Normalization of Serum Lipase Levels Versus Resolution of Abdominal Pain: A Comparison of Preoperative Management in Children With Biliary Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the timing of cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis in children. Some surgeons await normalization of serum lipase levels while others are guided by resolution of abdominal pain; however, there are minimal data to support either practice. We hypothesized that resolution of abdominal pain is equivalent in outcome to awaiting normalization of lipase levels in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis. METHODS: After institutional review board (IRB) approval, the medical record was retrospectively queried for all cases of cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis at our institution from 2007 to 2017. Patients undergoing chemotherapy, admitted for another cause, or who had severe underlying comorbidities like ventilator dependence were excluded. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: those managed preoperatively by normalization of serum lipase levels versus resolution of abdominal pain. Demographics, serum lipase levels, postoperative complications, cost of stay, readmissions, and return to the emergency department were collected and analyzed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients met inclusion: 29 patients had lipase levels trended until normalization compared with 45 patients who had resolution of abdominal pain prior to cholecystectomy. Among the two cohorts there was no statistical difference in age, gender, race, ethnicity, or type of preoperative imaging used. Trended patients were found to have more serum lipase levels tested (8.5 ± 6.2 versus 3.4 ± 2.5, P < 0.0001). The trended lipase cohort was significantly more likely to require preoperative total parenteral nutrition (48% versus 11%, P = 0.007) and consequently a longer time before resuming a diet (10 ± 7.3 versus 4.6 ± 2.4 d, P < 0.0001). When comparing the two groups, we found no significant difference in the duration of surgery, postoperative complications, or readmissions. Lipase trended patients had a significantly longer length of stay compared with nontrended patients (11.5 ± 8.1 versus 4.2 ± 2.3 d, P < 0.0001) and had a higher total cost of stay ($38,094 ± 25,910 versus $20,205 ± 5918, P = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in children with biliary pancreatitis, proceeding with cholecystectomy after resolution of abdominal pain is equivalent in outcomes to trending serum lipase levels but is more cost-effective with a decreased length of stay and decreased need for preoperative total parenteral nutrition.

Cost-effectiveness of a new strategy to identify uncomplicated gallstone disease patients that will benefit from a cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a new strategy for the preoperative detection of patients that will likely benefit from a cholecystectomy, using simple criteria that can be applied by surgeons. Criteria for a cholecystectomy indication are: (1) having episodic pain; (2) onset of pain 1 year or less before the outpatient clinic visit. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of the new strategy was evaluated against current practice using a decision analytic model. The incremental cost-effectiveness of applying criteria for a cholecystectomy for a patient with abdominal pain and gallstones was compared to applying no criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as extra costs to be invested to gain one more patient with absence of pain. Scenarios were analyzed to assess the influence of applying different criteria. RESULTS: The new strategy of applying one out of two criteria resulted in a 4 % higher mean proportion of patients with absence of pain compared to current practice with similar costs. The 95 % upper limit of the ICER was €4114 ($4633) per extra patient with relief of upper abdominal pain. Application of two out of two criteria resulted in a 3 % lower mean proportion of patients with absence of pain with lower costs. CONCLUSION: The new strategy of using one out of two strict selection criteria may be an effective but also a cost-effective method to reduce the proportion of patients with pain after cholecystectomy.

Cost analysis of laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from controlled trials and meta-analyses suggests that laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) is preferable to sequential treatment in the management of common bile duct stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With this retrospective analysis of a prospective database that included consecutive patients treated for cholecystocholedocholithiasis at our institution between January 2007 and July 2015, we compared LERV with sequential treatment. The primary endpoint was global cost, defined as the cost/patient/hospital stay, and the secondary end points were efficacy and morbidity. Fisher's exact test or Mann-Whitney test was used. RESULTS: Of a total of 249 consecutive patients, 143 underwent LERV (group A) and 106 a two-stage procedure (group B). Based on an average cost of €613 for 1 day of hospital stay in the General Surgery Department, the overall median cost of treatment was €6403 for group A and €8194 for group B (p < 0.001). Operative time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001), and length of hospital stay was significantly longer for group B (p < 0.001). No mortality in either group was observed. The postoperative complications rate was significantly higher in group B than in group A (24.5 vs. 10.5%; p = 0.003). No significant difference in the postoperative pancreatitis rate or the number of patients with increased serum amylase at 24 h was observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that LERV is preferable to sequential treatment not only in terms of less morbidity, but also of lower costs accrued by a shorter hospital stay. However, the longer operative time raises multiple organizational issues in the coordination of surgery and endoscopy services.

