Literature DB >> 16362476

National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores.

B K Poulose1, P G Arbogast, M D Holzman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two treatment options exist for choledocholithiasis (CDL): endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and common bile duct exploration (CBDE). Resource utilization measured by total in-hospital charges (THC) and length of stay (LOS) was compared using the propensity score (PS). In this study, PS was the probability that a patient received CBDE based on comorbidities and demographics. The power of this method lies in balancing groups on variables by PS, resulting in 90% bias reduction and improved inferential validity compared to traditional analytic techniques.
METHODS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients with CDL who had ERCP or CBDE were identified in the 2002 U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patients were ordered into five PS balanced strata. Mean THC, LOS, and estimated costs were compared. A linear regression model was used to estimate the contribution that LOS had on estimated costs. Monetary values were adjusted to 2004 dollars.
RESULTS: A total of 40,982 patients underwent LC with CDL in 2002; 27,739 had either ERCP (93%) or CBDE (7%). Mean age was 52.7 +/- 0.4 years, with 74% women. Mean THC were less for CBDE (25,200 dollars +/- 1,800 dollars) than for ERCP (29,900 dollars +/- 800 dollars, p < 0.05). Mean LOS was less for CBDE (4.9 +/- 0.2 days) than for ERCP (5.6 +/- 0.1 days, p < 0.05). PS adjusted analysis revealed an estimated overall cost savings of 4,500 dollars +/- 1,600 dollars and reduced LOS (0.6 +/- 0.2 days) per hospitalization for CBDE. Mean THC, LOS, and estimated costs across PS score balanced strata were generally higher in the ERCP group compared to the CBDE group. LOS contributed 53% to increased THC and 62% of estimated costs. A higher cumulative incidence of complications was evident with CBDE (0.5-4.6%) compared to ERCP (0.3-3.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this PS analysis, CBDE incurs less THC, reduces LOS, and has less estimated costs for CDL compared to ERCP. Furthermore, CBDE appears to be dramatically underutilized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16362476     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0235-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  18 in total

Review 1.  Invited commentary: propensity scores.

Authors:  M M Joffe; P R Rosenbaum
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Cost-effective management of common bile duct stones: a decision analysis of the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography, and laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

Authors:  D R Urbach; Y S Khajanchee; B A Jobe; B A Standage; P D Hansen; L L Swanstrom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  The case for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  George A Fielding
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2002

4.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  G Sgourakis; K Karaliotas
Journal:  Minerva Chir       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Bile duct stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a decision analysis to assess the roles of intraoperative cholangiography, EUS, and ERCP.

Authors:  A V Sahai; P D Mauldin; V Marsi; R H Hawes; B J Hoffman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy or common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  S C Stain; H Cohen; M Tsuishoysha; A J Donovan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones.

Authors:  M Rhodes; L Sussman; L Cohen; M P Lewis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-17       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  A M Paganini; F Feliciotti; M Guerrieri; A Tamburini; A De Sanctis; R Campagnacci; E Lezoche
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.878

9.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database.

Authors:  Ulrich Guller; Sheleika Hervey; Harriett Purves; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Eric D Peterson; Steve Eubanks; Ricardo Pietrobon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Prospective randomized trial comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by surgery with surgery alone in good risk patients with choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  R Kapoor; S P Kaushik; V A Saraswat; G Choudhuri; S S Sikora; R Saxena; V K Kapoor
Journal:  HPB Surg       Date:  1996
View more
  36 in total

1.  Development and evaluation of a laparoscopic common bile duct exploration simulator and procedural rating scale.

Authors:  Byron F Santos; Taylor J Reif; Nathaniel J Soper; Alexander P Nagle; Deborah M Rooney; Eric S Hungness
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Ahmed A ElGeidie; Gamal K ElEbidy; Yussef M Naeem
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery.

Authors:  D Wayne Overby; Keith N Apelgren; William Richardson; Robert Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Variations in the preoperative resources use and the practice pattern in Japanese cholecystectomy patients.

Authors:  Kazuaki Kuwabara; Shinya Matsuda; Kiyohide Fushimi; Koichi B Ishikawa; Hiromasa Horiguchi; Kenji Fujimori
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis concomitant with calculus of the left intrahepatic duct or abdominal adhesions.

Authors:  Yueqi Wang; Xiaobo Bo; Yaojie Wang; Min Li; Sheng Shen; Tao Suo; Hongtao Pan; Han Liu; Houbao Liu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Treatment of common bile duct stones discovered during cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Edward H Phillips; James Toouli; Henry A Pitt; Nathaniel J Soper
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-01-05       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a case-control study comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for a "laparoscopy-first" attitude with the outcome for sequential treatment (systematic endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy).

Authors:  Renato Costi; Antonio Mazzeo; Francesco Tartamella; Christine Manceau; Bernard Vacher; Alain Valverde
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-05-23       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration: the treatment of first choice for common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Faisal Hanif; Zubir Ahmed; M Abdel Samie; Ahmad H M Nassar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous upper abdominal operations.

Authors:  Keong Won Yun; Young Joon Ahn; Hae Won Lee; In Mok Jung; Jung Kee Chung; Seung Chul Heo; Ki-Tae Hwang; Hye Seong Ahn
Journal:  Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2012-11-30

10.  Clinical models are inaccurate in predicting bile duct stones in situ for patients with gallbladder.

Authors:  B Topal; S Fieuws; K Tomczyk; R Aerts; W Van Steenbergen; C Verslype; F Penninckx
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.