An operating cost comparison between conventional and home quotidian hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have shown that simulated annual direct health care costs are substantially lower for patients undergoing more frequent hemodialysis (HD), there is limited information about the economics of daily HD and nocturnal HD. METHODS: The London Daily/Nocturnal Hemodialysis Study compared the economics of short daily HD (n = 10), long nocturnal HD (n = 12), and conventional thrice-weekly HD (n = 22) in patients over 18 months. A retrospective analysis of patients' conventional HD costs during the 12 months before study entry was conducted to measure the change in cost after switching to quotidian HD. RESULTS: As the data show, annual costs (in Canadian dollars) for daily HD are substantially lower than for both nocturnal HD and conventional HD: approximately 67,300 Can dollars, 74,400 Can dollars, and 72,700 Can dollars per patient, respectively. Moreover, marginal changes in operating cost per patient year were - 9,800 Can dollars, -17,400 Can dollars, and +3,100 Can dollars for the daily HD, nocturnal HD, and conventional HD groups. Because of the increase in number of treatments, treatment supply costs per patient for the daily HD and nocturnal HD study groups were approximately twice those for conventional HD patients. However, average costs for consults, hospitalization days, emergency room visits, and laboratory tests for quotidian HD patients tended to decline after study entry. The major cost saving in home quotidian HD derived from the reduction in direct nursing time, excluding patient training. Total annualized cost per quality-adjusted life-year for the daily HD and nocturnal HD groups were 85,442 Can dollars and 120,903 Can dollars, which represented a marginal change of - 15,090 Can dollars and - 21,651 Can dollars, respectively, reflecting both improved quality of life and reduced costs for quotidian HD patients. CONCLUSION: Substantial clinical benefits of home quotidian HD, combined with the economic advantage shown by this study, clearly justify its expansion.

Estimating the cost of serious injurious falls in a Canadian acute care hospital.

Falls represent 40 per cent of hospital accidents, and consequences range from none to serious injuries. The purpose of this study was to estimate the average hospital cost and length of stay (LOS) associated with serious injurious falls in an acute care hospital. We used data from risk management and case costing databases to identify cost associated with a serious injury after an in-hospital fall. Thirty-seven injured patients were matched with 2,113 controls by the most responsible medical diagnosis, age, and gender. Cost and LOS were compared using t-tests and multivariate regression. Average costs for seriously injured fallers and non-faller controls were CAD$44,203 and CAD$13,507, while LOS was 45 and 11 days respectively. Hospital cost for a seriously injured faller was $30,696 (95% CI: $25,158 - $36,781) greater than the cost for a non-faller. Hospital managers have a leading role in creating system-wide falls prevention programs and reducing hospital costs.

Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors. METHODS: Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 +/- 1.0 cm versus 2.9 +/- 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups. RESULTS: Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 +/- 76 minutes versus 144 +/- 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 +/- 250 mL versus 334 +/- 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 +/- 1.5 days versus 6.4 +/- 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 +/- 62 mg versus 187 +/- 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN (4839 dollars+/- 1551 dollars versus 6297 dollars+/- 2972 dollars; P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.