Cost-effectiveness of same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis in the PONCHO trial.

BACKGROUND: Same-admission cholecystectomy is indicated after gallstone pancreatitis to reduce the risk of recurrent disease or other gallstone-related complications, but its impact on overall costs is unclear. This study analysed the cost-effectiveness of same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: In a multicentre RCT (Pancreatitis of biliary Origin: optimal timiNg of CHOlecystectomy; PONCHO) patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis were randomized before discharge to either cholecystectomy within 72 h (same-admission cholecystectomy) or cholecystectomy after 25-30 days (interval cholecystectomy). Healthcare use of all patients was recorded prospectively using clinical report forms. Unit costs of resources used were determined, and patients completed multiple Health and Labour Questionnaires to record pancreatitis-related absence from work. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from societal and healthcare perspectives, with the costs per readmission prevented as primary outcome with a time horizon of 6 months. RESULTS: All 264 trial participants were included in the present analysis, 128 randomized to same-admission cholecystectomy and 136 to interval cholecystectomy. Same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the risk of acute readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications from 16·9 to 4·7 per cent (P = 0·002). Mean total costs from a societal perspective were €234 (95 per cent c.i. -1249 to 738) less per patient in the same-admission cholecystectomy group. Same-admission cholecystectomy was superior to interval cholecystectomy, with a societal incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€1918 to prevent one readmission for gallstone-related complications. CONCLUSION: In mild biliary pancreatitis, same-admission cholecystectomy was more effective and less costly than interval cholecystectomy.

Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of cholecystectomy versus observation/conservative management for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones or cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder in industrialised countries. Although symptoms can be severe, some people can be symptom free for many years after the original attack. Surgery is the current treatment of choice, but evidence suggests that observation is also feasible and safe. We reviewed the evidence on cholecystectomy versus observation for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases (last search April 2014). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised comparative studies where adults received either cholecystectomy or observation/conservative management for the first episode of symptomatic gallstone disease (biliary pain or cholecystitis) being considered for surgery in secondary care. Meta-analysis was used to combine results. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Two RCTs (201 participants) were included. Eighty-eight percent of people randomised to surgery and 45 % of people randomised to observation underwent cholecystectomy during the 14-year follow-up period. Participants randomised to observation were significantly more likely to experience gallstone-related complications (RR = 6.69, 95 % CI = 1.57-28.51, p = 0.01), in particular acute cholecystitis (RR = 9.55, 95 % CI = 1.25-73.27, p = 0.03), and less likely to undergo surgery (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.34-0.73, p = 0.0004) or experience surgery-related complications (RR = 0.36, 95 % CI = 0.16-0.81, p = 0.01) than those randomised to surgery. Fifty-five percent of people randomised to observation did not require surgery, and 12 % of people randomised to cholecystectomy did not undergo surgery. On average, surgery costs £1,236 more per patient than conservative management, but was more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment for symptomatic gallstones. However, approximately half the observation group did not require surgery or suffer complications indicating that it may be a valid alternative to surgery. A multicentre trial is needed to establish the effects, safety and cost effectiveness of observation/conservative management relative to cholecystectomy.

Treatment of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for stone can be carried out by either laparoscopic transcystic stone extraction (LTSE) or laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC). It remains unknown as to which approach is optimal for management of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones (CBDS) in Chinese patients. METHODS: From May 2000 to February 2009, we prospective treated 346 consecutive patients with gallbladder stones and CBDS with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE. Intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay and costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Because of LCBDE failure,16 cases (4.6%) required open surgery. Of 330 successful LCBDE-treated patients, 237 underwent LTSE and 93 required LC. No mortality occurred in either group. The bile duct stone clearance rate was similar in both groups. Patients in the LTSE group were significantly younger and had fewer complications with smaller, fewer stones, shorter operative time and postoperative hospital stays, and lower costs, compared to those in the LC group. Compared with patients with T-tube insertion, patients in the LC group with primary closure had shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: In cases requiring LCBDE, LTSE should be the first choice, whereas LC may be restricted to large, multiple stones. LC with primary closure without external drainage of the CBDS is as effective and safe as the T-tube insertion approach.

