Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure-defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube-was measured. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1-3.8], p 0.028). CONCLUSION: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.

The Effects of Pre-Operative Enteral Nutrition from Nasal Feeding Tubes on Gastric Outlet Obstruction.

We examined gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) patients who received two weeks of strengthening pre-operative enteral nutrition therapy (pre-EN) through a nasal-jejenal feeding tube placed under a gastroscope to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefit of pre-EN compared to parenteral nutrition (PN). In this study, 68 patients confirmed to have GOO with upper-gastrointestinal contrast and who accepted the operation were randomized into an EN group and a PN group. The differences in nutritional status, immune function, post-operative complications, weight of patients, first bowel sound and first flatus time, pull tube time, length of hospital stay (LOH), and cost of hospitalization between pre-operation and post-operation were all recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using the chi square test and t-test; statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. The success rate of the placement was 91.18% (three out of 31 cases). After pre-EN, the levels of weight, albumin (ALB), prealbumin (PA), and transferrin (TNF) in the EN group were significantly increased by pre-operation day compared to admission day, but were not significantly increased in the PN group; the weights in the EN group were significantly increased compared to the PN group by pre-operation day and day of discharge; total protein (TP), ALB, PA, and TNF of the EN group were significantly increased compared to the PN group on pre-operation and post-operative days one and three. The levels of CD3+, CD4+/CD8+, IgA, and IgM in the EN group were higher than those of the PN group at pre-operation and post-operation; the EN group had a significantly lower incidence of poor wound healing, peritoneal cavity infection, pneumonia, and a shorter first bowel sound time, first flatus time, and post-operation hospital stay than the PN group. Pre-EN through a nasal-jejunum feeding tube and placed under a gastroscope in GOO patients was safe, feasible, and beneficial to the nutrition status, immune function, and gastrointestinal function, and sped up recovery, while not increasing the cost of hospitalization.

Stenting versus gastrojejunostomy for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: comparison of clinical outcomes and costs.

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic stenting is increasingly performed, surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ) is still considered the gold standard for relief of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs between patients undergoing GJ or stenting for management of malignant GOO. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare (MedPAR) database was conducted to identify all inpatient hospitalizations for GJ or endoscopic stenting for malignant GOO during 2007-2008. The main outcome measure evaluated using the MedPAR database was a comparison of the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and costs associated with both techniques. As MedPAR is a claims database that does not provide outcomes at patient level, a single-institution retrospective study was conducted to compare the rates of technical and treatment success, post-procedure LOS, and delayed complications per patient between the two techniques. RESULTS: The MedPAR claims data evaluated 425 stenting and 339 GJ hospitalizations. Compared with GJ, median LOS (8 vs. 16 days; p < 0.0001) and median cost (US $15,366 vs. US $27,391; p < 0.0001) per claim were both significantly lower for stenting. Stenting was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (89 % vs. 11 %; p < 0.0001), teaching versus non-teaching hospitals (59 % vs. 41 %, p = 0.0005), and academic institutions (56 % vs. 44 %; p = 0.0157). The institutional patient data analysis included 29 patients who underwent stenting and 75 who underwent surgical GJ. While both modalities were technically successful and relieved gastric outlet obstruction in all cases, compared with surgical GJ, the median post-procedure LOS was significantly lower for enteral stenting (1.5 vs. 10.7 days, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in rates of delayed complications between stenting and surgical GJ (13.8 % vs. 6.7 %; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: While the technical and clinical outcomes of surgical GJ and endoscopic stenting appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and is associated with shorter length of hospital stay. Dissemination of endoscopic stenting beyond teaching, academic hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for malignant GOO is important given its implications for patient care and resource utilization.

Endoscopic stenting versus gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

The aim of the present study was to analyze endoscopic stenting versus gastrojejunostomy of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to analyze clinical trials on GOO. Six studies were eligible for analysis (three randomized control trials and three controlled clinical trials). Technical success (OR [95% CI]: 0.10 [0.02, 0.47]; I(2) = 0%; P = 0.003) and minor complications (OR [95% CI]: 0.28 [0.10, 0.83]; I(2) = 49%; P = 0.02). Time to oral intake and length of survival were also shorter in the endoscopic stenting (ES) group. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical success, length of survival, mortality and major complications. The present review demonstrated potentially improved quality of life in the ES group. ES is a safe and effective, minimally invasive and cost-effective option for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. The present review provides supportive evidence that ES should be considered as the gold standard treatment for malignant GOO.

