Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

OBJECTIVES: Secondary infections due to transmission via the duodenoscope have been reported in up to 3% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. The use of single-use duodenoscopes has been suggested. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these duodenoscopes use in cholangiopancreatography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented to compare the performance of cholangiopancreatographies with reusable duodenoscopes versus single-use duodenoscopes. Effectiveness was analyzed by calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health System. Possibility of crossover from single-use to reusable duodenoscopes was considered. A willingness-to-pay of €25,000/QALY was set, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Considering cholangiopancreatographies with single-use and reusable duodenoscopes at a cost of €2900 and €1333, respectively, and a 10% rate of single-use duodenoscopes, ICER was greater than €3,000,000/QALY. A lower single-use duodenoscope cost of €1211 resulted in an ICER of €23,583/QALY. When the unit cost of the single-use duodenoscope was €1211, a crossover rate of more than 9.5% made the use of the single-use duodenoscope inefficient. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use duodenoscopes are cost-effective in a proportion of cholangiopancreatographies if its cost is reduced. Increased crossover rate makes single-use duodenoscope use not cost-effective.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure. METHODS: EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. RESULTS: We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States. DISCUSSION: Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Effects of colon capsule endoscopy on medical decision making in patients with incomplete colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an orally ingested colon imaging tool used to evaluate patients with colonic disease. We evaluated the efficacy of CCE in helping physicians make decisions about patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopies (ICCs). METHODS: In a prospective study, we analyzed data from 34 patients with nonocclusive ICC who were eligible for CCE between May 2010 and April 2011; patients with colectomy, occlusive lesions, or inadequate bowel cleansing for the colonoscopy were excluded. Two experienced observers who were blinded to colonoscopy findings analyzed the CCE data. Four months later, medical records were reviewed to determine the effects of CCE on medical decision making. CCE was considered conclusive when the findings facilitated a medical decision. RESULTS: Bowel cleanliness was good or excellent for 22 patients (64.7%). CCE exceeded the most proximal point reached by conventional colonoscopy in 29 patients (85.3%). CCE findings allowed formulation of a specific medical plan for 20 patients (58.8%); 12 (35.2%) had irrelevant or no lesions, so the study was concluded; 7 (20.5%) underwent polypectomy or surgery for advanced colorectal neoplasia; and 1 (3%) was treated for Crohn's disease. Inconclusive CCEs resulted from poor preparation of the bowel (n = 12) and excessively slow (n = 1) or rapid (n = 1) capsule transit. CONCLUSIONS: CCE might be an alternative procedure to complete colon examination in patients with nonocclusive ICC.