Expertise-based randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus small-incision open cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials have compared laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and small-incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC). Most have had wide exclusion criteria and none was expertise-based. The aim of this expertise-based randomized trial was to compare healthcare costs, quality of life (QoL), pain and clinical outcomes after LC and SIOC. METHODS: Patients scheduled for cholecystectomy were randomized to treatment by one of two teams of surgeons with a preference for either LC or SIOC. Each team performed their specific method (SIOC or LC) as a first-choice operation, but converted to open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration when necessary. Intraoperative cholangiography was carried out routinely. The intention was to include all patients undergoing cholecystectomy, including emergency operations and procedures involving surgical training for residents. RESULTS: Some 74·9 per cent of all patients undergoing cholecystectomy were included. Of 355 patients randomized, 333 were analysed. Self-estimated QoL scores in 258 patients, analysed by the area under the curve method, were significantly lower in the SIOC group at 1 month after surgery: median 2326 (95 per cent confidence interval 2187 to 2391) compared with 2411 (2334 to 2502) for the LC group (P = 0·030). The mean(s.d.) duration of operation was shorter for SIOC: 97(41) versus 120(48) min (P < 0·001). There were no significant differences between the groups in conversion rate, pain, complications, length of hospital stay or readmissions. CONCLUSION: SIOC had comparable surgical results but slightly worse short-term QoL compared with LC. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00370344 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Cost analysis comparing ultrasonic fundus-first and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using electrocautery.

BACKGROUND: Costs associated with laparoscopic fundus-first cholecystectomy using ultrasonic dissection versus a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been compared. METHODS: Adult patients subjected to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June 2002 and March 2004 were randomized to either an ultrasonic fundus-first dissection or dissection from the triangle of Calot with electrocautery. Differences in direct and indirect costs related to either technique were studied. RESULTS: The duration of the operation and hospitalization was longer when dissection was with the conventional technique. With the ultrasonic fundus-first technique, the direct cost was 1,190 SEK lower, and the total cost, taking also the cost for sick leave into account, was 5,370 SEK lower. CONCLUSIONS: Both direct and indirect costs are lower with a laparoscopic fundus-first cholecystectomy using ultrasonic dissection than conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using electrocautery.

Enhanced recovery in the management of mild gallstone pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish enhanced recovery protocols for the management of mild gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were divided into enhanced recovery and traditional recovery (TR) groups in a randomized observational study. The basic enhanced recovery elements included early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, restrictive endoscopic intervention, and early oral nutrition. The incidence of complications, readmission, length of stay, and total medical cost were analyzed during the hospital course. RESULTS: The length of hospital stay and medical cost were significantly lower in the enhanced recovery group in comparison to the TR group: 5.9 days vs. 10.6 days (P < 0.01) and ¥10,023 vs. ¥15,035 (P < 0.01). The complications and readmission rates in the two groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of enhanced recovery protocols is feasible in the management of mild gallstone pancreatitis. The utilization of these protocols can achieve shorter hospital stays and reduced costs, with no increase in either the re-admission or peri-operative complication rates.

Ethnicity and insurance status affect health disparities in patients with gallstone disease.

BACKGROUND: Complex gallstone disease is associated with greater risk of morbidity, associated with operative complications and longer hospital stays. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether ethnicity or insurance status is associated with differences in presentation and outcomes in gallstone disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy between August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2010 at the only teaching hospital in the region. Analysis of Variance, Chi square (χ(2)) and logistical regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of ethnicity and insurance status on the complexity of gallstone disease and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients had a cholecystectomy during the study period, of whom 255 (45.4%) were Latino. Latino patients were significantly younger than any other ethnic group (P < 0.001) and had a significantly higher rate of being uninsured (40%, P = 0.03). Latino patients were significantly more likely to require ERCP (38.6% versus 28.8% for non-Latino, P = 0.01). Latino patients had a significantly higher white blood cell count (P = 0.017). There were no significant differences in liver function tests, bilirubin levels, albumin levels, hospital lengths of stay, operation types, pathology types, or complication rates between ethnic groups. Uninsured patients were significantly younger (P = 0.003) and were more likely to require an ERCP (39.5% versus 26.8% for privately insured and 31.9% for publicly insured, P = 0.04). Patients with no insurance were significantly more likely to have a higher white blood cell count (P = 0.039) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level (P = 0.04). Patients with public insurance and no insurance had a significantly longer median length of hospital stay (4.0 d versus 3.0 d for privately insured, P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in operation types, complication rates, or pathologic diagnosis based on insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, ethnicity and insurance status do play a role in the presentation and care of patients with gallstone disease. Latino and uninsured patients present with a higher complexity of disease and require interventions more frequently.

