Andrew C Meltzer1, Michael J Ward2, Ian M Gralnek3, Jesse M Pines4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: ameltzer@mfa.gwu.edu. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Bruce and Ruth Rappaport Faculty Of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute Of Technology, GI Outcomes Unit, Department Of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage is a common presentation in hospital-based emergency departments (EDs). A novel diagnostic approach is to use video capsule endoscopy to directly visualize the upper GI tract and identify bleeding. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the relative costs and benefits of video capsule endoscopy compared to other strategies in low- to moderate-risk ED patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage. METHODS: We constructed a model using standard decision analysis software to examine the cost-effectiveness of 4 available strategies for a base-case patient who presents to the ED with either mild- or moderate-risk scenarios (by Glasgow-Blatchford Score) for requiring invasive hemostatic intervention (ie, endoscopic, surgical, etc) The 4 available diagnostic strategies were (1) direct imaging with video capsule endoscopy performed in the ED; (2) risk stratification using the Glasgow-Blatchford score; (3) nasogastric tube placement; and, finally, (4) an admit-all strategy. RESULTS: In the low-risk scenario, video capsule endoscopy was the preferred strategy (cost $5691, 14.69 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and was more cost-effective than the remaining strategies including nasogastric tube strategy (cost $8159, 14.69 QALYs), risk stratification strategy (cost $10,695, 14.69 QALYs), and admit-all strategy (cost $22,766, 14.68 QALYs). In the moderate-risk scenario, video capsule endoscopy continued to be the preferred strategy (cost $9190, 14.56 QALYs) compared to nasogastric tube (cost $9487, 14.58 QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $15,891) and more cost effective than admit-all strategy (cost, $22,584, 14.54 QALYs.) CONCLUSION: Video capsule endoscopy may be cost-effective for low- and moderate-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute upper GI hemorrhage.
STUDY OBJECTIVE:Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage is a common presentation in hospital-based emergency departments (EDs). A novel diagnostic approach is to use video capsule endoscopy to directly visualize the upper GI tract and identify bleeding. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the relative costs and benefits of video capsule endoscopy compared to other strategies in low- to moderate-risk ED patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage. METHODS: We constructed a model using standard decision analysis software to examine the cost-effectiveness of 4 available strategies for a base-case patient who presents to the ED with either mild- or moderate-risk scenarios (by Glasgow-Blatchford Score) for requiring invasive hemostatic intervention (ie, endoscopic, surgical, etc) The 4 available diagnostic strategies were (1) direct imaging with video capsule endoscopy performed in the ED; (2) risk stratification using the Glasgow-Blatchford score; (3) nasogastric tube placement; and, finally, (4) an admit-all strategy. RESULTS: In the low-risk scenario, video capsule endoscopy was the preferred strategy (cost $5691, 14.69 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and was more cost-effective than the remaining strategies including nasogastric tube strategy (cost $8159, 14.69 QALYs), risk stratification strategy (cost $10,695, 14.69 QALYs), and admit-all strategy (cost $22,766, 14.68 QALYs). In the moderate-risk scenario, video capsule endoscopy continued to be the preferred strategy (cost $9190, 14.56 QALYs) compared to nasogastric tube (cost $9487, 14.58 QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $15,891) and more cost effective than admit-all strategy (cost, $22,584, 14.54 QALYs.) CONCLUSION: Video capsule endoscopy may be cost-effective for low- and moderate-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute upper GI hemorrhage.
Authors: Moshe Rubin; Syed A Hussain; Albert Shalomov; Rafael A Cortes; Michael S Smith; Sang H Kim Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: A J Stanley; D Ashley; H R Dalton; C Mowat; D R Gaya; E Thompson; U Warshow; M Groome; A Cahill; G Benson; O Blatchford; W Murray Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Roberto de Franchis; Glenn M Eisen; Loren Laine; Inaki Fernandez-Urien; Juan Manuel Herrerias; Russell D Brown; Laurel Fisher; Hugo E Vargas; John Vargo; Julie Thompson; Rami Eliakim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Andrew C Meltzer; M Aamir Ali; Roderick B Kresiberg; Gayatri Patel; Jeff P Smith; Jesse M Pines; David E Fleischer Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Andrew C Meltzer; Alexander T Limkakeng; Nina T Gentile; Jincong Q Freeman; Nicole C Hall; Nataly Montano Vargas; David E Fleischer; Zubair Malik; Samuel J Kallus; Marie L Borum; Yan Ma; Anita B Kumar Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-10-25
Authors: Giuseppe Galloro; Mario Musella; Saverio Siciliano; Giovanna Berardi; Antonio Vitiello; Nunzio Velotti; Fernando Rizzello; Paolo Gionchetti; Carlo Calabrese Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-02-15
Authors: Joseph Jy Sung; Philip Wy Chiu; Francis K L Chan; James Yw Lau; Khean-Lee Goh; Lawrence Hy Ho; Hwoon-Young Jung; Jose D Sollano; Takuji Gotoda; Nageshwar Reddy; Rajvinder Singh; Kentaro Sugano; Kai-Chun Wu; Chun-Yin Wu; David J Bjorkman; Dennis M Jensen; Ernst J Kuipers; Angel Lanas Journal: Gut Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 23.059