The clinical and cost implications of failed endoscopic hemostasis in gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding.

AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the clinical and cost implications of failed endoscopic hemostasis in patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file was conducted to identify all hospitalizations for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding in the year 2012. The main outcome measures were to compare all-cause mortality, total length of hospital stay (LOS), hospital costs and payment between patients managed with one upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy versus more than one UGI endoscopy or requiring interventional radiology-guided hemostasis (IRH) or surgery after failed endoscopic attempt. RESULTS: The MedPAR claims data evaluated 13,501 hospitalizations, of which 12,242 (90.6%) reported one UGI endoscopy, 817 (6.05%) reported >1 UGI endoscopy, 303 (2.24%) reported IRH after failed endoscopy and 139 (1.03%) reported surgeries after failed endoscopy. All cause-mortality was significantly lower for patients who underwent only one UGI endoscopy (3%) compared to patients requiring >1 endoscopy (6%), IRH (9%) or surgery (14%), p < 0.0001. The median LOS was significantly lower for patients who underwent only one UGI endoscopy (four days) compared to patients requiring >1 endoscopy (eight days), IRH (nine days) or surgery (15 days), p < 0.0001. The median hospital costs were significantly lower for patients who underwent one UGI endoscopy ($10,518) compared to patients requiring >1 endoscopy ($20,055), IRH ($34,730) or surgery ($47,589), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to achieve hemostasis at the index endoscopy has significant clinical and cost implications. When feasible, a repeat endoscopy must be attempted followed by IRH. Surgery should preferably be reserved as a last resort for patients who fail other treatment measures.

Changing trends in tissue acquisition in malignant pancreatic neoplasms.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare the frequency of use, hospital costs, and resource availability between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), percutaneous, and surgical techniques for tissue acquisition in malignant pancreatic neoplasms. METHODS: This is a retrospective claims analysis of Medicare patients undergoing biopsy of malignant pancreatic neoplasms over 5 years (2006-2010). The primary outcome measure was to compare the utilization of EUS, percutaneous techniques, and surgery for performing pancreatic biopsies. The secondary outcome measures were to compare treatment costs and variations in availability of resources between the three techniques over a 1-year period (2010). RESULTS: Over 5 years, the use of EUS-FNA increased by 69.3% (7100 to 12 020) and the use of percutaneous biopsy by 1.8% (4480 to 4560) compared to decrease in surgical biopsy (720 to 420) by 41.7% (P < 0.0001). When compared to percutaneous and surgical biopsies ($9639 and $21 947, respectively) the median hospital cost/claim for EUS-FNA ($1794) was significantly lower (P < 0.0001). More EUS-FNA procedures were performed in urban and teaching hospitals compared to rural and non-teaching hospitals (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although EUS-FNA is increasingly performed and is less costly, and the rate of surgical biopsies has declined precipitously, the utilization of percutaneous techniques remains prevalent. Training and education are required to disseminate the use of EUS-FNA outside major teaching institutions or foster referral of patients to EUS centers because of implications for patient care and resource use.

Asthma exacerbation rates in adults are unchanged over a 5-year period despite high-intensity therapy.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist regarding the natural history of asthma exacerbations over time. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and risk factors of asthma exacerbation occurrence over a 5-year period in a large cohort of adult patients with persistent asthma. METHODS: Health insurance claims from the Truven Health MarketScan database were analyzed for 2543 patients who had full medical and drug claims for years 2006 to 2011, did not have co-occurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the index year (2006), and were treated with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists for at least 120 days ("high intensity" therapy) in the index year. A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess the pattern of severe exacerbations (encounter with health care system and steroid burst) over time and their associations with the other measures of health status. RESULTS: Despite the use of high-intensity asthma therapy, there was only a small decrease in total asthma exacerbations over time, but no significant time trend for asthma hospitalizations. An exacerbation in the prior year increased the risk for exacerbations almost 8-fold, (odds ratio 7.8 [95% CI, 7.1-8.6]). A 50% increase in exacerbation risk (odds ratio 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.6]) was associated with continued high-intensity treatment for the duration of the study. Patients with encounters of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after the index year were at 60% increased risk of an exacerbation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that exacerbation rates for patients with asthma in a real-world setting remained relatively constant over time, and continuous high treatment intensity was not associated with a substantially lower risk of exacerbations.

Management patterns of medicare patients undergoing treatment for upper urinary tract calculi.

PURPOSE: We conducted this study to identify differences in the re-treatment rates and ancillary procedures for the two most commonly utilized stone treatment procedures in the Medicare population: ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare standard analytical file 5% sample was conducted to identify patients with a new diagnosis of urolithiasis undergoing treatment with URS or SWL from 2009-2010. Outcomes evaluated: (1) repeat stone removal procedures within 120 days post index procedure, (2) stent placement procedures on the index date, 30 days prior to and 120 days post index date, and (3) use of general anesthesia. RESULTS: We identified 3885 eligible patients, of which 2165 (56%) underwent SWL and 1720 (44%) underwent URS. Overall, SWL patients were 1.73 times more likely to undergo at least one repeat procedure than URS patients, and twice as likely to require multiple re-treatments compared to URS. Among those with ureteral stones, SWL patients were 2.27 times more likely to undergo repeat procedures. The difference was not statistically significant in renal stone patients. Overall, SWL patients were 1.41 times more likely than URS patients to have a stent placed prior to index procedure, and 1.33 times more likely to have a stent placed subsequent to the index procedure. The majority of URS patients (77.8%) had a stent placed at the time of index procedure. There was no significant difference in anesthetic approaches between SWL and URS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing SWL are significantly more likely to require re-treatments than URS patients. SWL patients are also significantly more likely to require ureteral stent placement as a separate event. SWL and URS patients have similar rates of general anesthesia.

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 surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although stent placement is increasingly performed, colostomy still is considered the gold standard for emergent relief of malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). This study aimed to compare hospital costs and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing colostomy and those undergoing stenting for the management of MCO. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) data set was conducted to identify inpatient hospitalizations for colostomy or stent placement for the treatment of colon cancer (2007-2008). The outcomes evaluated using MedPAR compared the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and the costs associated with both techniques. Because MedPAR is a claims data set that does not provide outcomes at a patient level, a single-institution retrospective case-control study was conducted in which each stent placement patient was matched with two colostomy patients during the same period. Outcome measures (institutional data) were used to compare rates of treatment success, postprocedure LOS, and reinterventions between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The MedPAR data evaluated 778 stent placements and 5,868 colostomy hospitalizations. There were no differences in gender, age distribution, or comorbidity between the two groups. Compared with colostomy, the median LOS (8 vs. 12 days; p<0.0001) and the median cost ($15,071 vs. $24,695; p<0.001) per claim were significantly less for stent placement. Stent placement was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (84% vs. 16%; p<0.0001), teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (56% vs. 44%; p=0.0058) and larger versus smaller institutions (mean bed capacity, 331 vs. 227; p<0.0001). The institution data included 12 patients who underwent stent placement and 24 who underwent colostomy. Although both methods were technically successful, the median postprocedure LOS (2.17 vs. 10.58 days; p=0.0004) and the rate of readmissions for complications (0% vs. 25%; p=0.01) were significantly lower for stent placement. CONCLUSION: Although the technical and clinical outcomes for colostomy and stent placement appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and associated with shorter LOS and fewer complications. Dissemination of stent placement beyond large teaching hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for MCO is important given its implications for patient care and resource use.