Early or delayed cholecystectomy (LC) for acute gallstone pancreatitis? An experience and review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The timing for the management of gallstones pancreatitis remains a contentious issue. Various scholars have their own achievement in in regards to this issue. METHODOLOGY: We reviewed our hospital charts from Jan 2007 to December 2010 and made a comparative study about early and delayed LC for mild to moderate gallstone pancreatitis in 80 patients. RESULTS: Successful management was obtained in all patients. Out of 80 patients, 54 had underwent for early LC within 48 hours and 26 delayed LC (6-8 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that early cholecystectomy has nice outcomes in terms of shorter hospital stay and expenses. Proper consultation should be taken from radiological colleague if CBD dilations are >6 mm and contraction of gallbladder appears on imaging modalities. Comorbid conditions, past history of cholecystitis cannot be avoided for proper surgical outcomes. Postoperative complications can be deterred by early LC for mild gallstone pancreatitis. However, large volume studies are essential from different places to answer the debated topic of which management protocol is justifiable for the management of mild to moderate gall stone pancreatitis.

[Minimising hospital costs in the treatment of bile duct calculi: a comparison study]. / Estudio de minimización de costes hospitalarios en el tratamiento de la coledocolitiasis.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of bile duct calculi associated with cholelithiasis is controversial. The hospital costs could be a decisive factor in choosing between the different therapeutic options. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and costs of two options in the treatment of common bile duct calculi: 1) One-stage: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration, and 2) Two-stage: sequential endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was performed on 49 consecutive patients with bile duct calculi and gallbladder in situ, treated consecutively and simultaneously over a two year period. The post-operate complication, hospital stay, number of procedures per patient, conversion to laparotomy, efficacy of removing the calculi, and hospital costs. RESULTS: There were no differences as regards the patient clinical features or morbidity. The mean post-surgical hospital stay for the One-stage group was less than that in the Two-stage group. Three patients of the Two-stage group required conversion to laparotomy. The median costs per patient were less for the One-stage strategy, representing an overall saving of 37,173€ during the period studied. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between the two treatment options as regards efficacy or post-surgical morbidity and mortality, but there were differences in hospital stay and costs. The management of patients with gallstones in one-stage surgery represents a saving of 3 days hospital stay and 1,008€ per patient.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intraoperative versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones are treated by preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (POES) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Recently, intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been suggested as an alternative treatment. METHODS: Data from randomized clinical trials related to safety and effectiveness of IOES versus POES were extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible. RESULTS: Four trials with 532 patients comparing IOES with POES were included. There were no deaths. There was no significant difference in rates of ampullary cannulation (RR 1·01, 0·97 to 1·04; P = 0·70) or stone clearance by ES (RR 0·99, 0·96 to 1·02; P = 0·58) between the groups. The proportion of patients with at least one post-ES complication, including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis or gastric ulcer, was significantly lower in the IOES group (RR 0·37, 0·18 to 0·78; P = 0·009). There was no significant difference in morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or requirement for open operation between the groups. Mean hospital stay was 3 days shorter in the IOES group: mean difference - 2·83 (-3·66 to - 2·00) days (P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: In patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones, IOES is as effective and safe as POES and results in a significantly shorter hospital stay.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Conventional laparoscopy with three or more ports remains the 'gold standard' for cholecystectomy, but a laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) approach is emerging, designed to decrease parietal trauma and improve cosmesis. This study compared conventional laparoscopic (CL) with LESS cholecystectomy, with short-term clinical results as the main outcomes. METHODS: A randomized trial of CL and LESS cholecystectomies involving 150 patients was undertaken. Follow-up was for 1 month after surgery. The primary endpoint was body image results evaluated by means of validated scales. Secondary endpoints were: postoperative pain measured on a visual analogue scale, analgesia requirement, morbidity, quality of life (QoL) measured with Short Form 12, duration of operation, hospital stay, time to return to work and cost analysis. RESULTS: Operating times and complications were similar in the two groups. Two LESS procedures (3 per cent) were converted to two-port laparoscopy owing to difficulties with exposure, and one CL operation was achieved through a single port because extensive fibrous peritoneal adhesions prevented placement of other ports. There were three and four port-site seroma/haematomas in the LESS and CL groups respectively. Better pain profiles and lower analgesia requirements were recorded in the LESS group (P < 0·001). QoL, body image and scar scale results were also better (P < 0·001). Operative costs were higher for LESS procedures (P < 0·001), although median time to return to work was shorter (P = 0·003). CONCLUSION: LESS is an alternative to CL cholecystectomy associated with better cosmesis, body image, QoL and an improved postoperative pain profile.

