Hospital Costs and Long-term Survival of Patients Enrolled in an Enhanced Recovery Program for Open Liver Resection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Chris N Jones, Ben L Morrison, Leigh Js Kelliher, Matthew Dickinson, Michael Scott, Claudia Cecconi Ebm, Nariman Karanjia, Nial Quiney
{"title":"Hospital Costs and Long-term Survival of Patients Enrolled in an Enhanced Recovery Program for Open Liver Resection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Chris N Jones,&nbsp;Ben L Morrison,&nbsp;Leigh Js Kelliher,&nbsp;Matthew Dickinson,&nbsp;Michael Scott,&nbsp;Claudia Cecconi Ebm,&nbsp;Nariman Karanjia,&nbsp;Nial Quiney","doi":"10.2196/16829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical benefits of enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been extensively researched, but few studies have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our ERP for open liver resection is based closely on the guidelines produced by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (2016). This study follows on from a previous randomized controlled trial. We also undertook a long-term follow-up of the patients enrolled in the original trial alongside an analysis of the associated health economics.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to undertake a health economic and long-term survival analysis as part of a trial investigating the implementation of an ERP for open liver resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The enhanced recovery elements utilized included extra preoperative education, carbohydrate loading, oral nutritional supplements, postresection goal-directed fluid therapy (LiDCOrapid), early mobilization, and physiotherapy (twice a day compared with once per day in the standard care group). A decision-analytic model was used to compare the study endpoints for ERP versus standard care provided to patients undergoing open liver resection. Outcomes obtained included costs per life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. A decision tree and Markov model were constructed using results from our earlier trial and augmented by external data from other published clinical trials. Long-term follow-up was also undertaken for up to 5 years after the surgery, and data were analyzed to ascertain if the ERP conferred any benefit on long-term survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients receiving ERP had an average life expectancy of 6.9 years versus 6.1 years in the standard care group. The overall costs were £9538.279 (£1=US $1.60) for ERP and £14,793.05 for standard treatment. This results in a cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6748.33/QALY. Patients receiving ERP required fewer visits to their general practitioner (P=.006) and required lesser help at home with day-to-day activities (P=.04) than patients in the standard care group. Survival was significantly improved at 2 years at 91% (42/46) for patients receiving ERP versus 73% (33/45) for the standard care group (P=.03). There was no statistically significant difference at 5 years after the surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ERPs for patients undergoing open liver resection can improve their medium-term survival and are cost-effective for both hospital and community settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73557,"journal":{"name":"JMIR perioperative medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":"e16829"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7884210/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR perioperative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/16829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The clinical benefits of enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been extensively researched, but few studies have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our ERP for open liver resection is based closely on the guidelines produced by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (2016). This study follows on from a previous randomized controlled trial. We also undertook a long-term follow-up of the patients enrolled in the original trial alongside an analysis of the associated health economics.

Objective: We aimed to undertake a health economic and long-term survival analysis as part of a trial investigating the implementation of an ERP for open liver resection.

Methods: The enhanced recovery elements utilized included extra preoperative education, carbohydrate loading, oral nutritional supplements, postresection goal-directed fluid therapy (LiDCOrapid), early mobilization, and physiotherapy (twice a day compared with once per day in the standard care group). A decision-analytic model was used to compare the study endpoints for ERP versus standard care provided to patients undergoing open liver resection. Outcomes obtained included costs per life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. A decision tree and Markov model were constructed using results from our earlier trial and augmented by external data from other published clinical trials. Long-term follow-up was also undertaken for up to 5 years after the surgery, and data were analyzed to ascertain if the ERP conferred any benefit on long-term survival.

Results: Patients receiving ERP had an average life expectancy of 6.9 years versus 6.1 years in the standard care group. The overall costs were £9538.279 (£1=US $1.60) for ERP and £14,793.05 for standard treatment. This results in a cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6748.33/QALY. Patients receiving ERP required fewer visits to their general practitioner (P=.006) and required lesser help at home with day-to-day activities (P=.04) than patients in the standard care group. Survival was significantly improved at 2 years at 91% (42/46) for patients receiving ERP versus 73% (33/45) for the standard care group (P=.03). There was no statistically significant difference at 5 years after the surgery.

Conclusions: ERPs for patients undergoing open liver resection can improve their medium-term survival and are cost-effective for both hospital and community settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

住院费用和参加开放肝切除术增强恢复计划的患者的长期生存:前瞻性随机对照试验。
背景:增强恢复计划(erp)的临床效益已被广泛研究,但很少有研究评估其成本效益。我们开放肝切除术的ERP密切基于术后增强恢复协会(2016年)制定的指南。这项研究是在之前的随机对照试验的基础上进行的。我们还对参与最初试验的患者进行了长期随访,并对相关的卫生经济学进行了分析。目的:我们旨在进行健康经济和长期生存分析,作为调查开放式肝切除术实施ERP的试验的一部分。方法:使用的增强恢复要素包括术前额外教育、碳水化合物负荷、口服营养补充剂、术后定向液体治疗(LiDCOrapid)、早期活动和物理治疗(每天两次,而标准治疗组每天一次)。决策分析模型用于比较ERP与开放肝切除术患者提供的标准护理的研究终点。获得的结果包括获得的每生命年的成本。从联合王国国家保健服务的角度估计了资源使用和费用。决策树和马尔可夫模型是根据我们早期试验的结果构建的,并通过其他已发表的临床试验的外部数据进行了扩充。术后也进行了长达5年的长期随访,并分析数据以确定ERP是否对长期生存有任何益处。结果:接受ERP治疗的患者平均预期寿命为6.9年,而标准治疗组为6.1年。ERP的总费用为9538.279英镑(1英镑= 1.60美元),标准治疗的总费用为14793.05英镑。这导致成本效益比为- 6748.33英镑/QALY。与标准护理组相比,接受ERP治疗的患者需要更少的全科医生(P= 0.006)和更少的家庭日常活动帮助(P= 0.04)。接受ERP治疗的患者2年生存率显著提高,为91%(42/46),而标准治疗组为73% (33/45)(P=.03)。术后5年无统计学差异。结论:erp对开放性肝切除术患者可提高中期生存率,对医院和社区均具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信