Literature DB >> 1904378

Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy versus cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones.

E B Bass1, E P Steinberg, H A Pitt, G P Saba, K D Lillemoe, D R Kafonek, T R Gadacz, T A Gordon, G F Anderson.   

Abstract

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs. cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones, a model was constructed that projects charges and survival for both treatments. For a 45-year-old woman with one small stone, treatment with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy rather than cholecystectomy is projected to result in an average gain of only 3 days of life and an average increase in direct medical charges of $1729 over 5 years of follow-up. The resulting marginal cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs. cholecystectomy is $216,000 of extra charges per year of life gained with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy is projected to be much more cost-effective for elderly than for young patients (10-20-fold difference), but considerably less cost-effective for multiple stones than a single stone (2-4-fold difference), and less cost-effective for women than men (twofold difference). Adjusting for effects of morbidity on quality of life, extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy is projected to have slightly better quality-adjusted survival than cholecystectomy for the small subset of patients with one stone (by 8 to 43 days at 5 years) but not for young patients with multiple stones. It is concluded that decisions about appropriate use of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy should consider the effects of patient characteristics on clinical and economic outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1904378     DOI: 10.1016/0016-5085(91)90477-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  5 in total

Review 1.  Health-related quality of life among patients with gallstone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of EQ-5D utility scores.

Authors:  Y ArpithaAnbu Deborah; Madhumitha Haridoss; Meenakumari Natarajan; Vasna Joshua; Bhavani Shankara Bagepally
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016.

Authors:  Susumu Tazuma; Michiaki Unno; Yoshinori Igarashi; Kazuo Inui; Kazuhisa Uchiyama; Masahiro Kai; Toshio Tsuyuguchi; Hiroyuki Maguchi; Toshiyuki Mori; Koji Yamaguchi; Shomei Ryozawa; Yuji Nimura; Naotaka Fujita; Keiichi Kubota; Junichi Shoda; Masami Tabata; Tetsuya Mine; Kentaro Sugano; Mamoru Watanabe; Tooru Shimosegawa
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 7.527

3.  Open cholecystectomy. A contemporary analysis of 42,474 patients.

Authors:  J J Roslyn; G S Binns; E F Hughes; K Saunders-Kirkwood; M J Zinner; J A Cates
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Symptomatic gallbladder stones. Cost-effectiveness of treatment with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P M Go; M F Stolk; H Obertop; C Dirksen; D H van der Elst; A Ament; K J van Erpecum; G P van Berge Henegouwen; D J Gouma
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Incremental net benefit of cholecystectomy compared with alternative treatments in people with gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies.

Authors:  Bhavani Shankara Bagepally; S Sajith Kumar; Meenakumari Natarajan; Akhil Sasidharan
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.