and QALYs at 3%. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

Results

The lifetime incremental cost:utility ratios (ICURs) discounted at 3% were $5321 per QALY for THA, $11 275 per QALY for TKA, $2307 per QALY for spinal decompression and $7153 per QALY for spinal decompression with fusion. The sensitivity analyses did not alter the ranking of the lifetime ICURs.

Conclusion

In appropriately selected patients with leg-dominant symptoms secondary to focal lumbar spinal stenosis who have failed medical management, the lifetime ICUR for surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis is similar to those of THA and TKA for the treatment of OA.