Rehospitalization, Treatment, and Resource Use After Inpatient Admission for Achalasia in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Readmission for achalasia treatment is associated with significant morbidity and cost. Factors predictive of readmission would be useful in identifying patients at risk. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Nationwide Readmission Database for the year 2016 and 2017. We collected data on hospital readmissions of 17,848 adults who were hospitalized for achalasia and discharged. The 30-day readmission rate as well as the primary cause, mortality rate, in-hospital adverse events, and total hospitalization charges were examined. A cox multivariate regression model was used to identify independent risk factors for 30-day readmission, including the surgical or endoscopic treatment used during the index admission. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2017, the 30-day readmission rate for index admission with achalasia was 15.2%. Of these 15.2%, 34% were readmitted with persistent symptoms of achalasia or treatment-related complications. Older age, higher comorbidity index, possessing private insurance, and those with either pneumatic balloon dilation or no endoscopic/surgical treatment showed higher odds of readmission on multivariate analysis. Those treated with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) showed lower odds of readmission. There was no difference in rates of readmission between those undergoing POEM or LHM, but mortality rate for readmission was significantly higher for the LHM group. The in-hospital mortality rate and length of stay were significantly higher for readmissions (p < 0.01) than the index admissions. CONCLUSION: Three in 20 patients admitted with achalasia are likely to be readmitted within 30 days of their initial hospitalization, a number which can be higher in untreated patients and in those with multiple comorbidities. Rehospitalizations bear a higher mortality rate than the initial admission and present a burden to the healthcare system.

Comparing cost and outcomes between peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic heller myotomy.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has previously been shown to be equally if not more expensive than laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). We compare perioperative outcomes and charges between POEM and LHM at a single institution. METHODS: Outcomes and charge data of 33 patients who underwent LHM and 126 patients who underwent POEM were analyzed. Patients who did not present electively were excluded. RESULTS: There were no demographic differences between groups. Patients who underwent POEM had a significantly shorter mean operative time and median length of stay (both p < 0.001). Patients who underwent POEM stopped narcotics earlier and had faster return to activities of daily living (both p < 0.05). When adjusted for inflation, POEM incurred less in hospital charges than LHM (35.5 ± 12.8 vs 30.7 ± 10.3 in thousands of US dollars, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent POEM compared to LHM had significantly better perioperative outcomes. Our results suggest POEM may be the more cost-effective option.

Comparison of costs and short-term clinical outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) has seen increasing application and comparisons to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). The aim of the present study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes, and costs between the two procedures at a single institution. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients documented in a prospective IRB approved database from January 2014 to December 2017 were included. Perioperative data, pre-operative and 3-month postoperative Eckardt Scores, and cost data were compared. RESULTS: Median hospital stay was comparable between POEM and LHM (1 day each). Complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo 1, 2) and rare in both groups. Median Eckardt scores improved significantly after POEM (5 to 0) and LHM (5 to 0). Normalized median costs were comparable: 14 201 USD (POEM) vs. 13 328 USD (LHM) p = 0.45. CONCLUSIONS: POEM demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes and costs to LHM. Long-term issues related to GERD require ongoing assessment in POEM patients. SUMMARY: In patients with achalasia, extended myotomy of the lower esophageal sphincter offers excellent palliation of symptoms. In the last decades, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the gold standard. Over the past decade, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has seen wide application in specialized centers worldwide. In our patient cohort, we demonstrate, that POEM can be introduced with similar outcomes and costs compared to LHM.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: per-oral endoscopic myotomy for the management of achalasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Unclear reimbursement for new and innovative endoscopic procedures can limit adoption in clinical practice despite effectiveness in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to determine maximum cost-effective reimbursement for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in treating achalasia. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model assessing POEM versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication (LHM) in managing achalasia from a payer perspective over a 1-year time horizon. Reimbursement data were derived from 2017 Medicare data. Responder rates were based on clinically meaningful improvement in validated Eckardt scores. Validated health utility values were assigned to terminal health states based on data previously derived with a standard gamble technique. Contemporary willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were used to estimate maximum reimbursement for POEM using threshold analysis. RESULTS: Effectiveness of POEM and LHM was similar at 1 year of follow-up (0.91 QALY). Maximum cost-effective reimbursement for POEM was $8033.37 to $8223.14, including all professional and facility fees. This compares favorably with contemporary total reimbursement of 10 to 15 total relative value units for advanced endoscopic procedures. Rates of postprocedural GERD did not affect the preference for POEM compared with LHM, assuming at least 10% cost savings with POEM compared with LHM in cost-minimization analysis, or at least 44% cost savings in cost-effectiveness analysis (WTP = $100,000/QALY). LHM was only preferred over POEM if both procedures were reimbursed similarly, and these findings were primarily driven by lower rates of postprocedural GERD. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy due to perforation or bleeding was infrequent in published clinical practice experience, thus did not significantly affect reimbursement. DISCUSSION: POEM is an example of an innovative and potentially disruptive endoscopic technique offering greater cost-effective value and similar outcomes to the established surgical standard at contemporary reimbursement levels.

Whose patient is it? The path to multidisciplinary management of achalasia.

In the past decade, the introduction of high-resolution manometry and the classification of achalasia into subtypes has made possible to accurately diagnose the disease and predict the response to treatment for its different subtypes. However, even to date, in an era of exponential medical progress and increased insight in disease mechanisms, treatment of patients with achalasia is still rather simplistic and mostly confined to mechanical disruption of the lower esophageal sphincter by different means. In addition, there is partial consensus on what is the best form of available treatments for patients with achalasia. Herein, we provide a comprehensive outlook to a general approach to the patient with suspected achalasia by: 1) defining the modern evaluation process; 2) describing the diagnostic value of high-resolution manometry and the Chicago Classification in predicting treatment outcomes and 3) discussing the available treatment options, considering the patient conditions, alternatives available to both the surgeon and the gastroenterologist, and the burden to the health care system. It is our hope that such discussion will contribute to value-based management of achalasia through promoting a leaner clinical flow of patients at all points of care.

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.

Economic evaluation of the randomized European Achalasia trial comparing pneumodilation with Laparoscopic Heller myotomy.

BACKGROUND: A recent multicenter randomized trial in achalasia patients has shown that pneumatic dilation resulted in equivalent relief of symptoms compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Additionally, the cost of each treatment should be also taken in consideration. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform an economic analysis of the European achalasia trial. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed achalasia were enrolled from to 2003 to 2008 in 14 centers in five European countries and were randomly assigned to either pneumatic dilation (PD) or laparoscopic Heller (LHM). The economic analysis was performed in the three centers in three different countries where most patients were enrolled (Amsterdam [NL], Leuven, [B] and Padova [I]) and then applied to all patients included in the study. The total raw costs of the two treatments per patient include the initial costs, the costs of complications, and the costs of retreatments. RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients, 107 (57 males and 50 females, mean age 46 CI: 43-49 years) were randomized to LHM and 94 (59 males and 34 females, mean age 46 CI 43-50 years) to PD. The total cost of PD per patient was quite comparable in the three different centers; €3397 in Padova, €3259 in Amsterdam and €3792 in Leuven. For LHM, the total costs per patient were highest in Amsterdam: €4488 in Padova, €6720 in Amsterdam, and €5856 in Leuven. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the strategy of treating achalasia starting with PD appears the most economic approach, independent of the health system.