Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial nonoperative management versus emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for acute complicated appendicitis

Economic Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review

Background and Aims

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a prevalent cause of lower abdominal pain, often leading patients to seek emergency department care, particularly among young individuals. The present study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness studies focusing on therapeutic interventions for AA.

Method

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed economic evaluations of AA treatments published between 2000 and 2020. We searched multiple databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The studies included in this review were assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist, and cost data were standardized to 2022 US dollars.

Results

Out of the 53 screened studies, 11 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies' average QHES score was of high quality (0.87). Most studies were from the payer's perspective and the health system (four studies each). Five studies were based on the decision tree model, and three were based on the Markov model. Four studies were conducted on children. Of the 11 studies reviewed, five support the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy, five support the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic therapy, and one supports the cost-effectiveness of open appendectomy.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, laparoscopic therapeutic intervention, compared to open appendectomy, can be more cost-effective for the treatment of patients with AA.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients with Acute Appendicitis: An Update Using Real-World Data from a Large Province in China

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the factors influencing hospitalization costs for patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis in China.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from Provincial Health Statistics Support System Database from S Province in China. This dataset contained all hospital's electronic medical records from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018 including both public and private hospitals. The target population was identified based on the principal diagnosis of appendicitis (ICD-10: K35). To examine the impact of various factors on hospitalization costs, we conducted a multivariate linear regression analysis. Furthermore, we employed the Shapley value decomposition method to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influenced hospitalization costs and their respective levels of importance.

Results

Our study comprised 317,200 cases. During the period from 2015 to 2018, the average hospitalization expenses for patients with acute appendicitis were estimated at approximately 7014 RMB (1061 USD), which accounts for a considerable 12% of China's per capita GDP. The results of this study demonstrate a significant correlation between various factors, such as the patient's age, gender, marital status, occupation, payment method, number of complications, treatment method, hospital tier, and ownership, and the total hospitalization costs and subcomponents of hospitalization costs. Notably, the treatment method employed had the most substantial impact on hospitalization costs.

Conclusion

To the best of knowledge, this is one of the first studies to investigate the hospitalization costs of acute appendicitis incorporating both patient-level and hospital-level covariates, using a large sample size. To reduce the costs associated with acute appendicitis in China, it is recommended to consider suitable treatment options and explore the option of receiving medical care at lower-tier and privately-owned healthcare facilities.

Comparison of treatment methods in plastron appendicitis: a tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND

It is controversial which treatment method is superior in plastron appendicitis and the research is still going on. The aim of this study is to compare treatment methods for plastron appendicitis in the adult population with our experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 92 patients who were diagnosed with plastron appendicitis in university hospital between 2015 and 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Data were taken from the hospital database. The patients were divided into three groups: those treated with primary surgery, with interval appendectomy and only with conservative method.

RESULTS

Interval appendectomy resulted in a lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to primary surgery, shorter operative time, and lower complication rates. Surgical procedures were found to be superior in detecting neoplasms compared to conservative treatment. After conservative treatment, one of three patients was retreated with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

In plastron appendicitis, routine interval appendectomy can be performed due to its advantages over other treatments such as the frequency of attacks after conservative treatment, the risk of the tumor being overlooked in conservative treatment, and the high rate of complications and conversion to open surgery in the primary surgery group.

Nonoperative Management Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis in the pediatric population is highly debated with uncertain cost-effectiveness. We performed a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis of NOM versus early laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis in children.

METHODS

We created a decision tree model for a simulated cohort of 49,000 patients, the number of uncomplicated appendectomies performed annually, comparing NOM and LA. We included postoperative complications, recurrent appendicitis, and antibiotic-related complications. We used the payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon. Model uncertainty was analyzed using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Event probabilities, health-state utilities, and costs were obtained from literature review, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and Medicare fee schedules.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, NOM costs $6530/patient and LA costs $9278/patient on average at 1 y. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) differences minimally favored NOM compared to LA with 0.997 versus 0.996 QALYs/patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NOM over LA was $4,791,149.52/QALY. NOM was dominant in 97.4% of simulations, outperforming in cost and QALYs. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed NOM was 99.6% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrates that NOM is a dominant strategy to LA over a 1-year horizon. We use recent trial data demonstrating higher rates of early and late NOM failures. However, we also incorporate a shorter length of index hospitalizations with NOM, reflecting a contemporary approach to NOM and ultimately driving cost-effectiveness. Long-term follow-up data are needed in this population to assess the cost-effectiveness of NOM over longer time horizons, where healthcare utilization and recurrence rates may be higher.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emergency surgery for adult emergency hospital admissions with common acute gastrointestinal conditions: the ESORT study

