2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early operative management in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: population‐based cost analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Adhesive small bowel obstruction (aSBO) is a potentially recurrent disease. Although non‐operative management is often successful, it is associated with greater risk of recurrence than operative intervention, and may have greater downstream morbidity and costs. This study aimed to compare the current standard of care, trial of non‐operative management (TNOM), and early operative management (EOM) for aSBO.

          Methods

          Patients admitted to hospital between 2005 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada, with their first episode of aSBO were identified and propensity‐matched on their likelihood to receive EOM for a cost–utility analysis using population‐based administrative data. Patients were followed for 5 years to determine survival, recurrences, adverse events and inpatient costs to the healthcare system. Utility scores were attributed to aSBO‐related events. Cost–utility was presented as the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as Canadian dollars per quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY).

          Results

          Some 25 150 patients were admitted for aSBO and 3174 (12·6 per cent) were managed by EOM. Patients managed by TNOM were more likely to experience recurrence of aSBO (20·9 per cent versus 13·2 per cent for EOM; P < 0·001). The lower recurrence rate associated with EOM contributed to an overall net effectiveness in terms of QALYs. The mean accumulated costs for patients managed with EOM exceeded those of TNOM ($17 951 versus $11 594 (€12 288 versus €7936) respectively; P < 0·001), but the ICER for EOM versus TNOM was $29 881 (€20 454) per QALY, suggesting cost‐effectiveness.

          Conclusion

          This retrospective study, based on administrative data, documented that EOM may be a cost‐effective approach for patients with aSBO in terms of QALYs. Future guidelines on the management of aSBO may also consider the long‐term outcomes and costs.

          Abstract

          This population‐based cost–utility analysis compared early operative management (EOM) for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) to the current standard of care of a trial of non‐operative management. Although EOM was more costly, it was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrence and reduced exposure to the morbidity and costs associated with multiple admissions for adhesive SBO. With longer follow‐up, EOM becomes increasingly cost‐effective, and crosses published willingness‐to‐pay thresholds within 5 years of the first admission.

          Early operative management in small bowel occlusion

          Translated abstract

          Antecedentes

          La oclusión de intestino delgado por adherencias ( adhesive small bowel obstruction, aSBO) es una enfermedad potencialmente recidivante. Aunque el tratamiento no quirúrgico es a menudo eficaz, se asocia con un mayor riesgo de recidiva que la intervención quirúrgica, y puede provocar más adelante morbilidad y costes. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar un Ensayo de Tratamiento No Quirúrgico ( Trial of Non‐operative Management, TNOM, el estándar actual de tratamiento) con Tratamiento Operatorio Precoz ( Early Operative Management, EOM) para el tratamiento de aSBO.

          Métodos

          Pacientes ingresados en el hospital entre 2005‐2014 en Ontario, Canadá con un primer episodio de aSBO fueron identificados y emparejados por puntaje de propensión respecto a la probabilidad de recibir EOM para un análisis de coste‐utilidad utilizando datos administrativos de base poblacional. Los pacientes fueron seguidos durante 5 años para determinar la supervivencia, recidivas, eventos adversos, y costes de la hospitalización para el sistema de salud. Las puntuaciones de utilidad se atribuyeron a los eventos relacionados con la aSBO. El coste‐utilidad se presentó como la razón costo efectividad incremental ( incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio, ICER) expresada como dólares por año de vida ajustado por calidad ( quality‐adjusted life‐year, QALY).

          Resultados

          Un total de 25.150 pacientes fueron ingresados por aSBO y 3.174 (12,6%) fueron tratados con EOM. Los pacientes tratados mediante TNOM tenían más probabilidades de presentar una recidiva de la aSBO (20,9% versus 13,2%, P < 0,0001). La menor incidencia de recidivas asociada con EOM contribuyó a una eficacia neta global en términos de QALYs. Mientras que los costes medios acumulados para los pacientes tratados con EOM superaron a los de TNOM ($17,951 versus $11,594, P < 0,0001), el ICER de EOM versus TNOM fue $29,881/QALY, lo que sugiere un coste‐eficacia de esta estrategia.

          Conclusión

          Este estudio retrospectivo basado en datos administrativos evidenció que EOM puede representar un abordaje coste‐efectivo para pacientes con aSBO en términos de QALYs. Las futuras guías clínicas para el tratamiento de la aSBO pueden también considerar los resultados a largo plazo y los costes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2017 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

