Xourafas D, Cloyd JM, Clancy TE, Pawlik TM, Ashley SW. Identifying Hospital Cost Savings Opportunities by Optimizing Surgical Approach for Distal Pancreatectomy.
J Gastrointest Surg 2019;
23:1172-1179. [PMID:
30334179 DOI:
10.1007/s11605-018-4002-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 10/04/2018] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The economic implications of relevant clinicopathologic factors on the surgical approach to distal pancreatectomy (DP) should be clearly defined and understood to potentially allow the implementation of cost reduction strategies.
METHODS
Administrative and clinical datasets of patients undergoing a DP between 2012 and 2016 were merged and queried. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify clinicopathologic predictors of cost differentials for minimally invasive DP (MIDP) relative to open DP (ODP). Time trends in cost were also assessed to identify opportunities for cost containment.
RESULTS
Among two hundred and twenty five patients, 128 underwent an ODP (57%) and 97 a MIDP (43%). The DP groups were comparable with regard to relevant perioperative and disease characteristics. Total hospitalization and total OR costs for MIDP were significantly lower (- 12%, P = 0.0048) and higher (+ 16%, P < 0.0001) respectively, compared to ODP. On univariate analysis, age > 60 (- 12%, P = 0.0262), BMI > 25 (- 10%, P = 0.0222), ASA class ≥ 3 (- 11%, P = 0.0045), OpTime > 230 min (- 16%, P = 0.0004), and T stage ≥ 3 (- 8%, P = 0.0452) were associated with decreased total costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Linear regression analysis revealed that BMI > 25 (Estimate - 0.31, SE 0.15, P = 0.0482), ASA class ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.36, SE 0.17, P = 0.0344), and T stage ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.57, SE 0.26, P = 0.0320) were associated with decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Overtime, total hospitalization cost for MIDP increased from - 21 to 1% (P = 0.0197), while OR costs for MIDP decreased from + 41% to - 2% (P = 0.0049), nearly equalizing the cost differences between ODP and MIDP.
CONCLUSIONS
Relevant clinicopathologic factors predicted decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP relative to ODP. In equivalent stages of disease, optimizing the surgical approach to DP based on specific clinicopathologic characteristics may afford significant cost-saving opportunities.
Collapse