A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in emergency care settings.

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound (US) in emergency departments (ED) has become widespread. This includes both traditional US scans performed by radiology departments as well as point-of-care US (POCUS) performed by bedside clinicians. There has been significant interest in better understanding the appropriate use of imaging and where opportunities to enhance cost-effectiveness may exist. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify published evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of US in the ED and to grade the quality of that evidence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were: (1) economic evaluations, (2) studied the clinical use of ultrasound, and (3) took place in an emergency care setting. Included studies were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. RESULTS: We identified 631 potentially relevant articles. Of these, 35 studies met all inclusion criteria and were eligible for data abstraction. In general, studies were supportive of the use of US. In particular, 11 studies formed a strong consensus that US enhanced cost-effectiveness in the investigation of pediatric appendicitis and 6 studies supported enhancements in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Across the studies, weaknesses in methodology and reporting were common, such as lack of sensitivity analyses and inconsistent reporting of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The body of existing evidence, though limited, generally demonstrates that the inclusion of US in emergency care settings allows for more cost-effective care. The most definitive evidence for improvements in cost-effectiveness surround the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis, followed by the evaluation of abdominal trauma. POCUS outside of trauma has had mixed results.

Long-term health-related burden of adult congenital heart diseases in Hong Kong.

Aims: This study aimed to examine the long-term clinical and economic burden of adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) in Hong Kong. Methods: It retrospectively analyzed 336 consecutive ACHD patients who attended the Adult Congenital Heart Clinic between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. Direct medical costs and clinical outcomes over the 5 years were calculated and documented. The economic evaluation was from the hospital's perspective. Results: The median age of ACHD patients was 47 (31-62) years old, with female predominance (61.5%). Ventricular and atrial septal defects accounted for 70% and severe ACHD for 10% of the study cohort. The prevalence of arrhythmia and heart failure increased with the complexity of CHD. The total mean annual cost for managing each ACHD patient was USD 2,913. The annual cost of management of simple ACHD was USD 2,638 vs complex ACHD (USD 6,425) (p = 0.013). Conclusions: This study demonstrated severe ACHD patients accounted for higher cardiovascular morbidities in arrhythmias and heart failure with a higher cost of management.

Timing of Antiviral Therapy in Candidates for Liver Transplant for Hepatitis C and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatitis C virus infection is the most common underlying reason for hepatocellular carcinoma and indication for liver transplant. The increased availability of non-interferon-based therapy has expanded the number of treatment-eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a decision analysis model to compare 2 strategies of treating hepatitis C virus. Included patients were followed for 1 year after liver transplant. The probabilities and costs were obtained from a literature review, an expert panel, and our institution's experience. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all variables. RESULTS: Our model demonstrated that it would be less costly to treat patients after liver transplant than to treat patients while they wait for transplant. When we compared baseline values, the cost difference between the 2 strategies was $25,011 per patient and $41,535 per sustained viral response. Overall survival was 60.1% for both strategies. Our model was robust across most of the variables tested in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that there is no substantial pharmacoeconomic or survival advantage of treating hepatitis C virus in patients with compensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplant versus after transplant.