A computer simulation model of the cost-effectiveness of routine Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization among lung and heart-lung transplant recipients.

Our objective was to model the cost-effectiveness and economic value of routine peri-operative Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization of lung and heart-lung transplant recipients from hospital and third-party payer perspectives. We used clinical data from 596 lung and heart-lung transplant recipients to develop a model in TreeAge Pro 2009 (Williamsport, MA, USA). Sensitivity analyses varied S. aureus colonization rate (5-15 %), probability of infection if colonized (10-30 %), and decolonization efficacy (25-90 %). Data were collected from the Cardiothoracic Transplant Program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Consecutive lung and heart-lung transplant recipients from January 2006 to December 2010 were enrolled retrospectively. Baseline rates of S. aureus colonization, infection and decolonization efficacy were 9.6 %, 36.7 %, and 31.9 %, respectively. Screening and decolonization was economically dominant for all scenarios tested, providing more cost savings and health benefits than no screening. Savings per case averted (2012 $US) ranged from $73,567 to $133,157 (hospital perspective) and $10,748 to $16,723 (third party payer perspective), varying with the probability of colonization, infection, and decolonization efficacy. Using our clinical data, screening and decolonization led to cost savings per case averted of $240,602 (hospital perspective) and averted 6.7 S. aureus infections (4.3 MRSA and 2.4 MSSA); 89 patients needed to be screened to prevent one S. aureus infection. Our data support routine S. aureus screening and decolonization of lung and heart-lung transplant patients. The economic value of screening and decolonization was greater than in previous models of other surgical populations.

The economics and timing of preoperative antibiotics for orthopaedic procedures.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) depends on the timing of administration relative to the start of surgery. However, currently, both the timing of and recommendations for administration vary substantially. AIM: To determine how the economic value from the hospital perspective of preoperative antibiotics varies with the timing of administration for orthopaedic procedures. METHODS: Computational decision and operational models were developed from the hospital perspective. Baseline analyses looked at current timing of administration, while additional analyses varied the timing of administration, compliance with recommended guidelines, and the goal time-interval. FINDINGS: Beginning antibiotic administration within 0-30 min prior to surgery resulted in the lowest costs and SSIs. Operationally, linking to a pre-surgical activity, administering antibiotics prior to incision but after anaesthesia-ready time was optimal, as 92.1% of the time, antibiotics were administered in the optimal time-interval (0-30 min prior to incision). Improving administration compliance from 80% to 90% for this pre-surgical activity results in cost savings of $447 per year for a hospital performing 100 orthopaedic operations a year. CONCLUSION: This study quantifies the potential cost-savings when antibiotic administration timing is improved, which in turn can guide the amount hospitals should invest to address this issue.