Background

Evidence is required on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emergency surgery compared with non-emergency surgery strategies (including medical management, non-surgical procedures and elective surgery) for patients admitted to hospital with common acute gastrointestinal conditions.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the relative (1) clinical effectiveness of two strategies (i.e. emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies) for five common acute conditions presenting as emergency admissions; (2) cost-effectiveness for five common acute conditions presenting as emergency admissions; and (3) clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies for specific patient subgroups.

Methods

The records of adults admitted as emergencies with acute appendicitis, cholelithiasis, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia or intestinal obstruction to 175 acute hospitals in England between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2019 were extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics and linked to mortality data from the Office for National Statistics. Eligibility was determined using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis codes, which were agreed by clinical panel consensus. Patients having emergency surgery were identified from Office of Population Censuses and Surveys procedure codes. The study addressed the potential for unmeasured confounding with an instrumental variable design. The instrumental variable was each hospital’s propensity to use emergency surgery compared with non-emergency surgery strategies. The primary outcome was the ‘number of days alive and out of hospital’ at 90 days. We reported the relative effectiveness of the alternative strategies overall, and for prespecified subgroups (i.e. age, number of comorbidities and frailty level). The cost-effectiveness analyses used resource use and mortality from the linked data to derive estimates of incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years and incremental net monetary benefits at 1 year.

Results

Cohort sizes were as follows: 268,144 admissions with appendicitis, 240,977 admissions with cholelithiasis, 138,869 admissions with diverticular disease, 106,432 admissions with a hernia and 133,073 admissions with an intestinal obstruction. Overall, at 1 year, the average number of days alive and out of hospitals at 90 days, costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar following either strategy, after adjusting for confounding. For each of the five conditions, overall, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the incremental net monetary benefit estimates all included zero. For patients with severe frailty, emergency surgery led to a reduced number of days alive and out of hospital and was not cost-effective compared with non-emergency surgery, with incremental net monetary benefit estimates of –£18,727 (95% CI –£23,900 to –£13,600) for appendicitis, –£7700 (95% CI –£13,000 to –£2370) for cholelithiasis, –£9230 (95% CI –£24,300 to £5860) for diverticular disease, –£16,600 (95% CI –£21,100 to –£12,000) for hernias and –£19,300 (95% CI –£25,600 to –£13,000) for intestinal obstructions. For patients who were ‘fit’, emergency surgery was relatively cost-effective, with estimated incremental net monetary benefit estimates of £5180 (95% CI £684 to £9680) for diverticular disease, £2040 (95% CI £996 to £3090) for hernias, £7850 (95% CI £5020 to £10,700) for intestinal obstructions, £369 (95% CI –£728 to £1460) for appendicitis and £718 (95% CI £294 to £1140) for cholelithiasis. Public and patient involvement translation workshop participants emphasised that these findings should be made widely available to inform future decisions about surgery.

Limitations

The instrumental variable approach did not eliminate the risk of confounding, and the acute hospital perspective excluded costs to other providers.

Conclusions

Neither strategy was more cost-effective overall. For patients with severe frailty, non-emergency surgery strategies were relatively cost-effective. For patients who were fit, emergency surgery was more cost-effective.

Future work

For patients with multiple long-term conditions, further research is required to assess the benefits and costs of emergency surgery.

