Approach to asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia: watchful waiting or elective laparoscopic hernia repair?

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether asymptomatic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) should be operated. Some argue that surgery is necessary prophylaxis against potentially catastrophic consequences of acute complications in untreated PEH. Others reason that the acute complications are rare and emergent operations have relatively low mortality. In the laparoscopic era, elective operations have become safer and less morbid. However, recent studies report high incidence of recurrent hernia, some of which affect quality of life and require further interventions. In light of these new findings, we investigated whether asymptomatic PEH should receive elective laparoscopic hernia repair (ELHR) or watchful waiting (WW). METHODS: A Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation decision analysis model followed a hypothetical cohort of asymptomatic PEH patients who have predominantly female gender and normally distributed mean age of 62.5 years for the lifetime. Accrued health benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life months (QALM) were compared between two strategies: WW and ELHR. Two-dimensional simulations were performed to account for uncertainties in the model. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test key assumptions. RESULTS: After considering both individual- and parameter-level uncertainties in the two-dimensional simulations, WW was the superior strategy in 82% of the simulations, accumulating mean 5 QALM more than ELHR (168 vs. 163). Our model was robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses and was internally validated, which supported the validity of our results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asymptomatic PEH are more likely to achieve greater health outcomes if they undergo WW as initial treatment than ELHR.

Pasireotide for the Prevention of Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of perioperative administration of pasireotide for reduction of pancreatic fistula (PF). SUMMARY: PF is a major complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), associated with significant morbidity and healthcare-related costs. Pasireotide is a novel multireceptor ligand somatostatin analogue, which has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of PF following pancreas resection; however, the drug cost is significant. This study sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine administration of pasireotide to patients undergoing PD, compared with no intervention from the perspective of the hospital system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare costs for perioperative administration of pasireotide versus no pasireotide. The model was populated using an institutional database containing all PDs performed 2002 to 2012 at a single institution, including data regarding clinically significant PF (International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Grade B or C) and hospital-related inpatient costs for 90 days following PD, converted to 2014 $USD. Relative risk of PF associated with pasireotide was estimated from the published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the model. RESULTS: Mean institutional cost of index admissions was $67,417 and $31,950 for patients with and without PF, respectively. Pasireotide was the dominant strategy, associated with savings of $1685, and a mean reduction of 1.5 days length of stay. Univariate sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost-savings down to a PF rate of 5.6%, up to a relative risk of PF of 0.775, and up to a drug cost of $2817. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 79% of simulations were cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Pasireotide appears to be a cost-saving treatment following PD across a wide variation of clinical and cost scenarios.