Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prophylactic clipping for the prevention of bleeding following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading colorectal lesions: an economic modeling study.
Bahin, Farzan F; Rasouli, Khalid N; Williams, Stephen J; Lee, Eric Y T; Bourke, Michael J.
Afiliación
  • Bahin FF; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Rasouli KN; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Williams SJ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Lee EY; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Bourke MJ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Endoscopy ; 48(8): 754-61, 2016 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27110693
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND STUDY

AIMS:

Clinically significant bleeding (CSPEB) is the most common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSLs), and is associated with morbidity and resource utilization. CSPEB occurs more frequently with proximal LSLs. Prophylactic clipping of the post-EMR defect may be beneficial in CSPEB prevention. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic clipping strategy. We hypothesized that prophylactic clipping in the proximal colon was cost-effective. PATIENTS AND

METHODS:

An economic model was applied to outcomes from the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (ACE) Study. Clip distances of 3, 5, 8, and 10 mm were analyzed. The cost of treating CSPEB was determined from an independent costing agency. The funds needed to spend (FNS) was the cost incurred in order to prevent one episode of CSPEB. A break-even analysis was performed to determine cost equivalence of the costs of clipping and CSPEB.

RESULTS:

Outcomes of 1717 LSLs (mean size 35.8 mm; 52.6 % proximal colon) that underwent EMR were analyzed. The overall rate of CSPEB was 6.4 % (proximal 8.9 %; distal 3.7 %). Endoscopic management was required in 45 % of CSPEB episodes. With a clip distance of 3 mm, the expected cost of prophylactic clipping was €â€Š1106 per lesion compared with €â€Š157 per lesion for the expected cost of CSPEB without clipping. At 100 % clipping efficacy, the FNS was €â€Š14 826 (proximal and distal lesions €â€Š9309 and €â€Š29 540, respectively). A clip price of €â€Š10.35 was required for the cost of clipping to offset the cost of CSPEB.

CONCLUSIONS:

A prophylactic clipping strategy is not cost-effective and at present cannot be justified for all lesions or selectively for lesions in the proximal colon. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01368289).
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Colorrectales / Costos de la Atención en Salud / Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa / Hemorragia Gastrointestinal Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Health_economic_evaluation Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Endoscopy Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Colorrectales / Costos de la Atención en Salud / Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa / Hemorragia Gastrointestinal Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Health_economic_evaluation Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Endoscopy Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia