A single-institution experience with metallic ureteral stents: a cost-effective method of managing deficiencies in ureteral drainage.

INTRODUCTION: The limitations of traditional ureteral stents in patients with deficiencies in ureteral drainage have resulted in frequent stent exchanges. The implementation of metallic stents was introduced to improve the patency rates of patients with chronic upper urinary tract obstruction, obviating the need for frequent stent exchanges. We report our clinical experiences with the use of metallic ureteral stents in the management of poor ureteral drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients underwent metallic ureteral stent placement from 2009 to 2012. Stent failure was defined as an unplanned stent exchange, need for nephrostomy tube placement, increasing hydronephrosis with stent in place, or an elevation in serum creatinine. Stent life was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, as this was a time dependent continuous variable. A cost analysis was similarly conducted. RESULTS: A total of 97 metallic stents were placed among our cohort of patients: 63 in cases of malignant obstruction, 33 in the setting of cutaneous ureterostomies, and 1 in an ileal conduit urinary diversion. Overall, stent failure occurred in 8.2% of the stents placed. Median stent life was 288.4 days (95% CI: 277.4-321.2 days). The estimated annual cost for traditional polymer stents (exchanged every 90 days) was $9,648-$13,128, while the estimated cost for metallic stents was $4,211-$5,313. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that metallic ureteral stent placement is a technically feasible procedure with minimal complications and is well tolerated among patients. Metallic stents can be left in situ for longer durations and provide a significant financial benefit when compared to traditional polymer stents.

A Single-Institution Experience with Metallic Ureteral Stents: A Cost-Effective Method of Managing Deficiencies in Ureteral Drainage

IntroductionThe limitations of traditional ureteral stents in patients with deficiencies in ureteral drainage have resulted in frequent stent exchanges. The implementation of metallic stents was introduced to improve the patency rates of patients with chronic upper urinary tract obstruction, obviating the need for frequent stent exchanges. We report our clinical experiences with the use of metallic ureteral stents in the management of poor ureteral drainage.Materials and MethodsFifty patients underwent metallic ureteral stent placement from 2009 to 2012. Stent failure was defined as an unplanned stent exchange, need for nephrostomy tube placement, increasing hydronephrosis with stent in place, or an elevation in serum creatinine. Stent life was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, as this was a time dependent continuous variable. A cost analysis was similarly conducted.ResultsA total of 97 metallic stents were placed among our cohort of patients: 63 in cases of malignant obstruction, 33 in the setting of cutaneous ureterostomies, and 1 in an ileal conduit urinary diversion. Overall, stent failure occurred in 8.2% of the stents placed. Median stent life was 288.4 days (95% CI: 277.4-321.2 days). The estimated annual cost for traditional polymer stents (exchanged every 90 days) was $9,648-$13,128, while the estimated cost for metallic stents was $4,211-$5,313.ConclusionOur results indicate that metallic ureteral stent placement is a technically feasible procedure with minimal complications and is well tolerated among patients. Metallic stents can be left in situ for longer durations and provide a significant financial benefit when compared to traditional polymer stents.

Randomized comparison of cost-saving and effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents with drug-eluting stents: three-year outcome from the randomized oral rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR) III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina (ORAR) III trial is a randomized study comparing a strategy of oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus a strategy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo coronary lesions. The purpose of this study was to assess the 3 years cost-effectiveness outcome of each strategy. BACKGROUND: OR after BMS has been associated with reduction of target vessel revascularization (TVR) although its value in long-term efficacy in comparison with DES is unknown. METHODS: In three hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 200 patients were randomized to OR plus BMS (n = 100) or DES (n = 100). Primary objectives were costs and effectiveness. Cost analysis included in-hospital and follow-up costs. Safety was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Efficacy was defined as TVR. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 3-year follow-up rate was 99%. Cardiac mortality was 2% and 5% in OR group and DES group, respectively (P = 0.44). The composite of death, MI and stroke rate was 11% in OR group and 20% in DES group (P = 0.078). TVR rate was 14.5% in OR group and 17.6% in DES group (P = 0.50), respectively. Three year cumulative costs were significantly lower in the OR arm as compared to the DES arm (P = 0.0001) and DES strategy did not result cost-effective according to the non-inferiority test. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years follow-up, there were no differences in effectiveness between the two strategies, and DES strategy was not more cost-effective as compared to OR plus BMS.