In-hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared with transurethral resection of the prostate: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a post hoc analysis of in-hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two-sided t-tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t-test). RESULTS: The mean total costs per patient (±sd) were higher for TURP, at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE, at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE, with a mean difference of €1627 (P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE. CONCLUSIONS: Since in-hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient's clinical condition and expectations - rather than finances - should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP.

[Prospective evaluation of the direct costs of prostate enucleation by the HoLEP® laser during the learning curve period]. / Évaluation prospective des coûts directs de l'énucléation prostatique par le laser HoLEP® pendant la courbe d'apprentissage.

OBJECTIVE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has been shown to be effective in treating large prostates compared to prostate transurethral resection (TURP). There are no published data evaluating specifically the impact of the learning curve on the direct costs of HoLEP. The objective of this study was to evaluate the direct costs generated by the use of HoLEP laser during the learning curve period. METHOD: The costs of all medical devices (DM) and drugs used, pre- and post-operative parameters during surgery have been prospectively collected between March and October 2016. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 70.8 years and a mean prostate volume of 68.6 cm3. The mean cost of anesthesia was 39.0 € and that of drugs and DM used for surgery was 257.95 € but could reach 470.76 € in case of conversion to bipolar resection. The mean duration of enucleation and morcellation was 150minutes with a mean weight of enucleated specimens of 40.4g. The total mean duration of patient care was 197minutes at an estimated hourly cost of € 636. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, this study makes it possible to analyze the direct costs of the management of benign prostatic hypertrophy using HoLEP, an innovative surgical technique, and to specify that these costs are more related to bipolar conversion and voluminous adenomas especially during the learning curve. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

The Continuing Story of the Cost-Effectiveness of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate versus Transuretheral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, a UK assessment of technologies for benign prostatic obstruction concluded negatively about photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance caused several UK institutions to abandon PVP. OBJECTIVE: To reassess the costs and effects of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the basis of most recent data. METHODS: The same model was used as in 2008. Transition probabilities were estimated using a Bayesian approach updating the 2008 estimates with data from two meta-analyses and data from GOLIATH, the latest and largest trial comparing PVP with TURP. Utility estimates were from the 2008 assessment, and estimates of resource utilization and costs were updated. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained, and costs are in UK pounds. The balance between costs and effects was addressed by multivariate sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: If the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence analysis would have updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with figures from its own meta-analysis, it would have estimated the change in quality-adjusted life-years at -0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.05 to 0.01) instead of at -0.11 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.01) as in the 2008 analysis. The GOLIATH estimate of -0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) strengthens the conclusion of near equivalence. Estimates of additional costs vary from £491 (£21-£1286) in 2008 to £111 (-£315 to £595) for 2010 and to £109 (-£204 to £504) for GOLIATH. PVP becomes cost saving if more than 32% can be carried out as a day case in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates that PVP can be a cost-effective alternative for TURP in a potentially broad group of patients.