          Background Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency, causing high morbidity and even some mortality. The adhesions causing such bowel obstructions are typically the footprints of previous abdominal surgical procedures. The present paper presents a revised version of the Bologna guidelines to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of ASBO. The working group has added paragraphs on prevention of ASBO and special patient groups. Methods The guideline was written under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery by the ASBO working group. A systematic literature search was performed prior to the update of the guidelines to identify relevant new papers on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of ASBO. Literature was critically appraised according to an evidence-based guideline development method. Final recommendations were approved by the workgroup, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusion. Recommendations Adhesion formation might be reduced by minimally invasive surgical techniques and the use of adhesion barriers. Non-operative treatment is effective in most patients with ASBO. Contraindications for non-operative treatment include peritonitis, strangulation, and ischemia. When the adhesive etiology of obstruction is unsure, or when contraindications for non-operative management might be present, CT is the diagnostic technique of choice. The principles of non-operative treatment are nil per os, naso-gastric, or long-tube decompression, and intravenous supplementation with fluids and electrolytes. When operative treatment is required, a laparoscopic approach may be beneficial for selected cases of simple ASBO. Younger patients have a higher lifetime risk for recurrent ASBO and might therefore benefit from application of adhesion barriers as both primary and secondary prevention. Discussion This guideline presents recommendations that can be used by surgeons who treat patients with ASBO. Scientific evidence for some aspects of ASBO management is scarce, in particular aspects relating to special patient groups. Results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for ASBO are awaited.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard.

            Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) provides a clear decision rule: undertake an intervention if the monetary value of its benefits exceed its costs. However, due to a reluctance to characterize health benefits in monetary terms, users of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses must rely on arbitrary standards (e.g., < $50,000 per QALY) to deem a program "cost-effective." Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the appropriate dollar value per QALY gained upon which to base resource allocation decisions. To address this, the authors determined the value of a QALY as implied by the value-of-life literature and compared this value with arbitrary thresholds for cost-effectiveness that have come into common use. A literature search identified 42 estimates of the value of life that were appropriate for inclusion. These estimates were classified by method: human capital (HK), contingent valuation (CV), revealed preference/job risk (RP-JR) and revealed preference/non-occupational safety (RP-S), and by U.S. or non-U.S. origin. After converting these value-of-life estimates to 1997 U.S. dollars, the life expectancy of the study population, age-specific QALY weights, and a 3% real discount rate were used to calculate the implied value of a QALY. An ordinary least-squares regression of the value of a QALY on study type and national origin explained 28.4% of the variance across studies. Most of the explained variance was attributable to study type; national origin did not significantly affect the values. Median values by study type were $24,777 (HK estimates), $93,402 (RP-S estimates), $161,305 (CV estimates), and $428,286 (RP-JR estimates). With the exception of HK, these far exceed the "rules of thumb" that are frequently used to determine whether an intervention produces an acceptable increase in health benefits in exchange for incremental expenditures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Small bowel obstruction: a population-based appraisal.

              Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common reason for surgical consultation, but little is known about the natural history of SBO. We performed a population-based analysis to evaluate SBO frequency, type of operation, and longterm outcomes. Using the California Inpatient File, we identified all patients admitted in 1997 with a diagnosis of SBO. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis of bowel obstruction in the previous 6 years (1991 to 1996). Of the remaining cohort, the natural history of SBO over the subsequent 5 years (1998 to 2002) was analyzed. Index hospitalization outcomes (eg, surgical versus nonsurgical management, length of stay, in-hospital mortality), and longterm outcomes, including SBO readmissions and 1-year mortality, were evaluated. We identified 32,583 patients with an index admission for SBO in 1997; 24% had surgery during the index admission. The distribution of surgical procedures was: 38% lysis of adhesions, 38% hernia repair, 18% small bowel resection with lysis of adhesions, and 6% small bowel resection with hernia repair. Patients who underwent operations during index admission had longer lengths of stay, lower mortality, fewer SBO readmissions, and longer time to readmission than patients treated nonsurgically. Regardless of treatment during the index admission, 81% of surviving patients had no additional SBO readmissions over the subsequent 5 years. Most of the 32,583 patients requiring admission for index SBO in 1997 were treated nonsurgically, and few of these patients were readmitted. This is the first longitudinal population-based analysis of SBO evaluating surgical versus nonsurgical management and outcomes, including mortality and readmissions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nicole.lookhong@sunnybrook.ca
                Journal
                BJS Open
                BJS Open
                10.1002/(ISSN)2474-9842
                BJS5
                BJS Open
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                2474-9842
                30 June 2020
                October 2020
                : 4
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/bjs5.v4.5 )
                : 914-923
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 2 ] Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 3 ] Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 4 ] Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto Ontario Canada
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Dr N. Look Hong, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, T2‐102, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada (e‐mail: nicole.lookhong@ 123456sunnybrook.ca ; @ramybehman, @injurydr, @paulkaranicolas, @jamesjungmd, @uoftsurgery, @icesontario)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2283-974X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2906-7682
                Article
                BJS550311
                10.1002/bjs5.50311
                7528511
                32603528
                3acd92a5-cd46-46d3-9977-44af3e1f1a26
                © 2020 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Journal of Surgery Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 December 2019
                : 11 May 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 10, Words: 5293
                Funding
                Funded by: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long‐Term Care , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100000226;
                Award ID: Clinician Investigator Program
                Funded by: Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100000241;
                Award ID: Resident Research Grant
                Categories
                General
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.1 mode:remove_FC converted:01.10.2020

                Comments

                Comment on this article