Literature DB >> 29614262

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lumen-apposing metal stents with plastic stents in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis.

Yen-I Chen1, Alan N Barkun1, Viviane Adam1, Ge Bai2, Vikesh K Singh3, Majidah Bukhari4, Olaya Brewer Gutierrez3, B Joseph Elmunzer5, Robert Moran3, Lea Fayad3, Mohamad El Zein3, Vivek Kumbhari3, Alessandro Repici6, Mouen A Khashab3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided transmural drainage is effective in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). A lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed specifically for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections that shows promising results. However, no cost-effectiveness data have been published in comparison with endoscopic drainage with traditional plastic stents (PSs). Our aim here was to compare the cost-effectiveness of LAMSs to PSs in the management of WON.
METHODS: A decision tree was developed to assess both LAMSs and PSs over a 6-month time horizon. For each strategy, after the insertion of the respective stents, patients were followed for subsequent need for direct endoscopic necrosectomy, adverse events requiring unplanned endoscopy, percutaneous drainage (PCD), or surgery using probabilities obtained from the literature. The unit of effectiveness was defined as successful endoscopic drainage without the need for PCD or surgery. Costs in 2016 U.S.$ were based on inpatient institutional costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed. An a priori willingness-to-pay threshold of U.S.$50,000 was established.
RESULTS: LAMSs were found to be more efficacious than PSs, with 92% and 84%, respectively, of the patients achieving successful endoscopic drainage of WON. LAMSs, however, were more costly: the average cost per patient of U.S.$20,029 compared with U.S.$15,941 for PSs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored LAMSs at U.S.$49,214 per additional patient successfully treated. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.
CONCLUSION: LAMSs are more effective but also more costly than PSs in managing WON. Data from high-quality, adequately controlled, prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29614262     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  23 in total

1.  Multivariate analysis of the factors affecting the prognosis of walled-off pancreatic necrosis after endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage.

Authors:  Jintao Guo; Bowen Duan; Siyu Sun; Sheng Wang; Xiang Liu; Nan Ge; Wen Liu; Shupeng Wang; Jinlong Hu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Authors:  Armin Kuellmer; Juliane Behn; Benjamin Meier; Andreas Wannhoff; Dominik Bettinger; Robert Thimme; Karel Caca; Arthur Schmidt
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 4.623

3.  Cost effectiveness of endoscopic gallbladder drainage to treat acute cholecystitis in poor surgical candidates.

Authors:  Juan E Corral; Ananya Das; Paul T Krӧner; Victoria Gomez; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Management of pancreatic fluid collections.

Authors:  Dimpal Bhakta; Rabia de Latour; Lauren Khanna
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2022-04-25

5.  Peripancreatic fluid collections, plastic stents, and different sub-types of metal stents: Where does the evidence land?

Authors:  Abed Al Lehibi; Abdullah Al Jabri; Shahem Abbarh; Areej Al Balkhi; Nawwaf Al Otaibi; Thamer Almasoudi; Abdullah Al Mtawa; Adel AlGhamdi; Ahmad Al Eid; Ahmed Al Ghamdi; Abdullah Al Khathlan; Adel Qutub; Khalid Al Sayari; Shameem Ahmad
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.485

Review 6.  Are Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents More Effective Than Plastic Stents for the Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shali Tan; Chunyu Zhong; Yutang Ren; Xujuan Luo; Jin Xu; Yan Peng; Xiangsheng Fu; Xiaowei Tang
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 2.260

7.  Anchoring lumen-apposing metal stent with coaxial plastic stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: any benefit?

Authors:  Saad Emhmed Ali; Karim Benrajab; Houssam Mardini; Leon Su; Moamen Gabr; Wesam M Frandah
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-09-23

8.  Lumen-apposing metal stents versus biliary fully-covered metal stents for EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a case control study: Meeting presentations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ESGE Days 2018.

Authors:  Ana Garcia Garcia de Paredes; Juan Angel Gonzalez Martin; Jose Ramon Foruny Olcina; Diego Juzgado Lucas; Fernando Gonzalez Panizo; Sergio Lopez Duran; Alba Martinez Sanchez; Alfonso Sanjuanbenito; Alejandra Caminoa; Agustin Albillos; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2020-01-08

9.  Endoscopic full-thickness resection and its treatment alternatives in difficult-to-treat lesions of the lower gastrointestinal tract: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Armin Kuellmer; Juliane Behn; Torsten Beyna; Brigitte Schumacher; Alexander Meining; Helmut Messmann; Horst Neuhaus; David Albers; Michael Birk; Andreas Probst; Martin Faehndrich; Thomas Frieling; Martin Goetz; Robert Thimme; Karel Caca; Arthur Schmidt
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-08

Review 10.  Endoscopic Management of Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis: an Evidence-Based Approach.

Authors:  Lotte Boxhoorn; Paul Fockens; Marc G Besselink; Marco J Bruno; Jeanin E van Hooft; Robert C Verdonk; Rogier P Voermans
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.