Real-world economic and clinical outcomes associated with current hemostatic matrix use in spinal surgery.

Aim: Bleeding during spine surgery is controlled using topical hemostatic agents. Studies have reported outcomes between Surgiflo® and Floseal, the most widely used flowable hemostatic matrices, but have not included the latest Surgiflo formulation which is more adherent to the bleeding surface than prior formulations. Materials & methods: A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database to compare economic and clinical outcomes of adults undergoing inpatient spinal surgery between 2013 and 2018 receiving current Surgiflo or Floseal. Results: This retrospective study included 28,910 patients in each group and found comparable outcomes for bleeding events, overall transfusion rate, inpatient mortality and readmissions between Surgiflo and Floseal. Surgiflo was associated with $430 (USD) lower hospitalization costs, shorter length of stay and shorter operating room time than Floseal.

Topical hemostatic agents such as Surgiflo^® and Floseal are used during invasive surgery to manage bleeding. We compared outcomes of spine surgeries that used either of two most frequently used topical hemostatic agents, Surgiflo or Floseal. This is the largest retrospective study presenting economic and clinical outcomes of patients receiving Surgiflo versus Floseal during spine surgery using the latest product formulations. The study suggests that clinical outcomes are comparable between Surgiflo and Floseal groups and that Surgiflo is associated with lower hospitalization costs, slightly shorter hospital stay and shorter operating room time among patients undergoing spine surgery.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Surgiflo® vs Floseal in Cardiovascular Surgeries in the US.

Background: Topical hemostatic agents are an option for controlling bleeding during cardiovascular surgery. Previous studies comparing topical hemostatic agents in cardiovascular surgery predate the 2012 reformulation of Surgiflo®, which had been re-engineered to increase paste viscosity and thus be more adherent to the bleeding surface. Objective: To compare clinical and economic outcomes in patients receiving the current formulation of Surgiflo vs Floseal during cardiovascular surgeries. Methodology: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database. Eligible patients had an inpatient cardiovascular surgery between 1/1/2013 and 6/1/2018, were ≥18 years old and received the current formulation of Surgiflo or Floseal during surgery. Propensity score matching was performed, with exact matching on the surgery year and surgery type (aortic, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve, or other). Descriptive analysis and generalized estimating equations models compared outcomes between the Surgiflo and Floseal groups. Results: The matched sample included 5768 patients in each group (mean age: 66.5 years; 66.3% male). In the matched sample, rates of any documented bleeding event were similar in Surgiflo and Floseal groups (6.9% vs 7.2%; P = 0.576). Differences in transfusion rates between patients receiving Surgiflo vs Floseal varied by operational definition and timing of measurement but did not differ by >2 percentage points. Compared to Floseal, patients who received Surgiflo experienced longer surgery duration (306.0 vs 299.4 minutes), lower hospitalization cost ($44,146 vs $46,812), and lower odds of readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days post-discharge (all P < 0.05). Inpatient mortality and LOS were comparable between Surgiflo and Floseal (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: In this large study of real-world clinical and economic outcomes after cardiovascular surgery involving the current formulation of Surgiflo vs Floseal, Surgiflo was associated with mostly similar clinical outcomes as compared with Floseal. Differences in selected economic/resource use outcomes were also observed, for which root-cause analysis in future research would be informative.

Prevalence, clinical and economic burden of mucormycosis-related hospitalizations in the United States: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Mucormycosis is a rare but devastating fungal infection primarily affecting immunocompromised patients such as those with hematological malignancy, bone marrow and solid organ transplantation, and patients with diabetes, and, even more rarely, immunocompetent patients. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and burden, both clinical and economic, of mucormycosis among hospitalized patients in the U.S. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using the Premier PerspectiveTM Comparative Database, with more than 560 participating hospitals covering 104 million patients (January 2005-June 2014). All hospitalizations in the database were evaluated for the presence of mucormycosis using either an ICD-9 code of 117.7 or a positive laboratory result for Mucorales. Hospitalizations were further required to have prescriptions of amphotericin B or posaconazole to be considered as mucormycosis-related hospitalizations. The prevalence of mucormycosis-related hospitalizations among all hospital discharges was estimated. Mortality rate at discharge, length of hospital stay, and readmission rates at 1 and 3 months were evaluated among mucormycosis-related hospitalizations. Cost per hospital stay and average per diem cost (inflated to 2014 USD) were reported. RESULTS: The prevalence of mucormycosis-related hospitalizations was estimated as 0.12 per 10,000 discharges during January 2005-June 2014. It increased to 0.16 per 10,000 discharges if the definition of mucormycosis was relaxed to not require the use of amphotericin B or posaconazole. The median length of stay was 17 days, with 23% dead at discharge; readmission rates were high, with 30 and 37% of patients readmitted within one and three months of discharge, respectively. The average cost per hospital stay was $112,419, and the average per diem cost was $4,096. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides a recent estimate of the prevalence and burden of mucormycosis among hospitalized patients. The high clinical and economic burden associated with mucormycosis highlights the importance of establishing active surveillance and optimizing prophylactic and active treatment in susceptible patients.

The direct and indirect costs of uterine fibroid tumors: a systematic review of the literature between 2000 and 2013.

This systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the direct and indirect costs per patient that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors in international studies. A search with predefined search terms was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that were published from January 2000 to November 2013. The review included primary studies that were in English and that reported either direct costs (drug costs, procedure costs, and medical service costs) or indirect costs (such as productivity loss) among patients with uterine fibroid tumors. A total of 26 studies that were identified and included in the data extraction included 19 studies in the United States, 2 studies in the Netherlands, 1 study each in Germany, China, Italy, and Canada, and 1 study reported data that were collected from 3 countries: Germany, France, and England. The studies differed substantially in perspectives that were adopted for analysis, research designs, data elements that were collected, setting, populations, and outcome measurements. Among 3 studies that reported total direct costs during the year after uterine fibroid tumor diagnosis, 2 studies reported an average of $9473 and $9319 per patient, respectively; 2 studies reported the excess costs over controls to be $6076 and $5427, respectively. The indirect costs per patient ranged from $2399-15,549, and the excess indirect cost per patient over control groups ranged from $323-4824 in the year after the diagnosis. The total costs, sum of direct and indirect costs, ranged from $11,717-25,023 per patient per year, after diagnosis or surgery among patients with uterine fibroid tumors. Compared with control subjects, the additional annual cost ranged from $2200-15,952 per patient. The results of this systematic literature review highlight the substantial direct and indirect costs that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors to health care payers and society. The large number and the variety of studies identified also emphasize the growing awareness of the significant economic impact of uterine fibroid tumors. Current gaps that were identified through this review warrant further investigation to elucidate fully the economic burden of uterine fibroid tumors, including, but not limited to, burden from the patient's perspective and the entirety of indirect costs.