Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Transcatheter Arterial Embolization Techniques for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical emergency associated with significant mortality. Transcatheter arterial embolization first was introduced by Rosch et al as an alternative to surgery for upper GI bleeding. The clinical success in patients with GI bleeding treated with transcatheter arterial embolization previously has been reported. However, there are no cost-effectiveness analyses reported to date. Here we report cost-effectiveness analysis of N-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate glue (NBCA) and ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) versus coil (gold standard) for treatment of GI bleeding from a healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: Fixed-effects modeling with a generalized linear mixed method was used in NBCA and coil intervention arms to determine the pooled probabilities of clinical success and mortality with complications with their confidence intervals, while the Clopper-Pearson model was used for Onyx to determine the same parameters. Models were provided by the "Meta-Analysis with R" software package. A decision tree was built for cost-effectiveness analysis, and Microsoft Excel was used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The cost-effective option was determined based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and scatter plots of incremental cost versus incremental quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Comparing scatter plots and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results, -$1024 and -$1349 per quality-adjusted life-year for Onyx and N-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate glue, respectively, Onyx was the least expensive and most effective intervention. CONCLUSION: Onyx was the dominant strategy regardless of threshold values. Our analyses provide a framework for researchers to predict the target clinical effectiveness for early-stage TAE interventions and guide resource allocation decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus standard grafts for hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate-access arteriovenous grafts (IAAVGs), or early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (AVGs), are more expensive than standard grafts (sAVGs) but can be used immediately after placement, reducing the need for a tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC). We hypothesized that a decrease in TDC-related complications would make IAAVGs a cost-effective alternative to sAVGs. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state-transition model in which patients initially received either an IAAVG or an sAVG and a TDC until graft usability; patients were followed through multiple subsequent access procedures for a 60-month time horizon. The model simulated mortality and typical graft- and TDC-related complications, with parameter estimates including probabilities, costs, and utilities derived from previous literature. A key parameter was median time to TDC removal after graft placement, which was studied under both real-world (7 days for IAAVG and 70 days for sAVG) and ideal (no TDC placed with IAAVG and 1 month for sAVG) conditions. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement rates and reflect a payer perspective. Both microsimulation (10,000 trials) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 samples) were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: IAAVG placement is a dominant strategy under both real-world ($1201.16 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) and ideal ($1457.97 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) conditions. Under real-world parameters, the result was most sensitive to the time to TDC removal; IAAVGs are cost-effective if a TDC is maintained for ≥23 days after sAVG placement. The mean catheter time was lower with IAAVG (3.9 vs 8.7 months; P < .0001), as was the mean number of access-related infections (0.55 vs 0.74; P < .0001). Median survival in the model was 29 months. Overall mortality was similar between groups (76.3% vs 76.7% at 5 years; P = .33), but access-related mortality trended toward improvement with IAAVG (6.1% vs 6.8% at 5 years; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: The Markov decision analysis model supported our hypothesis that IAAVGs come with added initial cost but are ultimately cost-saving and more effective. This apparent benefit is due to our prediction that a decreased number of catheter days per patient would lead to a decreased number of access-related infections.

Minimally invasive and inexpensive percutaneous abscess drainage using an indwelling needle cannula.

PURPOSE: Abscess is still a formidable disease and requires adequate drainage. Moreover, drainage in the head and neck area needs cosmetic care, especially in the pediatric population. In this report, we introduce our method of percutaneous abscess drainage using an indwelling needle cannula. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten pediatric and five adult patients with cervical and/or facial abscess treated with this drainage method were retrospectively reviewed. Using an indwelling needle cannula (18-14 G Surflow®, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan), abscesses were penetrated under ultrasonic examination. Once purulent retention was identified, the inner metal needle was removed and the outer elastic needle was left and fixed. The outer needle was connected to the tube for continuous suction drainage for large abscess. RESULTS: The primary diseases of these abscesses were cervical abscess of dental origin (5), purulent lymphadenitis (3), pyriform sinus fistula (2) and subperiosteal abscess due to mastoiditis (2), circumorbital cellulitis (1), infection of Warthin's tumor (1), and unknown origin (1). The median (range) duration of drainage was 4 days (3-9 days). Abscesses were successfully treated, and no patients required additional incision for abscess drainage. No apparent scars after drainage were observed. CONCLUSION: This technique resembles the usual venous placement of an indwelling needle cannula and is thought to be familiar to physicians. Although simple and inexpensive, this drainage is safe, effective, and minimally invasive for the treatment of abscess.

