Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: A Markov Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether prostatic artery embolization (PAE) can be considered a long-term cost-effective treatment option in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: The in-hospital costs of PAE and TURP in the United States were obtained from a recent cost analysis. Clinical outcomes including nature and rate of adverse events for TURP and PAE along with rates of retreatment because of complications or clinical failure were obtained from peer-reviewed literature. A decision tree-based Markov model was created, analyzing long-term cost-effectiveness for TURP and PAE from a US health care sector perspective. Cost-effectiveness over a time frame of 5 years was estimated while assuming a willingness to pay of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: PAE resulted in overall cost of $6,464.92 and an expected outcome of 4.566 QALYs. In comparison, TURP cost $9,221.09 and resulted in expected outcome of 4.577 QALYs per treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TURP was $247,732.65 per QALY. On the basis of the willingness-to-pay threshold, PAE is cost effective compared with TURP. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our model, PAE in comparison with TURP can be regarded as a cost-effective treatment option for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms within the US health care system.

Inpatient Cost Assessment of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the USA from 2001 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of portal hypertension, a paucity of nationwide data exists on predictors of the economic impact related to TIPS. AIMS: Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2001 to 2012, we aimed to evaluate factors contributing to hospital cost of patients admitted to US hospitals for TIPS. METHODS: Using the NIS, we identified a discharge-weighted national estimate of 61,004 TIPS procedures from 2001 to 2012. Through independent sample analysis, we determined profile factors related to increases in hospital costs. RESULTS: Of all TIPS cases, the mean charge adjusted for inflation to the year 2012 is $125,044 ± $160,115. The mean hospital cost adjusted for inflation is $44,901 ± $54,565. Comparing pre- and post-2005, mean charges and cost have increased considerably ($98,154 vs. $142,652, p < 0.001 and $41,656 vs. $46,453, p < 0.001, respectively). Patients transferred from a different hospital, weekend admissions, Asian/Pacific Islander patients, and hospitals in the Northeastern and Western region had higher cost. Number of diagnoses and number of procedures show positive correlations with hospital cost, with number of procedures exhibiting stronger relationships (Pearson 0.613). Comorbidity measures with highest increases in cost were pulmonary circulation disorders ($32,157 increase, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The cost of the TIPS procedure is gradually rising for hospitals. Alongside recent healthcare reform through the Affordable Care Act, measures to reduce the economic burden of TIPS are of increasing importance. Data from this study are intended to aid physicians and hospitals in identifying improvements that could reduce hospital costs.