Cargando…

Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost impact of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECP) compared with manual circular staplers (standard of care, SOC) among patients undergoing colectomy procedures that involve left-sided anastomosis. METHODS: A US hospital-based budget impact model was developed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollack, Esther, Johnston, Stephen, Petraiuolo, William J, Roy, Sanjoy, Galvain, Thibaut
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168470
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S305296
_version_ 1783710650640367616
author Pollack, Esther
Johnston, Stephen
Petraiuolo, William J
Roy, Sanjoy
Galvain, Thibaut
author_facet Pollack, Esther
Johnston, Stephen
Petraiuolo, William J
Roy, Sanjoy
Galvain, Thibaut
author_sort Pollack, Esther
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To estimate the cost impact of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECP) compared with manual circular staplers (standard of care, SOC) among patients undergoing colectomy procedures that involve left-sided anastomosis. METHODS: A US hospital-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the impact of ECP in reducing the surgical complication of anastomotic leak. The incremental acquisition cost of ECP vs SOC was compared to the net potential savings from reduced complication costs. The model was based on complication rates from a recently published matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that compared clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes of patients using ECP with those of a propensity score-matched retrospective SOC control cohort from a real-world clinical practice population. The model assessed total cost, average length of stay (LOS), proportion of patients with a non-home discharge, and all-cause readmission. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model assumptions and inputs. RESULTS: Despite a higher device cost of $412 for ECP compared with $298 for a manual stapler, annual savings due to avoided complications with ECP was $53,987 for anastomotic leak, assuming 100 procedures per year with each type of circular stapler. ECP also helped to avoid 27 LOS days, 0.38 readmissions and 0.22 non-home discharges. Sensitivity analyses around potential drivers of costs established the robustness of economic savings with the use of ECP – with annual savings being most impacted by the probability of anastomotic leak complication in the DSA. CONCLUSION: This model demonstrates that among patients undergoing left-sided colectomy procedures, the incremental cost of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler instead of a manual circular stapler was offset by the savings from lowered incidence and cost of management of anastomotic leaks in the hospital setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8217739
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82177392021-06-23 Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis Pollack, Esther Johnston, Stephen Petraiuolo, William J Roy, Sanjoy Galvain, Thibaut Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research PURPOSE: To estimate the cost impact of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECP) compared with manual circular staplers (standard of care, SOC) among patients undergoing colectomy procedures that involve left-sided anastomosis. METHODS: A US hospital-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the impact of ECP in reducing the surgical complication of anastomotic leak. The incremental acquisition cost of ECP vs SOC was compared to the net potential savings from reduced complication costs. The model was based on complication rates from a recently published matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that compared clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes of patients using ECP with those of a propensity score-matched retrospective SOC control cohort from a real-world clinical practice population. The model assessed total cost, average length of stay (LOS), proportion of patients with a non-home discharge, and all-cause readmission. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model assumptions and inputs. RESULTS: Despite a higher device cost of $412 for ECP compared with $298 for a manual stapler, annual savings due to avoided complications with ECP was $53,987 for anastomotic leak, assuming 100 procedures per year with each type of circular stapler. ECP also helped to avoid 27 LOS days, 0.38 readmissions and 0.22 non-home discharges. Sensitivity analyses around potential drivers of costs established the robustness of economic savings with the use of ECP – with annual savings being most impacted by the probability of anastomotic leak complication in the DSA. CONCLUSION: This model demonstrates that among patients undergoing left-sided colectomy procedures, the incremental cost of using the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler instead of a manual circular stapler was offset by the savings from lowered incidence and cost of management of anastomotic leaks in the hospital setting. Dove 2021-06-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8217739/ /pubmed/34168470 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S305296 Text en © 2021 Pollack et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Pollack, Esther
Johnston, Stephen
Petraiuolo, William J
Roy, Sanjoy
Galvain, Thibaut
Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis
title Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis
title_full Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis
title_fullStr Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis
title_short Economic Analysis of Leak Complications in Anastomoses Performed with Powered versus Manual Circular Staplers in Left-Sided Colorectal Resections: A US-Based Cost Analysis
title_sort economic analysis of leak complications in anastomoses performed with powered versus manual circular staplers in left-sided colorectal resections: a us-based cost analysis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168470
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S305296
work_keys_str_mv AT pollackesther economicanalysisofleakcomplicationsinanastomosesperformedwithpoweredversusmanualcircularstaplersinleftsidedcolorectalresectionsausbasedcostanalysis
AT johnstonstephen economicanalysisofleakcomplicationsinanastomosesperformedwithpoweredversusmanualcircularstaplersinleftsidedcolorectalresectionsausbasedcostanalysis
AT petraiuolowilliamj economicanalysisofleakcomplicationsinanastomosesperformedwithpoweredversusmanualcircularstaplersinleftsidedcolorectalresectionsausbasedcostanalysis
AT roysanjoy economicanalysisofleakcomplicationsinanastomosesperformedwithpoweredversusmanualcircularstaplersinleftsidedcolorectalresectionsausbasedcostanalysis
AT galvainthibaut economicanalysisofleakcomplicationsinanastomosesperformedwithpoweredversusmanualcircularstaplersinleftsidedcolorectalresectionsausbasedcostanalysis