Neehar D Parikh1, Kyle Zanocco, Rajesh N Keswani, Andrew J Gawron. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Center for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: n-parikh@fsm.northwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Delayed bleeding after lower endoscopy and polypectomy can cause significant morbidity. One strategy to reduce bleeding is to place an endoscopic clip on the polypectomy site. We used decision analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of routine clip placement after colon polypectomy. METHODS: Probabilities and plausible ranges were obtained from the literature, and a decision analysis was conducted by using TreeAge Pro 2011 Software. Our cost-effectiveness threshold was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The reference case was a 50-year-old patient who had a single 1.0- to 1.5-cm polyp removed during colonoscopy. We estimated postpolypectomy bleeding rates for patients receiving no medications, those with planned resumption of antiplatelet therapy (nonaspirin), or those receiving anticoagulation therapy after polypectomy. We performed several sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of a clip and hospitalization, number of clips placed, clip effectiveness in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding, reduction in patient utility days related to gastrointestinal bleeding, and probability of harm from clip placement. RESULTS: On the basis of the reference case, when patients did not receive anticoagulation therapy, clip placement was not cost-effective. However, for patients who did receive anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies, prophylactic clip placement was a cost-effective strategy. The cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic clip strategy was sensitive to the costs of clips and hospitalization, number of clips placed, and clip effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a prophylactic endoscopic clip after polypectomy appears to be a cost-effective strategy for patients who receive antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. This approach should be studied in a controlled trial.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Delayed bleeding after lower endoscopy and polypectomy can cause significant morbidity. One strategy to reduce bleeding is to place an endoscopic clip on the polypectomy site. We used decision analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of routine clip placement after colon polypectomy. METHODS: Probabilities and plausible ranges were obtained from the literature, and a decision analysis was conducted by using TreeAge Pro 2011 Software. Our cost-effectiveness threshold was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The reference case was a 50-year-old patient who had a single 1.0- to 1.5-cm polyp removed during colonoscopy. We estimated postpolypectomy bleeding rates for patients receiving no medications, those with planned resumption of antiplatelet therapy (nonaspirin), or those receiving anticoagulation therapy after polypectomy. We performed several sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of a clip and hospitalization, number of clips placed, clip effectiveness in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding, reduction in patient utility days related to gastrointestinal bleeding, and probability of harm from clip placement. RESULTS: On the basis of the reference case, when patients did not receive anticoagulation therapy, clip placement was not cost-effective. However, for patients who did receive anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies, prophylactic clip placement was a cost-effective strategy. The cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic clip strategy was sensitive to the costs of clips and hospitalization, number of clips placed, and clip effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a prophylactic endoscopic clip after polypectomy appears to be a cost-effective strategy for patients who receive antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. This approach should be studied in a controlled trial.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michelle A Anderson; Tamir Ben-Menachem; S Ian Gan; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Brooks D Cash; Laurel Fisher; M Edwyn Harrison; Robert D Fanelli; Norio Fukami; Steven O Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Khalid Khan; Mary Lee Krinsky; David R Lichtenstein; John T Maple; Bo Shen; Laura Strohmeyer; Todd Baron; Jason A Dominitz Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Craig A Munroe; Philip Lee; Andrew Copland; Kuan K Wu; Tonya Kaltenbach; Roy M Soetikno; Shai Friedland Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R Manta; F Tremolaterra; A Arezzo; M Verra; G Galloro; L Dioscoridi; F Pugliese; A Zullo; M Mutignani; G Bassotti Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick M Lynch; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Brian R Weston; Mala Pande; Robert S Bresalier; Asif Rashid; Lopa Mishra; Marta L Davila; John R Stroehlein Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Tiing Leong Ang; Jit Fong Lim; Tju Siang Chua; Kok Yang Tan; James Weiquan Li; Chern Hao Chong; Kok Ann Gwee; Vikneswaran S/O Namasivayam; Charles Kien Fong Vu; Christopher Jen Lock Khor; Lai Mun Wang; Khay Guan Yeoh Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.331
Authors: Arnaldo Amato; Franco Radaelli; Loredana Correale; Emilio Di Giulio; Andrea Buda; Vincenzo Cennamo; Lorenzo Fuccio; Massimo Devani; Ottaviano Tarantino; Giancarla Fiori; Germana De Nucci; Mario De Bellis; Cesare Hassan; Alessandro Repici Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 4.623