Impact of Early Cholecystectomy on the Cost of Treating Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis: Gallstone PANC Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Gallstone Pancreatitis: Admission vs Normal Cholecystectomy (Gallstone PANC) Trial demonstrated that cholecystectomy within 24 hours of admission (early) compared with after clinical resolution (control) for mild gallstone pancreatitis, significantly reduced 30-day length-of-stay (LOS) without increasing major postoperative complications. We assessed whether early cholecystectomy decreased 90-day healthcare use and costs. STUDY DESIGN: A secondary economic evaluation of the Gallstone PANC Trial was performed from the healthcare system perspective. Costs for index admissions and all gallstone pancreatitis-related care 90 days post-discharge were obtained from the hospital accounting system and inflated to 2020 USD. Negative binomial regression models and generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution, adjusting for randomization strata, were used. Bayesian analysis with neutral prior was used to estimate the probability of cost reduction with early cholecystectomy. RESULTS: Of 98 randomized patients, 97 were included in the analyses. Baseline characteristics were similar in early (n = 49) and control (n = 48) groups. Early cholecystectomy resulted in a mean absolute difference in LOS of -0.96 days (95% CI, -1.91 to 0.00, p = 0.05). Ninety-day mean total costs were $14,974 (early) vs $16,190 (control) (cost ratio [CR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.15, p = 0.47), with a mean absolute difference of $1,216 less (95% CI, -$4,782 to $2,349, p = 0.50) per patient in the early group. On Bayesian analysis, there was an 81% posterior probability that early cholecystectomy reduced 90-day total costs. CONCLUSION: In this single-center trial, early cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis reduced 90-day LOS and had an 81% probability of reducing 90-day healthcare system costs.

Referral pathways of patients with gallstones: a potential source of financial waste in the U.K. National Health Service?

PURPOSE: Gallstone-related illnesses are one of the most common reasons for emergency hospital admissions, often with serious complications. Standard treatment of uncomplicated gallstone-disease is by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which can be safely and cost-effectively performed during a short hospital stay or as day-case. This paper aims to evaluate the referral pattern of patients with gallstones, which treatment is given and whether patients admitted as emergency could have benefited from earlier elective referral. The management of these patients is examined in the context of payment by results to determine cost and potential savings. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The approach takens was prospective clinical audit and patient questionnaire in a district general hospital. Cost comparisons were made using secondary care income (NHS tariff) and estimated cost of hospitalisation, investigations and treatment. FINDINGS: Between May and July 2007, 114 patients were admitted with symptomatic gallstones, 62 (54.4 per cent) were emergencies. Cholecystectomy was performed in all 52 elective patients and performed or planned for 59/62 (95.2 per cent) emergencies. A total 17/62 emergencies (27.4 per cent) presented with complications of gallstones. 38/62 (61.3 per cent) had similar symptoms before, with 21/38 (55.3 per cent) diagnosed in primary care or by another hospital department. 11 (52.4 per cent) of these had not been referred for a surgical opinion; taking account of age, co-morbidity and data acquired for elective admissions, the cost of their treatment could have been reduced by at least pounds 16,194. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: A large proportion of patients admitted with symptomatic biliary disease could have been referred earlier and electively. Such referral practice could improve the quality of care and reduce cost for the NHS both in primary and secondary care.

Two-week target for laparoscopic cholecystectomy following gallstone pancreatitis is achievable and cost neutral.

BACKGROUND: The British Society of Gastroenterology recommends that all patients with gallstone pancreatitis should undergo cholecystectomy within 2 weeks. This study assessed whether these guidelines are feasible and cost-effective. METHODS: Admissions for gallstone pancreatitis between January 2006 and January 2008 were reviewed. Readmissions for subsequent pancreatitis or biliary pathology were noted together with additional investigations, severity scores, hospital stay and time to cholecystectomy. The costs of readmission and theoretical costs of developing a dedicated operating list were provided by independent accountants. RESULTS: During the 2 years, 153 patients were admitted. Twenty-one patients (13.7 per cent) had further attacks requiring 40 readmissions. There were no deaths. Additional hospital costs related to readmissions were 172,170 pound sterling, including bed occupancy (67,860 pound sterling), investigations (12,510 pound sterling) and 153 cholecystectomies on an existing theatre list (91,800 pound sterling). The estimated cost of staffing a half-day theatre list every fortnight, performing 153 cholecystectomies, was 170,391 pound sterling. CONCLUSION: Instigating a dedicated theatre for cholecystectomy after biliary pancreatitis has many potential benefits. The costs of readmissions and ad hoc operating are balanced by those of a dedicated theatre list in the long term. Implementation of the guidelines would save approximately 900 pound sterling annually and be cost neutral.

