Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare.

Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred surgical approach of several colorectal conditions. However, the economic results of this are quite controversial. The degree of adoption of laparoscopic technology, as well as the aptitude of the surgeons, can have an influence not only in the clinical outcomes but also in the total procedure cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgeries, compared to open procedures in Brazil.All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries between January 2012 and December 2013 were eligible to the retrospective cohort. The considered follow-up period was within 30 days from the index procedure. The outcomes evaluated were the length of stay, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, use of antibiotics, the development of anastomotic leakage, readmission, and the total hospital costs including re-admissions.Two hundred eighty patients, who met the eligibility criteria, were included in the analysis. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter length of stay in comparison with the open group (6.02 ±â€Š3.86 vs 9.86 ±â€Š16.27, P < .001). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The total costs were similar between the 2 groups, in the multivariate analysis (generalized linear model ratio of means 1.20, P = .074). The cost predictors were the cancer diagnosis and age.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents a 17% decrease in the duration of the hospital stay without increasing the total hospitalization costs. The factors associated with increased hospital costs were age and the diagnosis of cancer.

The use of intracardiac echocardiography catheters in endocardial ablation of cardiac arrhythmia: Meta-analysis of efficiency, effectiveness, and safety outcomes.

AIMS: The optimal use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) may reduce fluoroscopy time and procedural complications during endocardial ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Due to limited evidence in this area, we conducted the first systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes associated with the use of ICE. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies reporting the use of ICE during ablation procedures vs without ICE were searched using PubMed/MEDLINE. A meta-analysis was performed on the 19 studies (2186 patients) meeting inclusion criteria, collectively representing a broad range of arrhythmia mechanisms. Use of ICE was associated with significant reductions in fluoroscopy time (Hedges' g -1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.81 to -0.32; P < .01), fluoroscopy dose (Hedges' g -1.27; 95% CI -1.91 to -0.62; P < .01), and procedure time (Hedges' g -0.35; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.05; P = .02) vs ablation without ICE. A 6.95 minute reduction in fluoroscopy time and a 15.2 minute reduction in procedure time was observed between the ICE vs non-ICE groups. These efficiency gains were not associated with any decreased effectiveness or safety. Sensitivity analyses limiting studies to an atrial fibrillation (AF) only population yielded similar results to the main analysis. CONCLUSION: The use of ICE in the ablation of cardiac arrhythmias is associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy dose, and shorter procedure time vs ablation without ICE. These efficiency improvements did not compromise the clinical effectiveness or safety of the procedure.

Healthcare Utilization and Costs Reduction after Radiofrequency Ablation For Atrial Fibrillation in the Brazilian Private Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide, with significantly associated hospitalizations. Considering its growing incidence, the AF related economic burden to healthcare systems is increasing. Healthcare expenditures might be substantially reduced after AF radiofrequency ablation (AFRA). OBJECTIVE: To compare resource utilization and costs before and after AFRA in a cohort of patients from the Brazilian private healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, based on patients' billing information from an administrative database. Eighty-three adult patients who had an AFRA procedure between 2014 and 2015 were included. Healthcare resource utilization related to cardiovascular causes, including ambulatory and hospital care, as well as its costs, were analyzed. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 14.7 ± 7.1 and 10.7 ± 5.4 months before and after AFRA, respectively. The 1-year AF recurrence-free rate was 83.6%. Before AFRA, median monthly total costs were Brazilian Reais (BRL) 286 (interquartile range [IQR]: 137-766), which decreased by 63.5% (p = 0.001) after the procedure, to BRL 104 (IQR: 57-232). Costs were reduced both in the emergency (by 58.6%, p < 0.001) and outpatient settings (by 56%, p < 0.001); there were no significant differences in the outpatient visits, inpatient elective admissions and elective admission costs before and after AFRA. The monthly median emergency department visits were reduced (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, overall healthcare costs were reduced by 63.5%. A longer follow-up could be useful to evaluate if long-term cost reduction is maintained.

Healthcare Utilization and Costs Reduction after Radiofrequency Ablation For Atrial Fibrillation in the Brazilian Private Healthcare System / Redução na Utilização de Recursos em Saúde e dos Custos após Ablação por Radiofrequência da Fibrilação Arial na Saúde Suplementar Brasileira

Abstract Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide, with significantly associated hospitalizations. Considering its growing incidence, the AF related economic burden to healthcare systems is increasing. Healthcare expenditures might be substantially reduced after AF radiofrequency ablation (AFRA). Objective: To compare resource utilization and costs before and after AFRA in a cohort of patients from the Brazilian private healthcare system. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, based on patients' billing information from an administrative database. Eighty-three adult patients who had an AFRA procedure between 2014 and 2015 were included. Healthcare resource utilization related to cardiovascular causes, including ambulatory and hospital care, as well as its costs, were analyzed. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Mean follow-up was 14.7 ± 7.1 and 10.7 ± 5.4 months before and after AFRA, respectively. The 1-year AF recurrence-free rate was 83.6%. Before AFRA, median monthly total costs were Brazilian Reais (BRL) 286 (interquartile range [IQR]: 137-766), which decreased by 63.5% (p = 0.001) after the procedure, to BRL 104 (IQR: 57-232). Costs were reduced both in the emergency (by 58.6%, p < 0.001) and outpatient settings (by 56%, p < 0.001); there were no significant differences in the outpatient visits, inpatient elective admissions and elective admission costs before and after AFRA. The monthly median emergency department visits were reduced (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this cohort, overall healthcare costs were reduced by 63.5%. A longer follow-up could be useful to evaluate if long-term cost reduction is maintained.

Resumo Fundamento: A fibrilação atrial (FA) é a arritmia mais comum em todo o mundo, com hospitalizações significativamente associadas. Considerando sua crescente incidência, a carga econômica relacionada à FA para os sistemas de saúde está aumentando. Os gastos com saúde podem ser substancialmente reduzidos após a ablação por radiofrequência (ARF). Objetivo: Comparar a utilização de recursos e os custos anteriores e posteriores à ARF em uma coorte de pacientes do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro. Métodos: Foi realizado um estudo de coorte retrospectivo, com base nas informações de cobrança dos pacientes de um banco de dados administrativo. Foram incluídos oitenta e três pacientes adultos que passaram pelo procedimento de ARF entre 2014 e 2015. A utilização de recursos de saúde relacionados às causas cardiovasculares, incluindo atendimento ambulatorial e hospitalar, assim como seus custos, foram analisados. Um valor de p inferior a 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. Resultados: O seguimento médio foi de 14,7 ± 7,1 e 10,7 ± 5,4 meses antes e após a ARF, respectivamente. A taxa de FA livre de recidiva em 1 ano foi de 83,6%. Antes da ARF, a mediana dos custos totais mensais foi de R$286,00 (intervalo interquartil [IIQ]: 137-766), com redução de 63,5% (p = 0,001) após o procedimento, para um valor de R$104 (IIQ: 57-232). Os custos foram reduzidos tanto na emergência (em 58,6%, p < 0,001) como no ambiente ambulatorial (em 56%, p < 0,001); não houve diferenças significativas nas consultas ambulatoriais, internações eletivas e custos de internação eletiva antes e depois da ARF. As medianas das consultas mensais no setor de emergência foram reduzidas (p < 0,001). Conclusão: Nesta coorte, os custos gerais com saúde foram reduzidos em 63,5%. Um seguimento mais longo pode ser útil para avaliar se a redução de custos em longo prazo é mantida.

Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs. RESULTS: Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.