Takehiro Tsuchiya1, Atsushi Sano. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Chigasaki Municipal Hospital, Chigasaki, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since rising medical costs currently represent a growing problem worldwide, finding cost-effective treatment options is important. In our hospital, outpatient treatment of pneumothorax using a thoracic vent began in December 2012. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test our hypothesis that outpatient treatment of pneumothorax with a thoracic vent can reduce medical expenses. METHODS: Patients were classified into four groups based on treatment: thoracic vent with or without surgery or conventional intercostal chest tube drainage with or without surgery. We compared mean medical expenses, duration of hospitalization and number of physician visits among these four groups. RESULTS: During a 2-year period, 65 patients were treated with a thoracic vent (36 patients) or conventional intercostal chest tube drainage (29 patients). Patients treated with a thoracic vent who underwent surgery had a shorter mean duration of hospitalization (5.0 ± 1.3 vs. 10.3 ± 3.4 days; p < 0.0001) and lower overall cost, at JPY 971,830.00 ± 81,291.80 (USD 10,400.40 ± 1,464.90) versus JPY 1,179,791.10 ± 198,383.10 (USD 13,888.90 ± 1,965.30; p < 0.0001) compared with conventional intercostal chest tube drainage. Nonsurgical patients treated with a thoracic vent had lower overall costs, at JPY 79,960.00 ± 25,643.60 (USD 890.10 ± 352.30) versus JPY 268,588.80 ± 94,636.50 (USD 2,932.80 ± 903.50; p < 0.0001) compared with conventional intercostal chest tube drainage. No serious complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient thoracic vent treatment can significantly reduce medical expenses and thereby have a major economic impact.
BACKGROUND: Since rising medical costs currently represent a growing problem worldwide, finding cost-effective treatment options is important. In our hospital, outpatient treatment of pneumothorax using a thoracic vent began in December 2012. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test our hypothesis that outpatient treatment of pneumothorax with a thoracic vent can reduce medical expenses. METHODS:Patients were classified into four groups based on treatment: thoracic vent with or without surgery or conventional intercostal chest tube drainage with or without surgery. We compared mean medical expenses, duration of hospitalization and number of physician visits among these four groups. RESULTS: During a 2-year period, 65 patients were treated with a thoracic vent (36 patients) or conventional intercostal chest tube drainage (29 patients). Patients treated with a thoracic vent who underwent surgery had a shorter mean duration of hospitalization (5.0 ± 1.3 vs. 10.3 ± 3.4 days; p < 0.0001) and lower overall cost, at JPY 971,830.00 ± 81,291.80 (USD 10,400.40 ± 1,464.90) versus JPY 1,179,791.10 ± 198,383.10 (USD 13,888.90 ± 1,965.30; p < 0.0001) compared with conventional intercostal chest tube drainage. Nonsurgical patients treated with a thoracic vent had lower overall costs, at JPY 79,960.00 ± 25,643.60 (USD 890.10 ± 352.30) versus JPY 268,588.80 ± 94,636.50 (USD 2,932.80 ± 903.50; p < 0.0001) compared with conventional intercostal chest tube drainage. No serious complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS:Outpatient thoracic vent treatment can significantly reduce medical expenses and thereby have a major economic impact.