Cateterización venosa umbilical guiada por ultrasonografía: un análisis de coste-efectividad / Ultrasound-guided umbilical venous catheterisation: A cost-effectiveness análisis

INTRODUCCIÓN: El uso de ultrasonografía para la inserción de catéteres centrales ha mostrado ser coste-efectivo en adultos; en neonatos se desconoce esta información. El objetivo del estudio fue comparar el coste-efectividad de la cateterización venosa umbilical guiada por ultrasonografía con la cateterización convencional en un servicio de cuidados intensivos neonatales de un hospital universitario y público. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional retrospectivo en recién nacidos que requirieron catéter venoso umbilical antes de cumplir las primeras 24 h de vida extrauterina; se conformaron 2 cohortes históricas, una con cateterización guiada por ultrasonografía y otra con cateterización convencional. La efectividad se midió con 2 variables: colocación de posición ideal e inserción sin complicaciones. Se estimó el coste de recursos humanos y materiales (fungibles y no fungibles), la razón coste-efectividad y la razón coste-efectividad incremental; y se realizó análisis de sensibilidad. RESULTADOS: La obstrucción del catéter fue más frecuente en la cateterización guiada que en la convencional (7,7 vs. 0%, p = 0,04) y la disfunción del catéter fue superior en esta última (79 vs. 3,8%, p < 0,0001). La razón coste-efectividad de la cateterización guiada fue 153,9 euros y de la convencional 484,6 euros; la razón coste-efectividad incremental fue 45,5 euros. El análisis de sensibilidad incrementó 2,6 euros en la razón coste-efectividad de la cateterización guiada y 47 euros, en la convencional. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de la ultrasonografiacute;a para guiar la cateterización umbilical es más eficiente ya que, a pesar de suponer un mayor consumo de recursos económicos, ofreció una mayor efectividad

INTRODUCTION: Although the use of ultrasound for the insertion of central catheters has proven to be cost-effective in adults, it is not known if this is the case in the neonatal population. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided umbilical venous catheterisation with conventional catheterisation in a neonatal intensive care unit of a Public University Hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on newborns that required an umbilical venous catheter before completing their first 24hours of extra-uterine life. Two retrospective cohorts were formed, including one with ultrasound-guided catheterisation and the other with conventional catheterisation. The effectiveness was measured using 2 variables: placement of ideal position and insertion without complications. The cost of human and material resources (consumable and non-consumable), the cost-effectiveness ratio, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated, as well as carrying out a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Catheter obstruction was more frequent in guided catheterisation than in conventional catheterisation (7.7% vs. 0%, p = .04) and catheter dysfunction was higher in the latter (79% vs. 3.8%, p < .0001). The cost-effectiveness ratio of the guided catheterisation was € 153.9, and €484.6 for the conventional one. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 45.5. The sensitivity analysis showed a € 2.6 increase in the cost-effectiveness ratio of the guided catheterisation and € 47 in the conventional one. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ultrasound to guide umbilical catheterisation is more efficient than conventional catheterisation since, despite using more economic resources, it offers greater effectiveness

Clinical Outcomes and Economic Impact of Starting Hemodialysis with a Catheter after Predialysis Arteriovenous Fistula Creation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease frequently undergo arteriovenous fistula creation prior to reaching end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but some initiate hemodialysis with a central vein catheter, if their fistula is not yet usable. The clinical consequences of the delay in fistula use have not been quantified in such patients. We compared patients with pre-ESRD fistula surgery who initiated dialysis with a catheter versus a fistula in terms of the frequency of post-dialysis vascular access procedures and complications and their economic impact. METHODS: We identified 205 patients with predialysis fistula creation from 2006 to 2012 at a large dialysis center who started hemodialysis within the ensuing 2 years. Of these, 91 (44%) initiated dialysis with a catheter and 114 (56%) with a fistula. We compared these 2 groups in terms of their annual frequency of percutaneous vascular access procedures, surgical access procedures, total access procedures, hospitalizations due to catheter-related bacteremia, and overall cost of vascular access management. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and fistula type. As compared to patients initiating dialysis with a fistula, those initiating with a catheter had a significantly greater annual frequency of percutaneous access procedures (1.29 [1.19-1.40] vs. 0.75 [0.68-0.82]), surgical access procedures (0.69 [0.61-0.76] vs. 0.59 [0.53-0.66]), total access procedures (1.98 [1.86-2.11] vs. 1.34 [1.26-1.44]), and hospitalizations due to catheter-related bacteremia (0.09 [0.07-0.12] vs. 0.02 [0.01-0.03]). Patients initiating dialysis with a catheter incurred a median overall annual cost of access management that was USD 2,669 higher (USD 6,372 [3,121-12,242) vs. USD 3,703 [1,867-6,953], p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with predialysis fistula creation, those initiating dialysis with a catheter versus a fistula had substantially more frequent percutaneous, surgical, and total vascular access procedures, as well as hospitalizations due to catheter-related bacteremia. The annual cost of access management was substantially higher in those initiating dialysis with a catheter.

Impact of Early Cannulation Grafts on Quality and Cost of Care for Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: The annual cost of care associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) per patient on hemodialysis is approaching $100,000, with nearly $42 billion in national spend per year. Early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ECAVGs) help decrease the use of central venous catheters (CVCs), thus potentially decreasing the cost of care. However, a formal financial analysis that also includes the cost of CVC-related complications and secondary interventions has not been completed. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the overall financial costs associated with ECAVGs on patients with ESRD during a one-year period. METHODS: Access modality, complications, secondary interventions, hospital outcomes, and cost of care were determined for 397 sequential patients who underwent access creation between July 2014 and October 2018. A detailed financial analysis was completed, including an evaluation of implant, supplies, medications, laboratories, labor, and other direct costs. All variables were measured at the time of the index procedure, 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, 270 days, and one year. RESULTS: There were 131 patients who underwent arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and 266 who underwent ECAVG for dialysis access. The average cost of care was $17,523 for AVF and $5,894 for ECAVG at one year (P < 0.01). Fewer CVC-related complications and secondary interventions associated with ECAVGs saved $11,630 per patient with ESRD, primarily in the form of supply costs. Fewer CVCs in the patients receiving ECAVGs led to an additional $1,083 decrease in cost associated with sepsis reduction at one year. A subsequent decrease in length of stay and ICU utilization led to an additional $2.0 million decrease in annual cost of care for patients with ESRD. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECAVGs has significant cost savings over using an AVF and CVC for urgent-start dialysis in patients with ESRD. This cost savings is secondary to decreased CVC-related complications and fewer secondary interventions. Significant national savings are possible with appropriate use of ECAVGs in patients with ESRD.

Two-Year Outcomes of Early Cannulation Arteriovenous Grafts for End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Almost 80% of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) initiate dialysis via a central venous catheter (CVC). CVCs are associated with multiple complications and a high cost of care. The purpose of our project is to determine the impact of early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ECAVGs) on quality of care and costs. METHODS: The dialysis access modality, complications, secondary interventions, hospital outcomes, and detailed costs were tracked for 397 sequential patients who underwent access creation between July 2014 and October 2018. Complications were grouped into deep vein thrombosis, line infections, sepsis, pneumothorax, and other. Secondary interventions included angioplasty, angioplasty and stent grafting, thrombectomy, surgical revision, and explantation. Hospital outcomes included length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission, and discharge disposition. Costs included supplies, medications, laboratory tests, labor, and other direct costs. All variables were measured at the time of the index procedure, 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, 270 days, 1 year, 18 months, and 2 years. RESULTS: There were 131 patients who underwent arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and 266 who received ECAVG for dialysis access. The total cost of care per patient was $17,523 for AVF and $5,894 for ECAVG at 1 year (P < 0.01). Primary-assisted patency for AVF was 49.3% versus 81.4% for ECAVG (P = 0.027), and secondary-assisted patency for AVF was 63.8% versus 85.4% for ECAVG at 1 year (P = 0.011). There was a survival advantage for ECAVGs at 1 year (78.6% for AVF vs 85.0% for ECAVG, P = 0.034). Patients who received ECAVG had fewer CVC days (2.3% vs 19.1% for AVF, P < 0.001), fewer complications (1.6% vs. 21.5% for AVF, P < 0.001), and fewer secondary interventions (17.0% vs 52.5% for AVF, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study on patients with ESRD to report detailed outcomes and cost analysis as it relates to AVF versus ECAVG. ECAVGs have an advantage over AVFs due to lower overall cost and better clinical outcomes at 1 year. Implementation of an urgent start dialysis access program centered around ECAVGs may help achieve the national goal of better health care at a lower cost for patients with ESRD.

