A Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Study Evaluating Imaging Strategies for the Diagnostic Workup of Renal Colic in the Emergency Department.

Introduction Both non-contrast Computed Tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are used for the diagnosis of renal colic in the emergency department (ED). Although US reduces radiation exposure, its diagnostic accuracy is inferior to that of CT. In this context, data regarding the cost and organizational impact of these strategies represent essential elements in the choice of imaging; however, they remain poorly documented. Aim of the study The aim of this study was to compare the costs and effectiveness of diagnostic workup by US and CT for patients consulting with renal colic in the ED. Methods We conducted a monocentric real-life retrospective study of patients consulting for a renal colic in an ED between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2018. We estimated length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs at 60 days including ED, and initial and repeat admissions. Patients with initial US in the ED were compared to patients with initial CT using inverse probability weighting of the propensity score calculated from demographic variables, vital parameters, and clinical presentation. We calculated the incremental cost effectiveness ratio as the difference in costs by the difference in LOS. The variability of the results was assessed using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results In this study, of the 273 patients included, 67 were patients assessed with US and 206 with CT. The average costs were €1159 (SD 1987) and €956 (SD 1462) for US and CT, respectively, and the ED LOS was 8.9 [CI 95% 8.1; 9.4] and 8.7 [CI 95% 7.9; 9.9] hours for US and CT, respectively. CT was associated with a decreased LOS by 0.139 [CI 95% -1.1; 1.5] hours and was cost-saving, with a €199 [CI 95% -745; 285] reduction per patient. Conclusion When imaging is required in the ED for suspected renal colic as recommended, there is real-life evidence that CT is a cost-effective strategy compared to US, reducing costs and LOS in the ED.

Imaging strategies used in emergency departments for the diagnostic workup of COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) were on the front line for the diagnostic workup of patients with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave. Chest imaging was the key to rapidly identifying COVID-19 before administering RT-PCR, which was time-consuming. The objective of our study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of triage strategies in ED during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in five EDs in France, involving 3712 consecutive patients consulting with COVID-like symptoms between 9 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, to assess the cost effectiveness of imaging strategies (chest radiography, chest computed tomography (CT) scan in the presence of respiratory symptoms, systematic ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT, and no systematic imaging) on ED length of stay (LOS) in the ED and on hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in LOS. RESULTS: Compared with chest radiography, workup with systematic ULD chest CT was the more cost-effective strategy (average LOS of 6.89 hours; average cost of €3646), allowing for an almost 4-hour decrease in LOS in the ED at a cost increase of €98 per patient. Chest radiography (extendedly dominated) and RT-PCR with no systematic imaging were the least effective strategies, with an average LOS of 10.8 hours. The strategy of chest CT in the presence of respiratory symptoms was more effective than the systematic ULD chest CT strategy, with the former providing a gain of 37 minutes at an extra cost of €718. DISCUSSION: Systematic ULD chest CT for patients with COVID-like symptoms in the ED is a cost-effective strategy and should be considered to improve the management of patients in the ED during the pandemic, given the need to triage patients.

MRI dedicated to the emergency department for diplopia or dizziness: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of diagnostic workup without and with MRI dedicated to the ED. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational uncontrolled before-after study in one ED of a university hospital in France from July 1, 2018, and January 3, 2020. We included all consecutive patients presenting with dizziness or diplopia. The main outcomes were the clinical decision time of ED physicians and the total costs for each strategy. Outcomes were compared using propensity score with inverse probability weighting in the 2 arms and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Among the 199 patients during the "before" period (average age: 60.4 years ± 17.6): 112 men (57%), and 181 during the "after" period (average age, 54.8 years ± 18.5): 107 men (59%), the average costs were €2701 (95% CI 1918; 3704) and €2389 (95% CI: €1627; 3280) per patient, respectively. The average time to clinical decision was 9.8 h (95% CI: 8.9 10.7) in the group "before" and 7.7 h (95% CI: 7.1; 8.4) in the group "after" (ICER: €151 saved for a reduction of 1 h in clinical decision time). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 71% chance that the MRI dedicated to ED was dominant (less costly and more effective). CONCLUSION: Easy access to MRI in the ED for posterior circulation stroke-like symptoms must be considered a relevant approach to help physicians for an appropriate and rapid diagnostic with reduction of costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03660852 KEY POINTS: • A dedicated MRI in the ED for diplopia or dizziness may be considered an efficient strategy improving diagnostic performance, reducing physicians' decision time, and decreasing hospital costs. • This strategy supports clinical decision-making with early treatment and management of patients with posterior circulation-like symptoms in the ED. • There is 71% chance that the MRI dedicated to ED was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared with a strategy without dedicated MRI.