Is preparation of a sterile operative field before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy necessary? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the non-sterile nature of the alimentary tract, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) procedures are often performed after creating a sterile surgical field to reduce infection risk. Our group has previously demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) following PEG performed with or without sterile operative fields. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of working with or without sterile operative fields during PEG. METHODS: A decision tree model of PEG with and without sterile operative fields was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these two methods. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a ceiling willingness to pay threshold assumed of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs were from the perspective of the healthcare system with a time horizon for the model of 90 days. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all model parameters. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, sterile operative field PEG was cost-effective resulting in 0.2225 QALYs at an expected cost of $2,099. PEG procedures without a sterile operative field yielded less QALYs (0.2224) at a higher cost ($2,199) and were dominated. These procedures became cost-effective when the expected cost was < $1618 (e.g., $140 less than sterile operative field PEG) or when the SSI rate was < 1.6% (e.g., 0.2% higher than sterile operative field PEG) while holding all other variables constant. CONCLUSION: PEG procedures performed without a sterile operative field can be cost-effective compared to procedures performed with a sterile operative field if the rates of SSI remain similar. Cost savings from foregoing a sterile operative field appear to be offset if the SSI rate increases > 0.2% above that of sterile operative field PEG procedures.

Inpatient Choledocholithiasis Management: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Management Algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis is commonly encountered. It is frequently managed with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (either preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative relative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective method to manage inpatient choledocholithiasis. METHODS: A decision tree model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a ceiling willingness to pay threshold assumed of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Model parameters were determined through review of published literature and institutional data. Costs were from the perspective of the healthcare system with a time horizon of 1 year. Sensitivity analyses were performed on model parameters. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was cost-effective, resulting in 0.9909 quality-adjusted life years at an expected cost of $18,357. Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography yielded more quality-adjusted life years (0.9912) at a higher cost ($19,717) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,789,025, exceeding the willingness to pay threshold. Both preoperative and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies were eliminated for being both more costly and less effective. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective if the probability of successful biliary clearance was above 0.79, holding all other variables constant. If its base cost remained below $18,400 and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography base cost rose above $18,200, then laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is the most cost-effective method to manage choledocholithiasis. Efforts to ensure availability of local expertise and resources for this procedure are warranted.

Incisional Hernia in the United States: Trends in Hospital Encounters and Corresponding Healthcare Charges.

Incisional hernia (IH) is a challenging, potentially morbid condition. This study evaluates recent trends in hospital encounters associated with IH care in the United States. Using Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases from 2007 to 2011, annual estimates of IH-related hospital discharges, charges, and serious adverse events were identified. Significance in observed trends was tested using regression modeling. From 2007 to 2011, there were 583,054 hospital discharges associated with a diagnosis of IH. 81.1 per cent had a concurrent procedure for IH repair. The average discharge included a female patient (63.2%), 59.8 years of age, with either Medicare (45.3%) or Private insurance (38.3%) as the anticipated primary payer. Comparing 2007 to 2011, significant increases in IH discharges (12%; 2007 = 109,702 vs 2011 = 123,034, P = 0.009) and IH repairs (10%; 2007 = 90,588 vs 2011 = 99,622, P < 0.001) were observed. This was accompanied by a 37 per cent increase in hospital charges (2007 = $44,587 vs 2011 = $60,968, P < 0.001), resulting in a total healthcare bill of $7.3 billion in 2011. Significant trends toward greater patient age (2007 = 59.7 years vs 2011 = 60.2 years, P < 0.001), higher comorbidity index (2007 = 3.0 vs 2011 = 3.5, P < 0.001), and increased frequency of serious adverse events (2007 = 13.5% vs 2011 = 17.7%, P < 0.001) were noted. Further work is needed to identify interventions to mitigate the risk of IH development.

Cost-effectiveness of per oral endoscopic myotomy relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently emerged as a viable option relative to the classic approach of laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of esophageal achalasia. In this cost-utility analysis of POEM and LHM, we hypothesized that POEM would be cost-effective relative to LHM. METHODS: A stochastic cost-utility analysis of treatment for achalasia was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of POEM relative to LHM. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective and obtained from our institution's cost-accounting database. The measure of effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which were estimated from direct elicitation of utility using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping the sample and computing the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: Patients treated within an 11-year period (2004-2016) were recruited for participation (20 POEM, 21 LHM). During the index admission, the mean costs for POEM ($8630 ± $2653) and the mean costs for LHM ($7604 ± $2091) were not significantly different (P = 0.179). Additionally, mean QALYs for POEM (0.413 ± 0.248) were higher than that associated with LHM (0.357 ± 0.338), but this difference was also not statistically significant (P = 0.55). The ICER suggested that it would cost an additional $18,536 for each QALY gained using POEM. There was substantial uncertainty in the ICER; there was a 48.25% probability that POEM was cost-effective at the mean ICER. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, there was a 68.31% probability that POEM was cost-effective relative to LHM. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of achalasia, POEM appears to be cost-effective relative to LHM depending on one's willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY.

Changing attitudes and improving skills: demonstrating the value of the SAGES flexible endoscopy course for fellows.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the SAGES flexible endoscopy course in improving fellows' attitudes, confidence, and skills related to implementing endoscopy in practice. METHODS: Fellows participated in a 2-day course consisting of case presentations, expert panels, and hands-on laboratory training. Before and after the course, fellows completed a questionnaire assessing demographics, experiences in residency, practice plans, plans to implement flexible endoscopy in practice, and level of confidence performing 15 endoscopic procedures. Half of the fellows were randomly assigned to complete pre- and post-skills testing using a previously validated endoscopic targeting model. RESULTS: Fifty-four fellows (90 %; age 33.5 ± 2.8; 58 % male) completed the pre- and post-questionnaire. All MIS fellowship types were represented. Almost half (48 %) reported none or very little flexible endoscopy in their current fellowship. The average prior case volume among those completing an ACGME-approved residency (42/54) was 76 upper and 75 lower endoscopies with one-third reporting no experience in therapeutic EGD (33 %) or polypectomy (31 %). Intentions to implement flexible endoscopy in practice significantly improved after the course overall (3.72 ± .85-3.92 ± .69, p < 0.05; 1 = never; 5 = very frequently). Prior to the course, 39 % of fellows reported plans to use endoscopy in practice "occasionally" or "rarely." After, this decreased to 28 with 72 % planning to implement "frequently" or "very frequently." Mean levels of confidence performing all 15 endoscopic tasks improved significantly after the course. Skills performance for the 27 fellows improved significantly as well; participants decreased their time to perform the targeting task by 40 % (222.3 ± 119.8-133.0 ± 70.1 s; p < 0.001) and decreased errors by 49 % (2.9 ± 1.7-1.5 ± 1.5; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the SAGES flexible endoscopy course increases fellow confidence to implement endoscopic techniques, expands the ways in which they plan to include endoscopy in practice, and enhances their endoscopic skills.