Study registration

This study is registered as reviewregistry784.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (IHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Does Operative Management of Epidural Abscesses Increase Healthcare Expenditures up to 1 Year After Treatment?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of spinal epidural abscesses is increasing. What is more, they are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Advances in diagnostic imaging and antibiotic therapies have made earlier diagnosis and nonoperative management feasible in appropriately selected patients. Nonoperative treatment also has the advantage of lower immediate healthcare charges; however, it is unknown whether initial nonoperative care leads to higher healthcare charges long term.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does operative intervention generate higher charges than nonoperative treatment over the course of 1 year after the initial treatment of spinal epidural abscesses? (2) Does the treatment of spinal epidural abscesses in people who actively use intravenous drugs generate higher charges than management in people who do not?

METHODS

This retrospective comparative study at two tertiary academic centers compared adult patients with spinal epidural abscesses treated operatively and nonoperatively from January 2016 through December 2017. Ninety-five patients were identified, with four excluded for lack of billing data and one excluded for concomitant intracranial abscess. Indications for operative management included new or progressive motor deficit, lack of response to nonoperative treatment including persistent or progressive systemic illness, or initial sepsis requiring urgent source control. Of the included patients, 52% (47 of 90) received operative treatment with no differences in age, gender, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity index between groups, nor any difference in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Furthermore, 29% (26 of 90) of patients actively used intravenous drugs and were younger, with a lower BMI and lower Charlson comorbidity index, with no differences in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Cumulative charges at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge were compared based on operative or nonoperative management and secondarily by intravenous drug use status. Medical records, laboratory results, and hospital billing data were reviewed for data extraction. Demographic factors including age, gender, region of abscess, intravenous drug use, and comorbidities were extracted, along with clinical factors such as symptoms and ambulatory function at presentation, spinal instability, intensive care unit admission, and complications. The primary outcome was charges associated with care at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge. All covariates extracted were included in this analysis using negative binomial regression that accounted for confounders and the nonparametric nature of charge data. Results are presented as an incidence rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables such as age, gender, BMI, ambulatory status, presence of mechanical instability, and intensive care unit admission among others, we found higher charges for the group treated with surgery compared with those treated nonoperatively at the index admission (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.62 [95% CI 1.35 to 1.94]; p < 0.001) and at 1 year (IRR 1.36 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.68]; p = 0.004). Adjusted analysis also showed that active intravenous drug use was also associated with higher charges at the index admission (IRR 1.57 [95% CI 1.16 to 2.14]; p = 0.004) but no difference at 1 year (IRR 1.11 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.57]; p = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary teams caring for patients with spinal epidural abscesses should understand that the decreased charges associated with selecting nonoperative management during the index admission persist at 1 year with no difference in 30-day readmission rates, 1-year reoperation rates, or 2-year mortality. On the other hand, patients with active intravenous drug use have higher index admission charges that do not persist at 1 year, with no difference in 30-day readmission rates, 1-year reoperation rates, or 2-year mortality. These results suggest possible economic benefit to nonoperative management of epidural abscesses without increases in readmission or mortality rates, further tipping the scale in an evolving framework of clinical decision-making. Future studies should investigate if these economic implications are mirrored on the patient-facing side to determine whether any financial burden is shifted onto patients and their families in nonoperative management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Acute appendicitis-advances and controversies

Being one of the most common causes of the acute abdomen, acute appendicitis (AA) forms the bread and butter of any general surgeon's practice. With the recent advancements in AA's management, much controversy in diagnostic algorithms, possible differential diagnoses, and weighing the management options has been generated, with no absolute consensus in the literature. Since Alvarado described his eponymous clinical scoring system in 1986 to stratify AA risk, there has been a burgeoning of additional scores for guiding downstream management and mortality assessment. Furthermore, advancing literature on the role of antibiotics, variations in appendicectomy, and its adjuncts have expanded the surgeon's repertoire of management options. Owing to the varied presentation, diagnostic tools, and management of AA have also been proposed in special groups such as pregnant patients, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. This article seeks to raise the critical debates about what is currently known about the above aspects of AA and explore the latest controversies in the field. Considering the ever-evolving coronavirus disease 2019 situation worldwide, we also discuss the pandemic's repercussions on patients and how surgeons' practices have evolved in the context of AA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.