PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(08): E1073-E1079
DOI: 10.1055/a-1819-8124
Original article

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage on reducing costs of reintervention and unplanned readmission: a budget impact analysis

Shannon Melissa Chan‡
1   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China
,
Marc Ka Chun Chong‡
2   Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
,
Philip Wai Yan Chiu
1   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China
,
Enders Kwok Wai Ng
1   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China
,
Martin Chi Sang Wong
2   Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
,
Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh
1   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China
› InstitutsangabenTRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02212717. RCT at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints
Zoom Image

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is the preferred treatment for patients with acute calculous cholecystitis who are unfit for surgery. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effective analysis (CEA) comparing EUS-GBD with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD).

Patients and methods CEA was performed on patients recruited for our prior randomized controlled trial. A budget impact model was developed to compare the base-case and scenario of EUS-GBD applications. The costs including peri-procedure and intra-procedure, reinterventions, expenses associated with treatment of adverse events (AEs), costs of hospital stay, subsequent clinic follow-up, and unplanned readmission were included.

Results PT-GBD had a lower total procedure cost per patient (USD$4,375.00) than EUS-GBD (USD$9,397.44). For EUS-GBD, the cost of cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing stent accounted for the major part of the expense (USD$4,910.26). EUS-GBD resulted in a lower expected cost (USD$108.26 vs USD$1,601.54) for a re-procedure. The expected cost per patient in unplanned readmissions in the EUS-GBD group (USD$450.00) was lower than that in the PT-GBD group (USD$1,717.56). Based on the budget impact analysis, the net budget impact per year of introducing EUS-GBD to replace PT-GBD was higher (USD$16,424.10 vs USD$11,433.08). The net budget impact was most sensitive to the cost of stent and linear echoendoscope used in EUS-GBD.

Conclusions The net budget impact per year was higher for introducing EUS-GBD. The cost of the stent accounted for the major cost difference between the two procedures. EUS-GBD saved on the cost in management of AEs, reinterventions, and unplanned readmissions but these did not offset the cost of the stent.

Supplementary material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 24. November 2021

Angenommen nach Revision: 06. April 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
07. April 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. August 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany