Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items "characterizing heterogeneity," "assumptions," and "choice of model." CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

National cost study versus hospital cost accounting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group.

BACKGROUND: The choice of cost data sources is crucial, because it influences the results of cost studies, decisions of hospital managers and ultimately national directives of policy makers. The main objective of this study was to compare a hospital cost accounting system in a French hospital group and the national cost study (ENC) considering the cost of organ recovery procedures. The secondary objective was to compare these approaches to the weighting method used in the ENC to assess organ recovery costs. METHODS: The resources consumed during the hospital stay and organ recovery procedure were identified and quantified retrospectively from hospital discharge abstracts and the national discharge abstract database. Identified items were valued using hospital cost accounting, followed by 2010-2011 ENC data, and then weighted using 2010-2011 ENC data. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether at least two of the cost databases provided different results. Then, a Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the three cost databases. RESULTS: The costs assessed using hospital cost accounting differed significantly from those obtained using the ENC data (Mann-Whitney; P-value < 0.001). In the ENC, the mean costs for hospital stays and organ recovery procedures were determined to be €4961 (SD €7295) and €862 (SD €887), respectively, versus €12,074 (SD €6956) and €4311 (SD €1738) for the hospital cost accounting assessment. The use of a weighted methodology reduced the differences observed between these two data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Readers, hospital managers and decision makers must know the strengths and weaknesses of each database to interpret the results in an informed context.

Organ recovery cost assessment in the French healthcare system from 2007 to 2014.

Background: Organ recovery costs should be assessed to allow efficient and sustainable integration of these costs into national healthcare budgets and policies. These costs are of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. This study assessed organ recovery costs from 2007 to 2014 in the French healthcare system based on the national hospital discharge database and a national cost study. The secondary objective was to describe the variability in the population of deceased organ donors during this period. Methods: All stays for organ recovery in French hospitals between January 2007 and December 2014 were quantified from discharge abstracts and valued using a national cost study. Five cost evaluations were conducted to explore all aspects of organ recovery activities. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the methodological choice. Trends regarding organ recovery practices were assessed by monitoring indicators. Results: The analysis included 12 629 brain death donors, with 28 482 organs recovered. The mean cost of a hospital stay was €7469 (SD = €10, 894). The mean costs of separate kidney, liver, pancreas, intestine, heart, lung and heart-lung block recovery regardless of the organs recovered were €1432 (SD = €1342), €502 (SD = €782), €354 (SD = €475), €362 (SD = €1559), €542 (SD = €955), €977 (SD = €1196) and €737 (SD = €637), respectively. Despite a marginal increase in donors, the number of organs recovered increased primarily due to improved practices. Conclusion: Although cost management is the main challenge for successful organ recovery, other aspects such as organization modalities should be considered to improve organ availability.

Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group.

BACKGROUND: The costing method used can change the results of economic evaluations. Choosing the appropriate method to assess the cost of organ recovery is an issue of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to compare a mixed method, combining top-down microcosting and bottom-up microcosting versus full top-down microcosting to assess the cost of organ recovery in a French hospital group. The secondary objective was to describe the cost of kidney, liver and pancreas recovery from French databases using the mixed method. METHODS: The resources consumed for each donor were identified and valued using the proposed mixed method and compared to the full top-down microcosting approach. Data on kidney, liver and pancreas recovery were collected from a medico-administrative French database for the years 2010 and 2011. Related cost data were recovered from the hospital cost accounting system database for 2010 and 2011. Statistical significance was evaluated at P < 0.05. RESULTS: All the median costs for organ recovery differ significantly between the two costing methods (non-parametric test method; P < 0.01). Using the mixed method, the median cost for recovering kidneys was found to be €5155, liver recovery was €2528 and pancreas recovery was €1911. Using the full top-down microcosting method, median costs were found to be 21-36% lower than with the mixed method. CONCLUSION: The mixed method proposed appears to be a trade-off between feasibility and accuracy for the identification and valuation of cost components when calculating the cost of organ recovery in comparison to the full top-down microcosting approach.