Retrospective comparison of ultrasound facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis and systemically administered half-dose thrombolysis in treatment of pulmonary embolism.

This study retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients who received ultrasound facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis (UFCDT) versus systemically administered 'half-dose' thrombolysis (HDT) in 97 patients with PE. The outcomes assessed included changes in baseline pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), right ventricle/left ventricle ratio (RV/LV), cost and duration of hospitalization, death, bleeding, and recurrent venous thromboembolism in the short and intermediate term follow-up. Analyses were performed using a covariance adjustment propensity score approach to address baseline differences between groups in variables associated with PASP and RV/LV, covarying baseline scores. The baseline mean ± SE PASP dropped from 49.3 ± 1.1 to 32.5 ± 0.3 mmHg at 36 hours in the HDT group, and from 50.6 ± 1.2 to 35.1 ± 0.4 mmHg in the UFCDT group; group × time interaction p-value = 0.007. Corresponding drops in the RV/LV were from a baseline of 1.26 ± 0.05 to 1.07 ± 0.01 in the HDT group and from 1.30 ± 0.05 to 1.14 ± 0.01 in the UFCDT group at 36 hours; group × time interaction p-value = 0.269. Statistically significant decreases were noted in PASP and RV/LV for both the HDT and UFCDT at 36 hours and follow-up. PASP through follow-up was significantly lower in the HDT than the UFCDT group. Likewise, RV/LV was lower in the HDT group. The duration and cost of hospitalization were lower in the HDT group (6.2 ± 1.4 days vs 1.9 ± 0.3 days, p < 0.001; US$12,000 ± $3000 vs $74,000 ± $6000, p < 0.001). We conclude that both UFCDT and HDT lead to rapid reduction of PASP and RV/LV, whereas HDT leads to a lower duration and cost of hospitalization.

Buttonhole versus Stepladder Cannulation for Home Hemodialysis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Canadian home hemodialysis guidelines highlight the potential differences in complications associated with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation technique as a research priority. Our primary objective was to determine the feasibility of randomizing patients with ESKD training for home hemodialysis to buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation of the AVF. Secondary objectives included training time, pain with needling, complications, and cost by cannulation technique. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: All patients training for home hemodialysis at seven Canadian hospitals were assessed for eligibility, and demographic information and access type was collected on everyone. Patients who consented to participate were randomized to buttonhole or stepladder cannulation technique. Time to train for home hemodialysis, pain scores on cannulation, and complications over 12 months was recorded. For eligible but not randomized patients, reasons for not participating in the trial were documented. RESULTS: Patient recruitment was November 2013 to November 2015. During this time, 158 patients began training for home hemodialysis, and 108 were ineligible for the trial. Diabetes mellitus as a cause of ESKD (31% versus 12%) and central venous catheter use (74% versus 6%) were more common in ineligible patients. Of the 50 eligible patients, 14 patients from four out of seven sites consented to participate in the study (28%). The most common reason for declining to participate was a strong preference for a particular cannulation technique (33%). Patients randomized to buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation required a shorter time to complete home hemodialysis training. We did not observe a reduction in cannulation pain or complications with the buttonhole method. Data linkages for a formal cost analysis were not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a randomized, controlled trial of buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation in Canada with a sufficient number of patients on home hemodialysis to be able to draw meaningful conclusions.

Randomized pilot study to compare metal needles versus plastic cannulae in the development of complications in hemodialysis access.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis requires needle insertions every treatment. Needle injury (mechanical or hemodynamic) may cause complications (aneurysms/stenosis) that compromise dialysis delivery requiring interventions. Metal needles have a sharp slanted "V"-shaped cutting tip; plastic cannulae have a dull round tip and four side holes. Preliminary observations demonstrated a difference in intradialytic blood flow images and mean Doppler velocities at cannulation sites between the two devices. Complications from mechanical and hemodynamic trauma requiring interventions were compared in each group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 33 patients (13 females and 17 new accesses) were randomized to metal group (n = 17) and plastic group (n = 16). Mechanical trauma was minimized by having five nurses performing ultrasound-guided cannulations. Complications were identified by the clinician and addressed by the interventionalists, both blinded to study participation. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not significant. Procedures to treat complications along cannulation segments increased from 0.41 to 1.29 per patient (metal group) and decreased from 1.25 to 0.69 per patient (plastic group; p = 0.004). The relative risks of having an intervention (relative risk = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-2.67) and having an infiltration during hemodialysis (relative risk = 2.26, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-4.97) were higher for metal needles. Time to first intervention trended in favor of plastic cannula (p = 0.069). Cost of supplies for these interventions was approximately CAD$20,000 lower for the plastic group. CONCLUSION: Decreased burden of illness related to cannulation (less infiltrations during hemodialysis) and Qb were associated with plastic cannulae. Decreased procedure costs were suggested during the study period in the plastic group.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the up-front use of balloon catheter dilation in the treatment of pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of pediatric sinusitis continues to be a controversial topic. It has been recommended to treat pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with adenoidectomy before proceeding to more invasive techniques. There are concerns regarding side effects of endoscopic sinus surgery in pediatric patients. With the advent of balloon catheter dilation (BCD) as a minimally invasive technique, some authors are recommending up front adenoidectomy with BCD in order to maximize disease resolution while minimizing risk. PURPOSE: Our study examines the cost effectiveness of adenoidectomy alone versus adenoidectomy and upfront BCD for the management of pediatric CRS. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was created to determine the cost effectiveness of treating a pediatric patient who has failed medical management, using adenoidectomy versus adenoidectomy with up-front BCD. Three separate decision trees were made. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each scenario and a sensitivity analysis was done to determine how different values impacted our results. RESULTS: Adenoidectomy as the sole first procedure was found to be more cost effective in all three decision trees. For tree 1, the adenoidectomy plus BCD arm was 0.03% more effective in the end, but with an $81, 431 incremental cost. CONCLUSIONS: Costs in addition to outcomes must be considered when comparing treatment modalities in our current health care environment. This study found that adenoidectomy as a first intervention before proceeding to more advanced techniques is nearly as effective and is a much more cost-effective algorithm for the treatment of pediatric CRS. However, the physician must advocate the best treatment for his or her own patients.

What is the most cost-effective method for a difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP?

No disponible

Pancreatitis post-CPRE: ¿precorte temprano o prótesis pancreática?. Ensayo aleatorizado, multicéntrico y análisis de costo-efectividad / Post-ERCP pancreatitis: early precut or pancreatic duct stent? A multicenter, randomized-controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introducción: la pancreatitis es la complicación más frecuente de la colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE). La colocación de una prótesis pancreática es una medida preventiva. Hay evidencias, también, sobre el efecto protector que tendría la realización de un precorte temprano en los casos con canulación difícil. Objetivo: determinar y comparar el coste-efectividad entre la realización de precorte temprano y colocación de una prótesis pancreática en la prevención de pancreatitis post-CPRE. Métodos: estudio piloto, prospectivo, aleatorizado, multicéntrico y análisis de coste-efectividad entre precorte temprano (grupo A) y prótesis pancreática (grupo B) en la prevención de pancreatitis en pacientes de alto riesgo. Se incluyeron pacientes con canulación biliar dificultosa y otros factores de riesgo de pancreatitis. Se analizaron la efectividad y el coste de los procedimientos y sus complicaciones. Resultados: durante dos años se incluyeron 101 pacientes y se aleatorizaron 50 sujetos en el grupo de precorte y 51 sujetos en el grupo de prótesis. No hubo diferencias en las características demográficas de los participantes ni en las indicaciones del estudio. Se registraron dos pancreatitis leves en cada grupo. El coste fue de 1.242,6$ por paciente en el grupo A y 1.606,5$ por paciente en el grupo B. El coste del grupo B fue un 29,3% mayor (p < 0,0001). Conclusiones: el precorte temprano es más coste-eficaz que la prótesis pancreática en la prevención de pancreatitis post-CPRE (AU)

Background: Pancreatitis is the most frequent complication due to ERCP. Pancreatic duct stent placement has been described as a preventive measure. There is also evidence pointing towards the preventive effect that early precut may provide. Aim: To determine and compare the cost-effectiveness of an early precut approach versus pancreatic duct stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized-controlled pilot study with a cost-effectiveness analysis performed between early precut (group A) and pancreatic duct stent (group B) for the prevention of pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Patients with a difficult biliary cannulation and at least one other risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis were enrolled and randomized to one of the treatment arms. Both effectiveness and costs of the procedures and their complications were analyzed and compared. Results: From November 2011 to November 2013, 101 patients were enrolled; 50 subjects were assigned to group A and 51 to group B. There were no significant differences in terms of baseline characteristics of patients between groups. Two cases of mild pancreatitis were observed in each group. The overall costs were U$ 1,242.6 per patient in group A and U$ 1,606.5 per patient in group B. The cost in group B was 29.3% higher (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Early precut showed a better cost-effectiveness profile when compared to pancreatic duct stent placement (AU)

