Cost Comparison of Treatment Alternatives for Pleural Effusion and Ascites from a Payer Perspective: Are There Cost Savings from Indwelling Catheters?

Background: The presence of pleural effusions and ascites in patients is often considered a marker of illness severity and a poor prognostic indicator. This study aims to compare inpatient and outpatient costs of alternative invasive treatments for ascites and pleural effusions. Methods: The retrospective single-institution study included inpatient cases treated for pleural effusion (J90 and J91) or ascites (R18) at the University Hospital Cologne (UHC) in Germany between January 01, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Costs for punctures and indwelling catheter systems (ICSs) as well as pleurodesis were analyzed in different comparator treatment pathways. Real-world data from the UHC tertiary care center were based on diagnosis-related group fees from 2020 to 2021. A simulation of outpatient expenses was carried out to compare inpatient and outpatient costs for each pathway from a payer perspective. Results: A total of 4323 cases (3396 pleural effusions and 1302 ascites) were analyzed. For ascites, inpatient implantation with home care drainage was found to be the most expensive option, with total costs of €1,918.58 per procedure, whereas outpatient puncture was the least expensive option at €60.02. For pleural effusions, the most expensive treatment pathway was pleurodesis at €8,867.84 compared with the least costly option of outpatient puncture resulting in total costs per procedure of €70.03. A break-even analysis showed that outpatient puncture remains the most inexpensive treatment option, and the ICS comprises a cost-saving potential. Longevity of several months with the use of ICSs results in both enhanced quality of life for patients and increased cost savings.

Indwelling pleural catheter versus talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) results from primary mesothelioma or the spreading of metastatic cancer. Both talc pleurodesis (TP) and indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) improve MPE symptoms. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of TP with that of IPC in patients with MPE. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for studies published before February 2020. Individual effect sizes were standardized, and a meta-analysis was conducted to calculate a pooled effect size by using random effects models. In total, 4 trials with 500 patients were reviewed. Difference in pleurodesis success rate and change in dyspnea scores at 4 and 6 weeks between MPE patients treated with IPC and those treated with TP for pleurodesis were nonsignificant. The number of hospital inpatient days was significantly lower among patients who were treated with IPC (weight mean difference: 2.19; 95% confidence interval 0.70-3.67) than among those who were treated with TP. No significant difference was shown in adverse event profile between patients treated with IPC and those treated with TP for pleurodesis. In conclusion, both TP and IPC are equally effective in treating patients with MPE. The number of hospitalization days was significantly lower for patients who were treated with IPC, but the magnitude of the difference is of uncertain clinical importance.

Talc pleurodesis versus indwelling pleural catheter among patients with malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Talc pleurodesis (TP) and indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) are used for the management of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Our meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of both treatments among patients with MPE.

METHODS

We acquired pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The endpoints included survival, pleurodesis rates, total drainage, further pleural interventions, hospital days, symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and complications.

RESULTS

We included four high-quality RCTs. Both treatments were effective among patients with MPE and no previous pleurodesis, with comparable survival and equivalent relief of breathlessness. Additionally, the TP group had higher pleurodesis rates, less total drainage, and fewer all-grade complications (including catheter blockage and cellulitis). However, patients in the TP group had more pleural procedures and relatively longer hospital stays. Additionally, no apparent difference was detected in QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

TP has better pleurodesis rates, less total drainage, and fewer all-grade complications. However, TP has more pleural procedures and is not feasible for patients with trapped lungs. IPC has fewer further pleural interventions and shorter hospital stays. However, IPC has the nuisance of long-term in situ draining.

Patient- and Hospital-Level Factors Associated With Readmission for Malignant Pleural Effusion

Purpose:

Readmission after hospitalization for malignant pleural effusion (MPE) may represent gaps in the quality of health care delivery. The goal of this study was to determine the frequency of 30-day readmission for MPE and identify clinical factors associated with rehospitalization.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective cohort of adults hospitalized for MPE from 2009 to 2011 was analyzed using an administrative database. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day readmission rate. Hierarchic mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to examine associations between patient- and hospital-level factors and 30-day readmission and assess variation in readmission rates across hospitals.

Results:

The 7-, 14-, 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmission rates for MPE were 16.1%, 25.9%, 38.3%, 52.5%, and 63.8%, respectively. The most common primary diagnoses for 30-day readmission were MPE (69.5%) and other clinical issues related to malignancy (21.1%). Clinical factors associated with 30-day readmission were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95), greater number of medical comorbidities (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.99), and having a do-not-resuscitate order (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.84). Hospitals in the 90th percentile were only 1.1 times more likely to have a 30-day readmission for MPE than those in the lowest 10th percentile (40.9% v 37%).

Conclusion:

Readmission for MPE is common and frequently results from progression of malignancy. Readmission rates were similar across all hospitals, suggesting they are unlikely to be mutable using conventional approaches to reduce rehospitalizations. Instead, interventions may need to focus on addressing care planning at the end of life.