Relationship between physician financial incentives and clinical pathway compliance: a cross-sectional study of 18 public hospitals in China.

OBJECTIVES: Many strategies have been either used or recommended to promote physician compliance with clinical practice guidelines and clinical pathways (CPs). This study examines the relationship between hospitals' use of financial incentives to encourage physician compliance with CPs and physician adherence to CPs. DESIGN: A retrospectively cross-sectional study of the relationship between the extent to which patient care was consistent with CPs and hospital's use of financial incentives to influence CP compliance. SETTING: Eighteen public hospitals in three provinces in China. PARTICIPANTS: Stratified sample of 2521 patients discharged between 3 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of key performance indicators (KPIs) met for patients with (1) community-acquired pneumonia (pneumonia), (2) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (3) acute left ventricular failure (heart failure), (4) planned caesarean section (C-section) and (5) gallstones associated with acute cholecystitis and associated cholecystectomy (cholecystectomy). RESULTS: The average implementation rate of CPs for five conditions (pneumonia, AMI, heart failure, C-section and cholecystectomy) based on 2521 cases in 18 surveyed hospitals was 57% (ranging from 44% to 67%), and the overall average compliance rate for the KPIs for the five conditions was 69.48% (ranging from 65.07% to 77.36%). Implementation of CPs was associated with greater compliance within hospitals only when hospitals adopted financial incentives directed at physicians to promote compliance. CONCLUSION: CPs are viewed as important strategies to improve medical care in China, but they have not been widely implemented or adhered to in Chinese public hospitals. In addition to supportive resources, education/training and better administration in general, hospitals should provide financial incentives to encourage physicians to adhere to CPs.

Persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with increased healthcare consumption and sick leave.

BACKGROUND: Although, 33% to 40% of symptomatic gallstone patients reported persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there is no data on the burden of this pain to the healthcare system and society at large. This study determined healthcare consumption, sick leave, and costs in patients with persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Secondly, predictive factors for healthcare consumption were assessed. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included all 146 patients with persistent abdominal pain (patient-reported on Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index (score 0-3) 24 weeks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, derived from a previous prospective cohort. Healthcare consumption was assessed using Medical Consumption Questionnaire and medical records, and sick leave using Productivity Cost Questionnaire. Costs were calculated according "Guideline for performing economic evaluations in healthcare." Predictors of healthcare consumption were assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In the study, 124/146 patients (85%) responded after mean follow-up of 31.0 months (standard deviation 6.5); 104 were female, mean age of responders was 52 years. Sixty-nine patients needed additional healthcare; 30.6% primary care; 37.1% secondary care; 16% emergency department admission; 8.9% hospital admission; 33.9% diagnostic procedures; 17.7% medication; 5.6% other interventions. Medical costs were $555 (BCa 95% confidence interval, $329-$852) and costs of sick leave were $361 (Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% confidence interval, $189-$566) per year per patient. Younger age (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98) and higher postoperative pain score (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04) were associated with increased healthcare consumption. CONCLUSION: Persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with additional healthcare in 56% of patients. Yearly, medical costs and costs of sick leave are 20% of the initial costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Scoring System for the Management of Acute Gallstone Pancreatitis: Cost Analysis of a Prospective Study.

Predicting the presence of a persistent common bile duct (CBD) stone is a difficult and expensive task. The aim of this study is to determine if a previously described protocol-based scoring system is a cost-effective strategy. The protocol includes all patients with gallstone pancreatitis and stratifies them based on laboratory values and imaging to high, medium, and low likelihood of persistent stones. The patient's stratification then dictates the next course of management. A decision analytic model was developed to compare the costs for patients who followed the protocol versus those that did not. Clinical data model inputs were obtained from a prospective study conducted at The Mount Sinai Medical Center to validate the protocol from Oct 2009 to May 2013. The study included all patients presenting with gallstone pancreatitis regardless of disease severity. Seventy-three patients followed the proposed protocol and 32 did not. The protocol group cost an average of $14,962/patient and the non-protocol group cost $17,138/patient for procedural costs. Mean length of stay for protocol and non-protocol patients was 5.6 and 7.7 days, respectively. The proposed protocol is a cost-effective way to determine the course for patients with gallstone pancreatitis, reducing total procedural costs over 12 %.