Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Ann Surg ; 276(2): e93-e101, 2022 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33065642

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of restrictive strategy versus usual care in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A restrictive selection strategy for surgery in patients with gallstones reduces cholecystectomies, but the impact on overall costs and cost-effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: Data of a multicentre, randomized-controlled trial (SECURE-trial) were used. Adult patients with gallstones and abdominal pain were included. Restrictive strategy was economically evaluated against usual care from a societal perspective. Hospital-use of resources was gathered with case-report forms and out-of-hospital consultations, out-of-pocket expenses, and productivity loss were collected with questionnaires. National unit costing was applied. The primary outcome was the cost per pain-free patient after 12 months. RESULTS: All 1067 randomized patients (49.0 years, 73.7% females) were included. After 12 months, 56.2% of patients were pain-free in restrictive strategy versus 59.8% after usual care. The restrictive strategy significantly reduced the cholecystectomy rate with 7.7% and reduced surgical costs with €160 per patient, €162 was saved from a societal perspective. The cost-effectiveness plane showed that restrictive strategy was cost saving in 89.1%, but resulted in less pain-free patients in 88.5%. Overall, the restrictive strategy saved €4563 from a societal perspective per pain-free patient lost. CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive selection strategy for cholecystectomy saves €162 compared to usual care, but results in fewer pain-free patients. The incremental cost per pain-free patient are savings of €4563 per pain-free patient lost. The higher societal willingness to pay for 1 extra pain-free patient, the lower the probability that the restrictive strategy will be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR4022. Registered on 5 June 2013.


Assuntos
Dor Abdominal , Colecistectomia , Cálculos Biliares , Dor Abdominal/etiologia , Dor Abdominal/cirurgia , Adulto , Colecistectomia/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Cálculos Biliares/complicações , Cálculos Biliares/cirurgia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Inquéritos e Questionários
2.
J Surg Res ; 268: 59-70, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34284321

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness analysis of a multicenter randomized-controlled trial comparing restrictive strategy versus usual care in patients with gallstones showed that savings by restrictive strategy could not compensate for the lower proportion of pain-free patients. However, four subgroups based on combined stratification factors resulted in less cholecystectomies and more pain-free patients in restrictive strategy (female-low volume-BMI > 30, female-low volume-BMI25-30, female-high volume-BMI25-30, and male-low volume-BMI < 25). The aim of this study was to explore the budget impact from a hospital healthcare perspective of implementation of restrictive strategy in these subgroups. METHODS: Data of the SECURE-trial were used to calculate the hospital budget impact with a time horizon of four years. Based on a study into practice variation, about 19% of hospitals treat patients according restrictive strategy. This represents the proportion of patients treated according restrictive strategy at the start of budget period. Three subanalyses were performed: a scenario analysis in which 30% of patients fall under a restrictive strategy in clinical practice, a sensitivity analysis in which we calculated the budget impact with the low and high 95% confidence limits of the expected future number of patients, a subgroup analysis in which restrictive strategy was also implemented in two additional subgroups (male-high volume-BMI < 25 and female-high volume-BMI >30). RESULTS: Budget impact analysis showed savings of €6.7-€15.6 million (2.2%-5.6%) for the period 2021-2024/2025 by implementing the restrictive strategy in the four subgroups and provision of usual care in other patients. Sensitivity analysis with 30% of patients already in the restrictive strategy at the start of the budget period, resulted in savings between €5.4 million and €14.0 million (1.7%-5.0%). CONCLUSION: Performing a restrictive strategy for selection of cholecystectomy in subgroups of patients and provision of usual care in other patients will result in a lower overall hospital budget needed to treat patients with abdominal pain and gallstones. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR4022. Registered on June 5, 2013.


Assuntos
Colecistectomia , Cálculos Biliares , Dor Abdominal , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Cálculos Biliares/cirurgia , Humanos , Masculino , Países Baixos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA