Cargando…

ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine whether utilization of the ASGE guidelines for the evaluation of bile duct stones (BDS) would result in fewer imaging studies and in turn lead to a lower healthcare expenditure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study set in an urban Teaching Hospi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singhvi, Gaurav, Ampara, Rajiv, Baum, Joel, Gumaste, Vivek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26752953
_version_ 1782408389885689856
author Singhvi, Gaurav
Ampara, Rajiv
Baum, Joel
Gumaste, Vivek
author_facet Singhvi, Gaurav
Ampara, Rajiv
Baum, Joel
Gumaste, Vivek
author_sort Singhvi, Gaurav
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine whether utilization of the ASGE guidelines for the evaluation of bile duct stones (BDS) would result in fewer imaging studies and in turn lead to a lower healthcare expenditure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study set in an urban Teaching Hospital. Patients undergoing evaluation for BDS and who had their gallbladders in situ were included in the study. Data with regard to age, sex, clinical history, pain level, vital signs and laboratory studies as well as diagnostic tests performed were extracted from the hospital’s electronic medical record. The ASGE guidelines were applied retrospectively to each patient in the study group and the group was divided into two cohorts: one that followed the ASGE guidelines and one which did not. Patients in the two cohorts were further stratified into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk categories. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met the criteria and were included in the study. Of the 38 patients, 22 were managed as per the ASGE guidelines and 16 were not. Twenty-seven patients were categorized as high-risk (14 following the correct algorithm, 13 not) and 11 as intermediate-risk (8 following, 3 not). There were no low-risk patients. Twelve of the 27 patients in the high-risk group had stones (56%) while 6 of 11 (55%) had stones in the intermediate-risk group. Fourteen computed tomography scans and 12 magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographies were deemed inappropriate resulting in unnecessary increased expenditure of $ 22,236. CONCLUSION: The application of ASGE guidelines can minimize redundant investigations and effect cost saving but need to be refined to produce a better yield.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4700852
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47008522016-01-08 ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis Singhvi, Gaurav Ampara, Rajiv Baum, Joel Gumaste, Vivek Ann Gastroenterol Original Article BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine whether utilization of the ASGE guidelines for the evaluation of bile duct stones (BDS) would result in fewer imaging studies and in turn lead to a lower healthcare expenditure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study set in an urban Teaching Hospital. Patients undergoing evaluation for BDS and who had their gallbladders in situ were included in the study. Data with regard to age, sex, clinical history, pain level, vital signs and laboratory studies as well as diagnostic tests performed were extracted from the hospital’s electronic medical record. The ASGE guidelines were applied retrospectively to each patient in the study group and the group was divided into two cohorts: one that followed the ASGE guidelines and one which did not. Patients in the two cohorts were further stratified into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk categories. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met the criteria and were included in the study. Of the 38 patients, 22 were managed as per the ASGE guidelines and 16 were not. Twenty-seven patients were categorized as high-risk (14 following the correct algorithm, 13 not) and 11 as intermediate-risk (8 following, 3 not). There were no low-risk patients. Twelve of the 27 patients in the high-risk group had stones (56%) while 6 of 11 (55%) had stones in the intermediate-risk group. Fourteen computed tomography scans and 12 magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographies were deemed inappropriate resulting in unnecessary increased expenditure of $ 22,236. CONCLUSION: The application of ASGE guidelines can minimize redundant investigations and effect cost saving but need to be refined to produce a better yield. Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4700852/ /pubmed/26752953 Text en Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Singhvi, Gaurav
Ampara, Rajiv
Baum, Joel
Gumaste, Vivek
ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
title ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
title_full ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
title_fullStr ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
title_full_unstemmed ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
title_short ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
title_sort asge guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26752953
work_keys_str_mv AT singhvigaurav asgeguidelinesresultincostsavinginthemanagementofcholedocholithiasis
AT ampararajiv asgeguidelinesresultincostsavinginthemanagementofcholedocholithiasis
AT baumjoel asgeguidelinesresultincostsavinginthemanagementofcholedocholithiasis
AT gumastevivek asgeguidelinesresultincostsavinginthemanagementofcholedocholithiasis