Nail fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures with or without cement augmentation: A cost-utility analysis in the United States: Cost-utility of cement augmentation.

OBJECTIVES: Recent clinical studies have shown favorable outcomes for cement augmentation for fixation of trochanteric fracture. We assessed the cost-utility of cement augmentation for fixation of closed unstable trochanteric fractures from the US payer's perspective. METHODS: The cost-utility model comprised a decision tree to simulate clinical events over 1 year after the index fixation surgery, and a Markov model to extrapolate clinical events over patients' lifetime, using a cohort of 1,000 patients with demographic and clinical characteristics similar to that of a published randomized controlled trial (age ≥75 years, 83 % female). Model outputs were discounted costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on results. RESULTS: Fixation with augmentation reduced per-patient costs by $754.8 and had similar per-patient QALYs, compared to fixation without augmentation, resulting in an ICER of -$130,765/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the utility of revision surgery, mortality risk ratio after the second revision surgery, mortality risk ratio after successful index surgery, and mortality rate in the decision tree model. The probability that fixation with augmentation was cost-effective compared with no augmentation was 63.4 %, 58.2 %, and 56.4 %, given a maximum acceptable ceiling ratio of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fixation with cement augmentation was the dominant strategy, driven mainly by reduced costs. These results may support surgeons in evidence-based clinical decision making and may be informative for policy makers regarding coverage and reimbursement.

Budget Impact Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A European Hospital Perspective.

Purpose: When traditional therapies fail to provide relief from debilitating lower back pain, surgeries such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be required. This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared minimally-invasive (MI)-TLIF versus open (O)-TLIF for single-level fusion from an Italian hospital perspective. Methods: The BIA compared costs of 100 MI-TLIF and 100 O-TLIF procedures from an Italian hospital perspective over a one-year time horizon. The base case included costs for length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, and sterilizing surgical trays. The scenario analysis also included operating room (OR) time and complication costs. Base case inputs were from the Miller et al meta-analysis; scenario analysis inputs were from the Hammad et al meta-analysis. The device costs for MI-TLIF and O-TLIF procedures were from Italian tender prices for Viper Prime™ System and Expedium™ Spine System, respectively. Results: Base case deterministic analysis results showed cost savings of €207,370 for MI-TLIF compared with O-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€215,277), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), and surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), whereas device costs were lower for O-TLIF (€53,020). The probabilistic result was similar, with MI-TLIF resulting in savings of €211,026 (95% credible interval [CR]: €208,725 - €213,327). All 1000 base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs were cost saving. Deterministic scenario analysis results showed cost savings of €166,719 for MI-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€190,813), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), and complications (€2076), whereas O-TLIF costs were lower for OR time (€18,263) and devices used (€53,020). Conclusion: Despite the increase incremental cost for medical device innovation and OR time, this study demonstrates the economic savings of MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF from a European hospital perspective. The findings will be useful to policy and hospital decision makers in assessing purchasing, funding and reimbursement decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery in Tunisia.

Purpose: Obesity is a growing global issue with evidence linking it to an increase in loss of disease-free years, reduced quality of life, increased mortality, and additional economic burden. This study sought to establish the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, compared to conventional therapy in patients with obesity, from a Tunisian healthcare payor perspective. Patients and Methods: A Markov model compared lifetime costs and outcomes of bariatric surgery with conventional treatment among patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 with obesity-related co-morbidities (Group 1), or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (Group 2). Inputs were sourced from the Tunisian Health Examination Survey, local clinician data and literature sources. Health states were associated with different cost and utility decrements. Changes in body mass index, systolic blood pressure, lipid ratio and diabetes remission rates were modelled on a yearly basis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were key outcomes. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the model's robustness. Results: The model showed that the benefits of bariatric surgery were favorable compared to conventional treatment, with an ICER of 1844 TND/QALY in Group 1 patients and 2413 TND/QALY in Group 2 patients. Bariatric surgery resulted in a QALY gain of 3.26 per patient in Group 1 and a gain of 1.77 per patient in Group 2. At a willingness to pay threshold of 31,379 TND/QALY, the incremental NMB was 96,251 TND and 51,123 TND for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Conclusion: From the Tunisian healthcare payor perspective, bariatric surgery is cost-effective for patients with obesity and those with T2DM and obesity-related comorbidities. These findings may have impact on future decision-making on funding and reimbursement of bariatric surgery in Tunisia.

Outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for multiple rib fractures: A US hospital matched cohort database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for multiple rib fractures includes surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) or nonoperative management (NOM). Meta-analyses have demonstrated that SSRF results in faster recovery and lower long-term complication rates versus NOM. Our study evaluated postoperative outcomes for multiple rib fracture patients following SSRF versus NOM in a real-world, all-comer study design. METHODS: Multiple rib fracture patients with inpatient admissions in the PREMIER hospital database from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020, were identified. Outcomes included discharge disposition, and 3- and 12-month lung-related readmissions. Demographics, comorbidities, concurrent injuries at index, Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Scores, and provider characteristics were determined for all patients. Patients were excluded from the cohort if they had a thorax Abbreviated Injury Scale score of <2 (low severity patient) or a Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤8 (extreme high severity patient). Stratum matching between SSRF and NOM patients was performed using fine stratification and weighting so that all patient data were kept in the final analysis. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models with quasinormal distribution and logit links. RESULTS: A total of 203,450 patients were included, of which 200,580 were treated with NOM and 2,870 with SSRF. Compared to NOM, patients with SSRF had higher rates of home discharge (62% SSRF vs. 58% NOM) and lower rates of lung-related readmissions (3 months, 3.1% SSRF vs. 4.0% NOM; 12 months, 6.2% SSRF vs. 7.6% NOM). The odds ratio (OR) for home or home health discharge in patients with SSRF versus NOM was 1.166 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.073-1.266; p = 0.0002). Similarly, ORs for lung-related readmission at 3- and 12-month were statistically lower in the patients treated with SSRF versus NOM (OR [3 months], 0.764 [95% CI, 0.606-0.963]; p = 0.0227 and OR [12 months], 0.799 [95% CI, 0.657-0.971]; p = 0.0245). CONCLUSION: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures results in greater odds of home discharge and lower rates of lung-related readmissions compared with NOM at 12 months of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Healthcare resource use and costs related to surgical infections of tibial fractures in a Spanish cohort.

Surgical site infection constitutes a serious complication in the healing process of bone fractures and has been associated with increases in medical resource use and healthcare costs. This study evaluates the economic impact of surgical site infection in tibial fractures in a Spanish cohort. It is a retrospective, single-centre, comparative cohort study of patients with tibial fractures with longitudinal follow-up for up to 18 months post-surgery. Included patients (n = 325) were adults, with tibial fracture, either isolated or polyfracture, or polytrauma with an Injury Severity Score >15. Patients had been surgically treated within 30 days of the tibial fracture by external or internal fixation, or external followed by internal fixation. Most patients (84.9%) had an American Society of Anaesthesiology score of 1-2. 20% of the patients had one open tibial fracture, 12.3% had polytrauma, and 20% had multiple fractures. Most patients were treated with a nail (41.8%) or a plate (33.8%). 56 patients (17.2%) developed surgical site infection. Patients with infection had significantly higher hospital length of stay (34.9 vs 12.0 days; p<0.001; +191%), readmissions (1.21 vs 0.25; p<0.001; +380%) and mean operating theatre time (499 vs 219 min; p<0.001; +128%) than patients without infection. Mean length of stay in intensive care did not significantly increase with infection (2.8 vs 1.7 days; p = 0.25). Total in-hospital costs for patients with infection increased from €7,607 to €17,538 (p<0.001; +131%). Overall, infections were associated with significantly increased healthcare resource use and costs. Preventive strategies to avoid infections could lead to substantial cost savings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cement Augmentation Versus No Augmentation for the Fixation of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures.

BACKGROUND: A previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated a trend toward a reduced risk of implant-related revision surgery following fixation with use of a Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) with TRAUMACEM V+ Injectable Bone Cement augmentation versus no augmentation in patients with unstable trochanteric fractures. To determine whether this reduced risk may result in long-term cost savings, the present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TRAUMACEM V+ cement augmentation versus no augmentation for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures from the German health-care payer's perspective. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness model comprised 2 stages: a decision tree simulating clinical events, costs, and utilities during the first year after the index procedure and a Markov model extrapolating clinical events, costs, and utilities over the patient's lifetime. Sources of model parameters included the previous RCT, current literature, and administrative claims data. Outcome measures were incremental costs (in 2020 Euros), incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that fixation with cement augmentation was the dominant strategy as it was associated with cost savings (€50.3/patient) and QALY gains (0.01 QALY/patient). Major influential parameters for the ICER were the utility of revision, rates of revision surgery within the first year after fixation surgery, and the costs of augmentation and revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that estimates of cost savings were more robust than those of increased QALYs (66.4% versus 52.7% of the simulations). For a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds from €0 to €50,000, the probability of fixation with cement augmentation being cost-effective versus no augmentation remained above 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Fixation with use of cement augmentation dominated fixation with no augmentation for unstable trochanteric fractures, resulting in cost savings and QALY gains. Given the input parameter uncertainties, future analyses are warranted when long-term costs and effectiveness data for cement augmentation are available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Treatment patterns and clinical and economic burden of hip dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty in England.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to estimate the clinical and economic burden of dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in England. METHODS: This retrospective evaluation used data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. Patients were eligible if they underwent a primary THA (index date) and had medical records available 90 days pre-index and 180 days post-index. Bilateral THAs were excluded. Healthcare costs and resource use were evaluated over two years. Changes (pre- vs post-THA) in generic quality of life (QoL) and joint-specific disability were evaluated. Propensity score matching controlled for baseline differences between patients with and without THA dislocation. RESULTS: Among 13,044 patients (mean age 69.2 years (SD 11.4), 60.9% female), 191 (1.5%) had THA dislocation. Two-year median direct medical costs were £15,333 (interquartile range (IQR) 14,437 to 16,156) higher for patients with THA dislocation. Patients underwent revision surgery after a mean of 1.5 dislocations (1 to 5). Two-year costs increased to £54,088 (IQR 34,126 to 59,117) for patients with multiple closed reductions and a revision procedure. On average, patients with dislocation had greater healthcare resource use and less improvement in EuroQol five-dimension index (mean 0.24 (SD 0.35) vs 0.44 (SD 0.35); p < 0.001) and visual analogue scale (0.95 vs 8.85; p = 0.038) scores, and Oxford Hip Scores (12.93 vs 21.19; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The cost, resource use, and QoL burden of THA dislocation in England are substantial. Further research is required to understand optimal timing of revision after dislocation, with regard to cost-effectiveness and impact on QoL. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):811-819.

Budget impact analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS™+ Shears for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery with axillary lymph node dissection compared with monopolar electrocautery from an Italian hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, both with axillary lymph node dissection, are common treatments for early-stage breast cancer. Monopolar electrocautery is typically used for both procedures, despite evidence of improved clinical outcomes with HARMONIC FOCUS™+. This analysis evaluated the budget impact of adopting HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery for patients undergoing these procedures from an Italian hospital perspective. METHODS: Total costs for an annual caseload of 100 patients undergoing mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, with either the intervention or comparator were calculated. Italian clinical and cost input data were utilised. The analysis included costs for the device, operating room time, postoperative length of stay, treating seroma and managing postoperative chest wall drainage. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty of model input values. Two scenario analyses investigated the impact of conservative estimates of postoperative length of stay reduction and daily hospital cost on the simulated cost difference. RESULTS: HARMONIC FOCUS™+ achieves annual savings of EUR 100,043 compared with monopolar electrocautery, derived from lower costs for operating room time, postoperative length of stay and seroma and postoperative chest wall drainage management, offsetting the incremental device cost increase (EUR 43,268). Cost savings are maintained in scenario analyses and across all variations in parameters in deterministic sensitivity analysis, with postoperative hospital stay costs being key drivers of budget impact. The mean (interquartile range) cost savings with HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery in probabilistic sensitivity analysis are EUR 101,637 (EUR 64,390-137,093) with a 98% probability of being cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention demonstrates robust cost savings compared with monopolar electrocautery for mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, in an Italian hospital setting, and improved clinical and resource outcomes. These findings, with other clinical and cost analyses, support HARMONIC FOCUS™+ use in this setting.

In-hospital economic burden of anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomosis surgery: a real-world cost analysis in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a severe complication of colorectal surgery. We aimed to quantify inpatient costs and key cost contributors associated with AL in a single Italian center. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Electronic records for adults who had undergone colorectal surgery with anastomosis (January 2015 - December 2016), were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with AL were identified using clinical signs and/or imaging findings and/or intraoperative findings. Available data included patient, clinical, and procedural characteristics, healthcare resource utilization, and inpatient costs. Multivariate models were used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: AL occurred in 12.3% of patients (N = 317). Mean adjusted inpatient cost was 108% higher (p < 0.001) for patients with AL versus no AL (€14,711; 95% CI: 12,113; 17,866 versus €7,089; 95% CI: 6,623; 7,587). Key cost contributors were ward stay, disposables, operating room, and hospital consultations. Mean losses (reimbursement minus costs) were €2,041/patient with AL. AL extended mean length of stay by 9 days and increased odds of reoperation and ICU stay (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AL place considerable economic and resource burden on healthcare systems and hospital reimbursement rates do not cover treatment costs. This study highlights an unmet need for novel techniques to reduce the burden of AL.

Cost-effectiveness of bariatric and metabolic surgery, and implications of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: People living with obesity have been among those most disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the urgent need for increased provision of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the possible clinical and economic benefits of BMS compared with nonsurgical treatment options in the UK, considering the broader impact that COVID-19 has on people living with obesity. SETTING: Single-payer healthcare system (National Health Service, England). METHODS: A Markov model compared lifetime costs and outcomes of BMS and conventional treatment among patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 with obesity-related co-morbidities (Group A), or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 with type 2 diabetes (T2D; Group B). Inputs were sourced from clinical audit data and literature sources; direct and indirect costs were considered. Model outputs included costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Scenario analyses whereby patients experienced COVID-19 infection, BMS was delayed by five years, and BMS patients underwent endoscopy were conducted. RESULTS: In both groups, BMS was dominant versus conventional treatment, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £25,000/QALY. When COVID-19 infections were considered, BMS remained dominant and, across 1000 patients, prevented 117 deaths, 124 hospitalizations, and 161 intensive care unit admissions in Group A, and 64 deaths, 65 hospitalizations, and 90 intensive care unit admissions in Group B. Delaying BMS by 5 years resulted in higher costs and lower QALYs in both groups compared with not delaying treatment. CONCLUSION: Increased provision of BMS would be expected to reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, as well as obesity-related co-morbidities, ultimately reducing the clinical and economic burden of obesity.

Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost impact of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECP) compared with manual circular staplers (standard of care, SOC) among patients undergoing colectomy procedures that involve left-sided anastomosis. METHODS: A US hospital-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the impact of ECP in reducing the surgical complication of anastomotic leak. The incremental acquisition cost of ECP vs SOC was compared to the net potential savings from reduced complication costs. The model was based on complication rates from a recently published matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that compared clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes of patients using ECP with those of a propensity score-matched retrospective SOC control cohort from a real-world clinical practice population. The model assessed total cost, average length of stay (LOS), proportion of patients with a non-home discharge, and all-cause readmission. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model assumptions and inputs. RESULTS: Despite a higher device cost of $412 for ECP compared with $298 for a manual stapler, annual savings due to avoided complications with ECP was $53,987 for anastomotic leak, assuming 100 procedures per year with each type of circular stapler. ECP also helped to avoid 27 LOS days, 0.38 readmissions and 0.22 non-home discharges. Sensitivity analyses around potential drivers of costs established the robustness of economic savings with the use of ECP - with annual savings being most impacted by the probability of anastomotic leak complication in the DSA. CONCLUSION: This model demonstrates that among patients undergoing left-sided colectomy procedures, the incremental cost of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler instead of a manual circular stapler was offset by the savings from lowered incidence and cost of management of anastomotic leaks in the hospital setting.

