Cost-Effectiveness of Extended Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery from a Canadian Health Care System Perspective.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence to support extended thromboprophylaxis after colorectal surgery to minimize the incidence of postdischarge venous thromboembolic events. However, the absolute number of events is small, and extended thromboprophylaxis requires significant resources from the health care system. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing colorectal surgery for malignancy or IBD. DESIGN: An individualized patient microsimulation model (1,000,000 patients; 1-month cycle length) comparing extended thromboprophylaxis (28-day course of enoxaparin) to standard management (inpatient administration only) after colorectal surgery was constructed. SETTINGS: The sources for this study were The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Participant User File and literature searches. OUTCOMES: Costs (Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years, and venous thromboembolism-related deaths prevented over a 1-year time horizon starting with hospital discharge were determined. The results were stratified by malignancy or IBD. RESULTS: In patients with malignancy, extended prophylaxis was associated with higher costs (+113$; 95% CI, 102-123), but increased quality-adjusted life-years (+0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2473$/quality-adjusted life-year. For IBD, extended prophylaxis also had higher costs (+116$; 95% CI, 109-123), more quality-adjusted life-years (+0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2475$/quality-adjusted life-year. Extended prophylaxis prevented 16 (95% CI, 4-27) venous thromboembolism-related deaths per 100,000 patients and 22 (95% CI, 6-38) for malignancy and IBD. There was a 99.7% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000$/quality-adjusted life-year. To account for statistical uncertainty around variables, sensitivity analysis was performed and found that extended prophylaxis is associated with lower overall costs when the incidence of postdischarge venous thromboembolic events reaches 1.8%. LIMITATIONS: Significant differences in health care systems may affect the generalizability of our results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rarity of venous thromboembolic events, extended thromboprophylaxis is a cost-effective strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A976. COSTO-EFECTIVIDAD DE LA TROMBOPROFILAXIS EXTENDIDA EN PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL DESDE UNA PERSPECTIVA DEL SISTEMA DE SALUD CANADIENSE:: Cada vez hay más pruebas que apoyen la tromboprofilaxis extendida después de la cirugía colorrectal para minimizar la incidencia de eventos tromboembólicos venosos después del alta hospitalaria. Sin embargo, el número absoluto de eventos es pequeño y la tromboprofilaxis extendida requiere recursos significativos del sistema médico.Determinar la rentabilidad (relación costo-efectividad) de la tromboprofilaxis extendida en pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal por neoplasia maligna o enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.Un modelo de microsimulación de paciente individualizado (1,000,000 de pacientes; ciclo de 1 mes) que compara la tromboprofilaxis extendida (curso de enoxaparina de 28 días) con el tratamiento estándar (solo para pacientes hospitalizados) después de la cirugía colorrectal.Archivo de usuario participante del Proyecto de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Nacional de Cirujanos Americanos (ACS-NSQIP) y búsquedas bibliográficas.Costos (en dólares Canadienses), años de vida ajustados por la calidad y muertes relacionadas con el tromboembolismo venoso prevenidas en un horizonte temporal de 1 año a partir del alta hospitalaria. Los resultados fueron estratificados por malignidad o enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.En pacientes con neoplasias malignas, la profilaxis extendida se asoció con costos más altos (+113 $; IC del 95%, 102-123), pero con un aumento de la calidad de vida ajustada por años de vida (+0.05; IC del 95%, 0.04-0.06), lo que resultó en un incremento de relación costo-efectividad de 2473 $/año de vida ajustado por calidad. Para la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, la profilaxis extendida también tuvo costos más altos (+116 $; 95% IC, 109-123), más años de vida ajustados por calidad (+0.05; 95% IC, 0.04-0.06) y una relación costo-efectividad incremental de 2475 $/año de vida ajustado por calidad. La profilaxis prolongada evitó 16 (95% IC, 4-27) muertes relacionadas con tromboembolismo venoso por cada 100,000 pacientes y 22 (95% IC, 6-38) por malignidad y enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, respectivamente. Hubo un 99.7% de probabilidad de costo-efectividad en un límite de disposición a pagar de 50,000 $/año de vida ajustado por calidad. Para tener en cuenta la incertidumbre estadística en torno a los variables, se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad y se encontró que la profilaxis extendida se asocia con menores costos generales cuando la incidencia de eventos tromboembólicos venosos después del alta hospitalaria alcanza 1.8%.Las diferencias significativas en los sistemas de salud pueden afectar la generalización de nuestros resultados.A pesar de la escasez de eventos tromboembólicos venosos, la tromboprofilaxis extendida es una estrategia rentable. Vea el video del resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A976.

Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery Versus Conventional Perioperative Management for Colorectal Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) versus conventional care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: ERPs for colorectal surgery are clinically effective, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: A multi-institutional prospective cohort cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at 2 university-affiliated institutions from October 2012 to October 2013 were enrolled. One center used an ERP, whereas the other did not. Postoperative outcomes were recorded up to 60 days. Total costs were reported in 2013 Canadian dollars. Effectiveness was measured using the SF-6D, a health utility measure validated for postoperative recovery. Uncertainty was expressed using bootstrapped estimates (10,000 repetitions). RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were included (conventional care: n = 95; ERP: n = 95). There were no differences in patient characteristics except for a higher proportion of laparoscopy in the ERP group. Mean length of stay was shorter in the ERP group (6.5 vs 9.8 days; P = 0.017), but there were no differences in complications or readmissions. Patients in the ERP group returned to work quicker and had less caregiver burden. There was no difference in quality of life between the 2 groups. The cost of the ERP program was $153 per patient. Overall societal costs were lower in the ERP group (mean difference = -2985; 95% confidence interval, -5753 to -373). The ERP had a greater than 99% probability of cost-effectiveness. The results were insensitive to a range of assumptions and subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery is cost-effective compared with conventional perioperative management for elective colorectal resection.

Valuing postoperative recovery: validation of the SF-6D health-state utility.

BACKGROUND: Many surgical innovations are costly but may result in faster patient recovery. Economic analyses of these innovations require utility measures that reflect the construct of "postoperative recovery." We investigated the validity of Short Form 6D (SF-6D) utility value as a measure of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection completed the Short Form 36 and the 6-min walk test at baseline (before surgery) and at 4 and 8 wk postoperatively. SF-6D utilities were derived from the Short Form 36. Longitudinal validity (responsiveness) was assessed using standardized response means (SRM). Construct validity was assessed by comparing the difference in mean SF-6D between patients with and without complications (discriminant) and by correlating the SF-6D with other measures of recovery (convergent). RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were included (58% male; mean age 63.0 (SD 14.2) y, 81% malignancy, and 54% laparoscopic). SF-6D values dropped significantly from baseline to 4 wk after surgery (SRM -0.54, P < 0.001) and returned to baseline by 8 wk (SRM -0.12, P = 0.111). At 4 wk after surgery, the SF-6D was lower in patients with complications than in those without (mean difference -0.047, 95% CI -0.088, -0.006). At all time points, the SF-6D correlated significantly with the physical and mental component scales of the SF-36 (Pearson r 0.67-0.80, all P < 0.001) and the 6-min walk test (r 0.21-0.29, all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SF-6D is a valid measure of postoperative recovery following elective colorectal resection and may be used to measure quality-adjusted life years for cost-effectiveness analyses of surgical technologies and interventions hypothesized to impact recovery.