Endoscopic vein harvest in patients at high risk for leg wound complications: A cost-benefit analysis of an initial experience.

BACKGROUND: A cost-benefit analysis of endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) versus open vein harvest (OVH) was performed in patients at high risk for wound complications. METHODS: Risk factors for leg wound infection were identified as age older than 75 years, being a woman, body mass index > 28, having diabetes, being a smoker, and diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease. Patients who had at least 2 of these risk factors were selected for a pilot use of EVH and were matched to patients undergoing OVH (n = 50 patients/group). Costs incurred included costs of dressings, additional hospital stay, and costs for attending our outpatient wound clinic (OWC), amongst others. For the EVH group, there was the additional cost of the kit (£650 per patient). Data were prospectively collected. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative characteristics between the 2 groups. During in-hospital stay, 18% (9 out of 50) versus 32% (16 out of 50) (P = .08) of patients (EVH vs OVH, respectively) had minor leg-wound suppurations. Patients in the OVH group had longer hospital stay (P = .01). Attendance at the OWC for leg-wound issues was 4% (2 out of 50) versus 48% (24 out of 50), respectively (P < .01), costing a total of £2,758 for the EVH group compared with £78,036 for the OVH group (P < .01). This amounted to cost savings of £42,778 (including EVH kit costs) favoring EVH. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high-risk of leg wound complications, EVH was associated with significant cost-savings and less leg wound complications.

Discharge of thoracic patients on portable digital suction: Is it cost-effective?

OBJECTIVES: A portable suction drainage device for patients undergoing thoracic surgical procedures was introduced into our service in January 2010. Patients who met strict discharge criteria were allowed to continue their treatment at home with the device. They were monitored in a designated follow-up clinic. Data were collected to identify the impact of this service in relation to the duration of follow-up required, bed-days saved, and potential cost/benefits. METHODS: All patients who underwent a thoracic procedure from March 2012 to April 2014 and required suction postoperatively for air leak were included in the study. Patients were identified as suitable according to the discharge criteria. Data regarding patient demographics were collected prospectively on the thoracic database, and data on the drainage device were logged in a specific data sheet. Visits to the follow-up clinic were also recorded. RESULTS: During the study period, 50 patients stayed a total 1125 days on the portable suction system. Twenty were discharged home, equating to 772 bed-days saved (GBP 270,000 cost-saving). Clinic attendance totalled 162 visits (GBP 24,300 cost reimbursement for attendance). Six (30%) patients were readmitted on 9 occasions due to device malfunction or inability to cope at home. CONCLUSION: Careful identification of patients suitable for discharge with a portable suction device achieved a significant cost-saving and freed hospital beds, thus allowing increased surgical activity. Patients were also able to be cared for within their home environment and maintain their quality of life.