Improving resource utilisation and outcomes after total knee arthroplasty through technology-enabled patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: A multi-modal, technology-enabled, patient engagement and pathway management solution (PES) for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was evaluated. The primary outcome measure was length of stay (LoS). The secondary outcome measures were clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 1256 TKA patients before (n = 783) and after (n = 473) implementation of the PES. LoS, PROMs, complications, readmissions, and return to theatre were measured. Results were analysed using bivariate and multivariable regression using general linear models, and a sensitivity analysis on LoS was conducted using interrupted time series (ITS) methods. RESULTS: Patients in the PES cohort had a significantly shorter mean LoS of two days (mean 4.7 days) versus the Pre-PES patients (mean 6.7 days; p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. PES was also associated with a significant reduction in rates of reoperation within 60 days compared with Pre-PES (adjusted rate 2.2% versus 5.0%, p = 0.031). There were no statistically significant differences in the 60-day complication rate and 30-day readmission rate. All PROMs in the PES cohort demonstrated significant improvement (change from baseline to six months postoperative) compared with Pre-PES (Oxford Knee Score, 20.1 versus 15.5, p < 0.001; EQ-5D Index, 0.40 versus 0.32, p = 0.005; and EQ VAS, 22.9 versus 8.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes following TKA performed in enhanced recovery programs may be improved using technology to more effectively engage patients and streamline their surgical pathway. Integration of such solutions may significantly reduce LoS and improve PROMs without negatively impacting clinical outcomes.

Comparative Analysis Investigating the Impact of Implant Design on Hospital Length of Stay and Discharge Destination in a Dutch Hospital With an Established Enhanced Recovery Program.

BACKGROUND: Global demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing, driven by an aging and increasingly overweight patient population, culminating in higher healthcare costs. In the Netherlands, the number of TKA surgeries performed annually increased from 21,000 in 2010 to 29,000 in 2017. This study aimed to assess the impact of implant design on hospital length of stay (LOS), surgery time, and discharge destination (home vs a rehabilitation center) in a Dutch hospital with an established enhanced recovery program and short baseline LOS. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive adult patients who underwent primary TKA in a Dutch hospital between 2015 and 2017 using either the comparator device or the control device. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were enrolled in the study (100 per group). Patients who received a comparator device had a significantly shorter LOS (adjusted mean 2.76 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.45, 3.11) vs the control group (adjusted mean 3.43 days; 95% CI: 3.08, 3.81; P < .01). The proportion of patients discharged to a rehabilitation center, instead of home, was also significantly lower in the comparator device group (adjusted 4.4%; 95% CI: 1.8, 10.7 vs adjusted 11.4%; 95% CI: 6.0, 20.6; P < .05). There was no difference in surgical time between the 2 groups. None of the sensitivity analyses performed affected the original analysis outcome. CONCLUSION: This study shows a modest but significant reduction in length of stay and lower rate of discharge to a rehabilitation center in the comparator device group.

Burden of Clostridium difficile Infections in French Hospitals in 2014 From the National Health Insurance Perspective.

OBJECTIVE To describe the hospital stays of patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and to measure the hospitalization costs of CDI (as primary and secondary diagnoses) from the French national health insurance perspective DESIGN Burden of illness study SETTING All acute-care hospitals in France METHODS Data were extracted from the French national hospitalization database (PMSI) for patients covered by the national health insurance scheme in 2014. Hospitalizations were selected using the International Classification of Diseases, 10 th revision (ICD-10) code for CDI. Hospital stays with CDI as the primary diagnosis or the secondary diagnosis (comorbidity) were studied for the following parameters: patient sociodemographic characteristics, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and related costs. A retrospective case-control analysis was performed on stays with CDI as the secondary diagnosis to assess the impact of CDI on the LOS and costs. RESULTS Overall, 5,834 hospital stays with CDI as the primary diagnosis were included in this study. The total national insurance costs were €30.7 million (US $33,677,439), and the mean cost per hospital stay was €5,267±€3,645 (US $5,777±$3,998). In total, 10,265 stays were reported with CDI as the secondary diagnosis. The total national insurance additional costs attributable to CDI were estimated to be €85 million (US $93,243,725), and the mean additional cost attributable to CDI per hospital stay was €8,295±€17,163, median, €4,797 (US $9,099±$8,827; median, $5,262). CONCLUSION CDI has a high clinical and economic burden in the hospital, and it represents a major cost for national health insurance. When detected as a comorbidity, CDI was significantly associated with increased LOS and economic burden. Preventive approaches should be implemented to avoid CDIs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:906-911.