Daryl Ramai, Richard Nelson, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Andrew Ofosu, John C Fang
{"title":"Endoscopic ultrasound gastroenterostomy vs duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Cost-effectiveness study.","authors":"Daryl Ramai, Richard Nelson, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Andrew Ofosu, John C Fang","doi":"10.1055/a-2509-7671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Enteral stenting has been traditionally employed for managing malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, concerns regarding high reintervention rates have brought into question its cost-effectiveness. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) provides an alternative to luminal stenting. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of EUS-GE relative to duodenal stenting.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A decision analysis was performed to analyze costs and survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic GOO. The model was designed with two treatment arms: self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement and EUS-GE with LAMS. Costs were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates (US$) while effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Endoscopic stenting resulted in an average cost of $22,748 and 0.31 QALYs whereas EUS-GE cost $32,254 and yielded 0.53 QALYs, which yielded a difference of $9,507 in cost and 0.23 in QALY. EUS-GE was found to be a cost-effective strategy over duodenal stenting (ICER, $41994/QALY) at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. In 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, EUS-GE was favored 62% of the time. Using a tornado diagram, the model was most sensitive to the probability of mortality in patients with duodenal stents compared with EUS-GE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with malignant GOO, EUS-GE is a cost-effective palliative intervention compared with duodenal stenting.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25097671"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922303/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2509-7671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and study aims: Enteral stenting has been traditionally employed for managing malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, concerns regarding high reintervention rates have brought into question its cost-effectiveness. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) provides an alternative to luminal stenting. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of EUS-GE relative to duodenal stenting.
Patients and methods: A decision analysis was performed to analyze costs and survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic GOO. The model was designed with two treatment arms: self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement and EUS-GE with LAMS. Costs were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates (US$) while effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
Results: Endoscopic stenting resulted in an average cost of $22,748 and 0.31 QALYs whereas EUS-GE cost $32,254 and yielded 0.53 QALYs, which yielded a difference of $9,507 in cost and 0.23 in QALY. EUS-GE was found to be a cost-effective strategy over duodenal stenting (ICER, $41994/QALY) at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. In 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, EUS-GE was favored 62% of the time. Using a tornado diagram, the model was most sensitive to the probability of mortality in patients with duodenal stents compared with EUS-GE.
Conclusions: In patients with malignant GOO, EUS-GE is a cost-effective palliative intervention compared with duodenal stenting.