Christopher V Almario1,2,3, Folasade P May1,3,4, Nicholas J Shaheen5, Rekha Murthy6, Kapil Gupta2, Laith H Jamil2, Simon K Lo2, Brennan M R Spiegel1,2,4. 1. Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 6. Department of Hospital Epidemiology, Division of Infectious Diseases, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prior reports have linked patient transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE, or "superbug") to endoscopes used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a decision analysis to measure the cost-effectiveness of four competing strategies for CRE risk management. METHODS: We used decision analysis to calculate the cost-effectiveness of four approaches to reduce the risk of CRE transmission among patients presenting to the hospital for symptomatic common bile duct stones. The strategies included the following: (1) perform ERCP followed by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endoscope reprocessing procedures; (2) perform ERCP followed by "endoscope culture and hold"; (3) perform ERCP followed by ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization of the endoscope; and (4) stop performing ERCP in lieu of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with common bile duct exploration (CBDE). Our outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, ERCP with FDA-recommended endoscope reprocessing was the most cost-effective strategy. Both the ERCP with culture and hold ($4,228,170/QALY) and ERCP with EtO sterilization ($50,572,348/QALY) strategies had unacceptable incremental costs per QALY gained. LC with CBDE was dominated, being both more costly and marginally less effective vs. the alternatives. In sensitivity analysis, ERCP with culture and hold became the most cost-effective approach when the pretest probability of CRE exceeded 24%. CONCLUSIONS: In institutions with a low CRE prevalence, ERCP with FDA-recommended reprocessing is the most cost-effective approach for mitigating CRE transmission risk. Only in settings with an extremely high CRE prevalence did ERCP with culture and hold become cost-effective.
OBJECTIVES: Prior reports have linked patient transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE, or "superbug") to endoscopes used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a decision analysis to measure the cost-effectiveness of four competing strategies for CRE risk management. METHODS: We used decision analysis to calculate the cost-effectiveness of four approaches to reduce the risk of CRE transmission among patients presenting to the hospital for symptomatic common bile duct stones. The strategies included the following: (1) perform ERCP followed by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endoscope reprocessing procedures; (2) perform ERCP followed by "endoscope culture and hold"; (3) perform ERCP followed by ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization of the endoscope; and (4) stop performing ERCP in lieu of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with common bile duct exploration (CBDE). Our outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, ERCP with FDA-recommended endoscope reprocessing was the most cost-effective strategy. Both the ERCP with culture and hold ($4,228,170/QALY) and ERCP with EtO sterilization ($50,572,348/QALY) strategies had unacceptable incremental costs per QALY gained. LC with CBDE was dominated, being both more costly and marginally less effective vs. the alternatives. In sensitivity analysis, ERCP with culture and hold became the most cost-effective approach when the pretest probability of CRE exceeded 24%. CONCLUSIONS: In institutions with a low CRE prevalence, ERCP with FDA-recommended reprocessing is the most cost-effective approach for mitigating CRE transmission risk. Only in settings with an extremely high CRE prevalence did ERCP with culture and hold become cost-effective.
Authors: Zachary L Smith; Young S Oh; Kia Saeian; Charles E Edmiston; Abdul H Khan; Benson T Massey; Kulwinder S Dua Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Kristen A Wendorf; Meagan Kay; Christopher Baliga; Scott J Weissman; Michael Gluck; Punam Verma; Marisa D'Angeli; Jennifer Swoveland; Mi-Gyeong Kang; Kaye Eckmann; Andrew S Ross; Jeffrey Duchin Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: T Ducomble; S Faucheux; U Helbig; U X Kaisers; B König; A Knaust; C Lübbert; I Möller; A C Rodloff; B Schweickert; T Eckmanns Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Kirsten Howard; Sarah J Lord; Anthony Speer; Robert N Gibson; Robert Padbury; Brendon Kearney Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Robert A Fowler; Marya Hill-Popper; John Stasinos; Constantia Petrou; Gillian D Sanders; Alan M Garber Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Gheorghe G Balan; Catalin Victor Sfarti; Stefan Andrei Chiriac; Carol Stanciu; Anca Trifan Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Zachary L Smith; Arshish Dua; Kia Saeian; Nathan A Ledeboer; Mary Beth Graham; Murad Aburajab; Darren D Ballard; Abdul H Khan; Kulwinder S Dua Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Rahul Pannala; Bruce Baldwin; Vijay Aluru; Thomas E Grys; Jordan Holmes; Laurence J Miller; M Edwyn Harrison; Cuong C Nguyen; Fred C Tenover; David Persing; Douglas O Faigel Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2018-01-12
Authors: Beatrice Casini; Benedetta Tuvo; Emanuele Marciano; Giuliana Del Magro; Giulia Gemignani; Grazia Luchini; Maria Luisa Cristina; Anna Laura Costa; Guglielmo Arzilli; Michele Totaro; Angelo Baggiani; Gaetano Privitera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390