Bedside versus operating room tracheostomy: A cost-effectiveness and economic evaluation

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY American journal of surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116314
William Yu Luo , Jaclyn Portelli Tremont , Sachi Vivek Shinde , Michael Ryan Phillips , Pascal Osita Udekwu , Anthony Charles
{"title":"Bedside versus operating room tracheostomy: A cost-effectiveness and economic evaluation","authors":"William Yu Luo ,&nbsp;Jaclyn Portelli Tremont ,&nbsp;Sachi Vivek Shinde ,&nbsp;Michael Ryan Phillips ,&nbsp;Pascal Osita Udekwu ,&nbsp;Anthony Charles","doi":"10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prior studies have compared outcomes and costs between bedside tracheostomy (BT) and operating room tracheostomy (ORT). However, studies have not performed a formal cost-effectiveness analysis of BT versus ORT.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We present a cost-effectiveness study using Markov microsimulation for BT versus ORT. We abstracted model parameters from currently available literature and performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>BT was more cost-effective than ORT at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life year willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Our model was sensitive to postoperative pneumonia rates and pneumonia treatment costs. BT was more cost-effective in most iterations within a range of WTP thresholds from $0 to $200,000.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>BT is more cost-effective than ORT for critically ill patients at low-average risk for postoperative pneumonia. Our findings support considering bedside tracheostomy before performing the same procedure in the operating room, regardless of whether the approach is percutaneous or open.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7771,"journal":{"name":"American journal of surgery","volume":"244 ","pages":"Article 116314"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002961025001369","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Prior studies have compared outcomes and costs between bedside tracheostomy (BT) and operating room tracheostomy (ORT). However, studies have not performed a formal cost-effectiveness analysis of BT versus ORT.

Methods

We present a cost-effectiveness study using Markov microsimulation for BT versus ORT. We abstracted model parameters from currently available literature and performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

BT was more cost-effective than ORT at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life year willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Our model was sensitive to postoperative pneumonia rates and pneumonia treatment costs. BT was more cost-effective in most iterations within a range of WTP thresholds from $0 to $200,000.

Conclusions

BT is more cost-effective than ORT for critically ill patients at low-average risk for postoperative pneumonia. Our findings support considering bedside tracheostomy before performing the same procedure in the operating room, regardless of whether the approach is percutaneous or open.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
床边与手术室气管切开术:成本效益和经济评价
之前的研究比较了床边气管造口术(BT)和手术室气管造口术(ORT)的结果和成本。然而,研究尚未对BT与ORT进行正式的成本效益分析。方法采用马尔可夫微模拟对BT和ORT进行成本-效果研究。我们从现有文献中提取模型参数,并进行确定性和概率敏感性分析。结果在10万美元/质量调整生命年支付意愿(WTP)阈值上,bt比ORT更具成本效益。我们的模型对术后肺炎发生率和肺炎治疗费用敏感。在WTP阈值从$0到$200,000的范围内,BT在大多数迭代中更具成本效益。结论对于术后肺炎低平均风险的危重患者,sbt比ORT更具成本效益。我们的研究结果支持在手术室进行相同手术前考虑床边气管造口术,无论入路是经皮的还是开放的。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
570
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Surgery® is a peer-reviewed journal designed for the general surgeon who performs abdominal, cancer, vascular, head and neck, breast, colorectal, and other forms of surgery. AJS is the official journal of 7 major surgical societies* and publishes their official papers as well as independently submitted clinical studies, editorials, reviews, brief reports, correspondence and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
The surgeon as a high-performance athlete: Importance of sleep, hydration & exercise. Prevalence of parathyroid multiglandular disease in Asian population. Health policy advocacy: Navigating personal, professional, and organizational politics. "Clinical Anatomy" - An advanced anatomical construct for optimizing patient care. My thoughts: On surgical personalities, stereotypes, and leadership.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1