Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe. Material and methods: A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.
Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe. Material and methods: A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.
Authors: Anne F Peery; Nicholas J Shaheen; Katherine S Cools; Todd H Baron; Mark Koruda; Joseph A Galanko; Ian S Grimm Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ryan Law; Ananya Das; Dyanna Gregory; Srinadh Komanduri; Raman Muthusamy; Amit Rastogi; John Vargo; Michael B Wallace; G S Raju; Rawad Mounzer; Jason Klapman; Janak Shah; Rabindra Watson; Robert Wilson; Steven A Edmundowicz; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael P Swan; Michael J Bourke; Sina Alexander; Alan Moss; Stephen J Williams Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-09-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: D Chamil Codipilly; Lovekirat Dhaliwal; Meher Oberoi; Parth Gandhi; Michele L Johnson; Ramona M Lansing; W Scott Harmsen; Kenneth K Wang; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 11.382