ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction, either by surgery or bronchoscopically by endobronchial valve treatment have been shown to be a cost-effective alternative compared with conservative therapy. However, there is no comparative analysis of lung volume reduction by surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of lung volume reduction by surgery compared with bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves. METHODS: The effectiveness of lung volume reduction was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), residual volume (RV) and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), measured at baseline and at 4 to 12 weeks. Cost unit accounting derived from SwissDRG was used as a surrogate of the costs from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: In total, 67 patients (37 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 68.3 ± 7.4 years were included. Both clinical effectiveness and costs were comparable between surgical and bronchoscopic lung reduction. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for bronchoscopic compared with lung volume reduction by surgery for FEV1, RV and 6MWD were -101, 4 and 58, respectively. For RV and 6MWD, it could be shown that endobronchial valve treatment is justified as a probably cost-effective alternative to lung volume reduction by surgery. Endobronchial valve treatment resulted in an improvement of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an ICER of 7657 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: A robust statement on the superiority of one of the two procedures in terms of cost-effectiveness cannot be made from the present study. Therefore, the study is not suitable for resource allocation. Two upcoming trials comparing lung volume reduction surgery and endobronchial valve treatment may be able to answer this question.
Subject(s)
Pneumonectomy , Pulmonary Emphysema , Male , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Pneumonectomy/adverse effects , Pneumonectomy/methods , Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Bronchoscopy/adverse effects , Bronchoscopy/methods , Pulmonary Emphysema/surgery , Pulmonary Emphysema/etiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The present study addresses the financial effects of incidences of MRSA in the geriatric ward of a German hospital on patients receiving end-of-life care. The main cost drivers will be identified and the costs calculated. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis for a period of one year was conducted for the geriatric ward of a German hospital. In addition to the duration of the patient's stay and the total costs of his/her case, individual cost categories such as personnel and material costs were also examined. In order to enable a cost comparison of MRSA-positive and MRSA-negative patients, matching was used. T-tests were used for purposes of comparison with the case groups. FINDINGS: A total of 107 cases were included in the study; in 27 of these cases, MRSA was detected. Patients with MRSA were found to have a longer average stay and to incur higher average costs. There were no statistically significant differences in the duration of hospital stay between MRSA-positive and MRSA-negative patients. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were seen in the total costs per case. Significantly higher daily personnel costs for nursing staff were observed for MRSA-positive patients in the case group of patients with lower than average total costs. For MRSA-positive patients, these costs amounted to 97.18, while MRSA-negative patients incurred 80.44 in costs. Costs of doctors, medical technicians and non-medical personnel and material costs for infrastructure showed an opposite tendency. If the case groups for different total costs are not considered, no significant differences between MRSA-positive and MRSA-negative patients were found for the individual cost categories examined. CONCLUSIONS: Although we demonstrated that MRSA-positive patients had longer stays and caused higher overall costs in the geriatric ward, we did not find any statistically significant differences between MRSA-positive and MRSA-negative patients. One of the main cost drivers in the care of MRSA-positive patients was identified as the daily personnel costs for nursing staff. Analysing processes related to patients' nursing care can be the first step in attempts to make care for MRSA-positive patients more effective and efficient.