Post-ERCP pancreatitis: early precut or pancreatic duct stent? A multicenter, randomized-controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is the most frequent complication due to ERCP. Pancreatic duct stent placement has been described as a preventive measure. There is also evidence pointing towards the preventive effect that early precut may provide. AIM: To determine and compare the cost-effectiveness of an early precut approach versus pancreatic duct stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized-controlled pilot study with a cost-effectiveness analysis performed between early precut (group A) and pancreatic duct stent (group B) for the prevention of pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Patients with a difficult biliary cannulation and at least one other risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis were enrolled and randomized to one of the treatment arms. Both effectiveness and costs of the procedures and their complications were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: From November 2011 to November 2013, 101 patients were enrolled; 50 subjects were assigned to group A and 51 to group B. There were no significant differences in terms of baseline characteristics of patients between groups. Two cases of mild pancreatitis were observed in each group. The overall costs were U$ 1,242.6 per patient in group A and U$ 1,606.5 per patient in group B. The cost in group B was 29.3% higher (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Early precut showed a better cost-effectiveness profile when compared to pancreatic duct stent placement.

A randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of early cannulation arteriovenous grafts versus tunneled central venous catheters in patients requiring urgent vascular access for hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ecAVGs) are proposed as an alternative to tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) in patients requiring immediate vascular access for hemodialysis (HD). We compared bacteremia rates in patients treated with ecAVG and TCVC. METHODS: The study randomized 121 adult patients requiring urgent vascular access for HD in a 1:1 fashion to receive an ecAVG with or without (+/-) an arteriovenous fistula (AVF; n = 60) or TCVC+/-AVF (n = 61). Patients were excluded if they had active systemic sepsis, no anatomically suitable vessels, or an anticipated life expectancy <3 months. The primary end point was the culture-proven bacteremia rate at 6 months, with the trial powered to detect a reduction in bacteremia from 24% to 5% (α = .05, ß = .8). Secondary end points included thrombosis, reintervention, and mortality. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Culture-proven bacteremia developed in 10 patients (16.4%) in the TCVC arm ≤6 months compared with two (3.3%) in the ecAVG+/-AVF arm (risk ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.56; P = .02). Mortality was also higher in the TCVC+/-AVF cohort (16% [n = 10] vs 5% [n = 3]; risk ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45; P = .04). The difference in treatment cost between the two arms was not significant (£11,393 vs £9692; P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TCVC+/-AVF, a strategy of ecAVG+/-AVF reduced the rate of culture-proven bacteremia and mortality in patients requiring urgent vascular access for HD. The strategy also proved to be cost-neutral.

What is the most cost-effective method for a difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP?

Editorial dealing with difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP. Pancreatic techniques that take advantage of a guidewire inserted in the Main Pancreatic Duct are preferred to needle-knife precut.

The financial impact of flipping the coin.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal foreign body retrieval is typically performed by rigid or flexible esophagoscopy. Despite evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of balloon extraction, it is rarely performed. We sought to establish the financial benefits of this minimally invasive approach. METHODS: A retrospective review of 241 children with esophageal coins between 2011 and 2013 was performed. Coins were removed via endoscopy or fluoroscopic-guided balloon retrieval. Timing, symptoms, facility cost, and patient charges were compared. RESULTS: Two hundred patients had attempted balloon retrieval with 80% success. Forty-one patients went directly for operative removal. Patients with respiratory difficulty (p=0.05), wheezing (p<0.01), or fever (p=0.03) were more often taken directly for endoscopic retrieval. The median cost and charges for attempted balloon extraction were $484 and $1647. The median cost and charges for primary endoscopy were $1834 and $6746. The median total cost and charges of attempted balloon extraction including ED, OR, transport, admission, and balloon retrieval were $1231 and $3539 versus $3615 and $12,204 in the primary endoscopy group (p<0.001, p<0.001). Seventeen percent of patients who underwent attempted balloon retrieval were admitted prior to removal compared to 76% who underwent primary endoscopy (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopic guided balloon extraction of esophageal coins is a financially prudent choice which shortens hospital stay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective treatment and economic study.