Peggy A Norton1, Charles W Nager2,3, Linda Brubaker4, Gary E Lemack5, Larry T Sirls6, Robert Holley7, Toby C Chai8, Stephen R Kraus9, Halina Zyczynski10, Bridget Smith4, Anne Stoddard11. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. University of California, San Diego, California. 3. Kaiser Permanente Southern California, San Diego, California. 4. Stritch School of Medicine Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 6. William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. 7. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 8. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 9. University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas. 10. University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11. New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts.
Abstract
AIMS: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are generally recommended prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), despite insufficient evidence that it impacts treatment plans or outcomes in patients with uncomplicated SUI. This analysis aimed to calculate the cost incurred when UDS was performed as a supplement to a basic office evaluation and to extrapolate the potential savings of not doing UDS in this patient population on a national basis. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from the Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) trial, a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial to determine whether a basic office evaluation (OE) is non-inferior in terms of SUI surgery outcomes to office evaluation with addition of urodynamic studies (UDS). All participants underwent an OE; those patients who randomized to supplementary UDS underwent non-instrumented uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and a pressure flow study. Costs associated with UDS were calculated using 2014 U.S. Medicare allowable fees. Models using various patient populations and payor mixes were created to obtain a range of potential costs of performing UDS in patients undergoing SUI surgery annually in the United States. RESULTS:Six hundred thirty women were randomized to OE or OE plus UDS. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between the two groups. The per patient cost of UDS varied from site to site, and included complex cystometrogram $314-$343 (CPT codes 51728-51729) plus complex uroflowmetry $16 (CPT code 51741). Extrapolating these costs for US women similar to our study population, 13-33 million US dollars could be saved annually by not performing preoperative urodynamics. CONCLUSION: For women with uncomplicated SUI and a confirmatory preoperative basic office evaluation, tens of millions of dollars US could be saved annually by not performing urodynamic testing. In the management of such women, eliminating this preoperative test has a major economic benefit.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are generally recommended prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), despite insufficient evidence that it impacts treatment plans or outcomes in patients with uncomplicated SUI. This analysis aimed to calculate the cost incurred when UDS was performed as a supplement to a basic office evaluation and to extrapolate the potential savings of not doing UDS in this patient population on a national basis. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from the Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) trial, a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial to determine whether a basic office evaluation (OE) is non-inferior in terms of SUI surgery outcomes to office evaluation with addition of urodynamic studies (UDS). All participants underwent an OE; those patients who randomized to supplementary UDS underwent non-instrumented uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and a pressure flow study. Costs associated with UDS were calculated using 2014 U.S. Medicare allowable fees. Models using various patient populations and payor mixes were created to obtain a range of potential costs of performing UDS in patients undergoing SUI surgery annually in the United States. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty women were randomized to OE or OE plus UDS. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between the two groups. The per patient cost of UDS varied from site to site, and included complex cystometrogram $314-$343 (CPT codes 51728-51729) plus complex uroflowmetry $16 (CPT code 51741). Extrapolating these costs for US women similar to our study population, 13-33 million US dollars could be saved annually by not performing preoperative urodynamics. CONCLUSION: For women with uncomplicated SUI and a confirmatory preoperative basic office evaluation, tens of millions of dollars US could be saved annually by not performing urodynamic testing. In the management of such women, eliminating this preoperative test has a major economic benefit.
Authors: P Abrams; K E Andersson; L Birder; L Brubaker; L Cardozo; C Chapple; A Cottenden; W Davila; D de Ridder; R Dmochowski; M Drake; C Dubeau; C Fry; P Hanno; J Hay Smith; S Herschorn; G Hosker; C Kelleher; H Koelbl; S Khoury; R Madoff; I Milsom; K Moore; D Newman; V Nitti; C Norton; I Nygaard; C Payne; A Smith; D Staskin; S Tekgul; J Thuroff; A Tubaro; D Vodusek; A Wein; J J Wyndaele Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Heather J Litman; Halina M Zyczynski; R Edward Varner; Cindy Amundsen; Larry T Sirls; Peggy A Norton; Amy M Arisco; Toby C Chai; Philippe Zimmern; Matthew D Barber; Kimberly J Dandreo; Shawn A Menefee; Kimberly Kenton; Jerry Lowder; Holly E Richter; Salil Khandwala; Ingrid Nygaard; Stephen R Kraus; Harry W Johnson; Gary E Lemack; Marina Mihova; Michael E Albo; Elizabeth Mueller; Gary Sutkin; Tracey S Wilson; Yvonne Hsu; Thomas A Rozanski; Leslie M Rickey; David Rahn; Sharon Tennstedt; John W Kusek; E Ann Gormley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Christian Winters; Roger R Dmochowski; Howard B Goldman; C D Anthony Herndon; Kathleen C Kobashi; Stephen R Kraus; Gary E Lemack; Victor W Nitti; Eric S Rovner; Alan J Wein Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Charles W Nager; MaryPat FitzGerald; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Halina Zyczynski; Larry Sirls; Gary E Lemack; L Keith Lloyd; Heather J Litman; Anne M Stoddard; Jan Baker; William Steers Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Larry T Sirls; Holly E Richter; Heather J Litman; Kimberly Kenton; Gary E Lemack; Emily S Lukacz; Stephen R Kraus; Howard B Goldman; Alison Weidner; Leslie Rickey; Peggy Norton; Halina M Zyczynski; John W Kusek Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul Hilton; Andy Bryant; Denise Howel; Elaine McColl; Brian S Buckley; Malcolm Lucas; Douglas G Tincello; Natalie Armstrong Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Benjamin Abelson; Steve Majerus; Daniel Sun; Bradley C Gill; Eboo Versi; Margot S Damaser Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 14.432