Cost comparison of gastrojejunostomy versus duodenal stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and stent placement are the most commonly used palliative treatments for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). In a recent randomized trial, stent placement was preferred in patients with a relatively short survival and GJJ in patients with a longer survival. As health economic aspects have only been studied in general terms, we estimated the cost of GJJ and that of stent placement in such patients. METHODS: In the SUSTENT study, patients were randomized to GJJ (n = 18) or stent placement (n = 21). Pancreatic cancer was the most common cause of GOO. We compared initial costs and costs during follow-up. For cost-effectiveness, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Food intake improved more rapidly after stent placement than after GJJ, but long-term relief of obstructive symptoms was better after GJJ. More major complications (P = 0.02) occurred and more reinterventions were performed (P < 0.01) after stent placement than after GJJ. Initial costs were higher for GJJ compared to stent placement (euro8315 vs. euro4820, P < 0.001). We found no difference in follow-up costs. Total costs per patient were higher for GJJ compared to stent placement (euro12433 vs. euro8819, P = 0.049). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GJJ compared to stent placement was euro164 per extra day with a gastric outlet obstruction scoring system (GOOSS) >or=2 adjusted for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Medical effects were better after GJJ, although GJJ had higher total costs. Since the cost difference between the two treatments was only small, cost should not play a predominant role when deciding on the type of treatment assigned to patients with malignant GOO (ISRCTN 06702358).

A systematic review of methods to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to palliating patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ). More recently endoscopic stenting (ES) and laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ) have been introduced as alternatives, and some studies have suggested improved outcomes with ES. The aim of this review is to compare ES with OGJ and LGJ in terms of clinical outcome. METHOD: A systematic literature search and review was performed for the period January 1990 to May 2008. Original comparative studies were included where ES was compared with either LGJ or OGJ or both, for the palliation of malignant GOO. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (10 retrospective cohort studies, two randomised controlled trials and one prospective study). Compared with OGJ, ES resulted in an increased likelihood of tolerating an oral intake [odds ratio (OR) 2.6, p = 0.02], a shorter time to tolerating an oral intake (mean difference 6.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter post-procedural hospital stay (mean difference 11.8 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between 30-day mortality, complication rates or survival. There were an inadequate number of cases to quantitatively compare ES with LGJ. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates improved clinical outcomes with ES over OGJ for patients with malignant GOO. However, there is insufficient data to adequately compare ES with LGJ, which is the current standard for operative management. As these conclusions are based on observational studies only, future large well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be required to ensure the estimates of the relative efficacy of these interventions are valid.

An analysis of cost and clinical outcome in palliation for advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal palliative method for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. METHODS: A retrospective chart review evaluated patients who underwent exploration for presumed resectable pancreatic cancer. Cost-based analysis was performed using relative value units (RVUs) that included the initial surgical procedure and any additional procedure required to achieve satisfactory palliation. RESULTS: Of 96 patients (1993--2002), 6% had biliary bypass, 42% had duodenal bypass, 40% had double bypass, and 13% had no procedure with equivalent clinical outcomes. If biliary bypass was not initially performed, there was a significant incidence of biliary complications before definitive endoscopic stenting (P=.01). If duodenal bypass was not initially performed, 11% developed duodenal obstruction (P=.04). Total RVUs was highest for a double bypass and lowest for no initial surgical palliative procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgical bypass procedures at initial exploration provide durable palliation, these procedures are associated with greater costs.

Palliation of malignant gastroduodenal obstruction with open surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting: clinical outcome and health economic evaluation.

Gastroduodenal outlet obstruction is a complication of advanced gastrointestinal malignant disease. In the past it was usually treated by an open surgical bypass procedure. During the last decade, endoscopic self-expandable stents (SEMS) have been used. The aim of this study was to compare these two palliative strategies concerning clinical outcome and health economy. A series of 36 patients with incurable malignant disease and gastroduodenal outlet obstruction syndrome were treated in a prospective study. According to the attending hospital and endoscopist on duty, 21 of the 36 patients were endoscopically treated with SEMS and 15 underwent an open surgical gastroenteroanastomosis. Health economic evaluation was based on the monetary charges for each patient associated with the procedure, postoperative care, and hospital stay. The hospital stay was 7.3 days for the stented group compared with 14.7 days for the open surgery group ( p > 0.05). The survivals were 76 and 99 days, respectively (NS). In the stented group all 15 patients (100%) alive after 1 month were able to eat or drink, and 11 (73%) of them tolerated solid food. In the surgical bypass group,9 out of 11 (81%) patients alive after 1 month could eat or drink, and 5 of them (45%) could eat solid food. The mean charges (U.S. dollars) during the hospital stay were $7215 for the stented group and $10,190 for the open surgery group ( p < 0.05). Palliation of the gastroduodenal obstruction in patients with malignant disease were at least as good, and the charges were lower for the endoscopic stenting procedure than for an open surgical bypass.