机器人辅助冠状动脉旁路移植术与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术的成本分析:单中心手术与 30 天疗效比较。

Monica Gianoli, Anne R de Jong, Pim van der Harst, Niels P van der Kaaij, Kirolos A Jacob, Willem J L Suyker
{"title":"机器人辅助冠状动脉旁路移植术与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术的成本分析:单中心手术与 30 天疗效比较。","authors":"Monica Gianoli, Anne R de Jong, Pim van der Harst, Niels P van der Kaaij, Kirolos A Jacob, Willem J L Suyker","doi":"10.1177/15569845241269312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Throughout Europe, the interest in implementing robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) has been growing. However, concerns about additional costs have emerged concurrently. In this analysis, we aim to provide a comparison of the cumulative perioperative costs of RA-MIDCAB, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and off-pump CABG (OPCAB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis comparing patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB with those undergoing CABG or OPCAB at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021. After matching, we analyzed the combined intraoperative surgical costs and 30-day postoperative costs. We first compared RA-MIDCAB costs to CABG and then to OPCAB separately. Violin plots illustrated the cost distribution among individual patients. Total cost uncertainty was estimated using 1,000 bootstrapping iterations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 158 CABG patients, and 80 RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 149 OPCAB patients. Considering both surgical and clinical outcomes, RA-MIDCAB yielded an average cost of €17,121 per patient (€16,781 to €33,294), CABG was €16,571 per patient (€16,664 to €41,860), and OPCAB was €15,463 per patient (€10,895 to €57,867). After bootstrap iterations, RA-MIDCAB was found to be €472 (2.8%) and €1,599 (10.3%) more expensive per patient than CABG and OPCAB, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In The Netherlands, the adoption of RA-MIDCAB did not show a significant economic impact on hospital resources. The additional robotic costs for the surgery were almost entirely offset by the cost savings during the postoperative hospital stay. However, these comparisons may differ when considering hybrid coronary revascularization with its additional percutaneous coronary intervention costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":13574,"journal":{"name":"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost Analysis of Robot-Assisted Versus On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Single-Center Surgical and 30-Day Outcomes Comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Monica Gianoli, Anne R de Jong, Pim van der Harst, Niels P van der Kaaij, Kirolos A Jacob, Willem J L Suyker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15569845241269312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Throughout Europe, the interest in implementing robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) has been growing. However, concerns about additional costs have emerged concurrently. In this analysis, we aim to provide a comparison of the cumulative perioperative costs of RA-MIDCAB, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and off-pump CABG (OPCAB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis comparing patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB with those undergoing CABG or OPCAB at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021. After matching, we analyzed the combined intraoperative surgical costs and 30-day postoperative costs. We first compared RA-MIDCAB costs to CABG and then to OPCAB separately. Violin plots illustrated the cost distribution among individual patients. Total cost uncertainty was estimated using 1,000 bootstrapping iterations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 158 CABG patients, and 80 RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 149 OPCAB patients. Considering both surgical and clinical outcomes, RA-MIDCAB yielded an average cost of €17,121 per patient (€16,781 to €33,294), CABG was €16,571 per patient (€16,664 to €41,860), and OPCAB was €15,463 per patient (€10,895 to €57,867). After bootstrap iterations, RA-MIDCAB was found to be €472 (2.8%) and €1,599 (10.3%) more expensive per patient than CABG and OPCAB, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In The Netherlands, the adoption of RA-MIDCAB did not show a significant economic impact on hospital resources. The additional robotic costs for the surgery were almost entirely offset by the cost savings during the postoperative hospital stay. However, these comparisons may differ when considering hybrid coronary revascularization with its additional percutaneous coronary intervention costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845241269312\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845241269312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在整个欧洲,人们对实施机器人辅助微创冠状动脉直接搭桥术(RA-MIDCAB)的兴趣与日俱增。然而,与此同时也出现了对额外成本的担忧。在这项分析中,我们旨在比较 RA-MIDCAB、体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)和非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(OPCAB)的累积围手术期成本:我们对 2016 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月在本院接受 RA-MIDCAB 和接受 CABG 或 OPCAB 的患者进行了倾向评分匹配分析。匹配后,我们对术中手术费用和术后 30 天费用进行了综合分析。我们首先比较了 RA-MIDCAB 与 CABG 的成本,然后分别与 OPCAB 进行了比较。维奥拉图显示了单个患者的成本分布。总费用的不确定性是通过1000次引导迭代来估算的:结果:79 名 RA-MIDCAB 患者与 158 名 CABG 患者匹配,80 名 RA-MIDCAB 患者与 149 名 OPCAB 患者匹配。考虑到手术和临床结果,RA-MIDCAB每位患者的平均费用为17,121欧元(16,781欧元至33,294欧元),CABG每位患者的平均费用为16,571欧元(16,664欧元至41,860欧元),OPCAB每位患者的平均费用为15,463欧元(10,895欧元至57,867欧元)。经过自举迭代后,发现RA-MIDCAB比CABG和OPCAB每位患者的费用分别高出472欧元(2.8%)和1599欧元(10.3%):在荷兰,采用RA-MIDCAB对医院资源的经济影响不大。术后住院期间节省的费用几乎完全抵消了机器人手术的额外费用。不过,如果考虑到杂交冠状动脉血运重建术需要额外的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗费用,这些比较结果可能会有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cost Analysis of Robot-Assisted Versus On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Single-Center Surgical and 30-Day Outcomes Comparison.

Objective: Throughout Europe, the interest in implementing robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) has been growing. However, concerns about additional costs have emerged concurrently. In this analysis, we aim to provide a comparison of the cumulative perioperative costs of RA-MIDCAB, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and off-pump CABG (OPCAB).

Methods: We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis comparing patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB with those undergoing CABG or OPCAB at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021. After matching, we analyzed the combined intraoperative surgical costs and 30-day postoperative costs. We first compared RA-MIDCAB costs to CABG and then to OPCAB separately. Violin plots illustrated the cost distribution among individual patients. Total cost uncertainty was estimated using 1,000 bootstrapping iterations.

Results: Seventy-nine RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 158 CABG patients, and 80 RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 149 OPCAB patients. Considering both surgical and clinical outcomes, RA-MIDCAB yielded an average cost of €17,121 per patient (€16,781 to €33,294), CABG was €16,571 per patient (€16,664 to €41,860), and OPCAB was €15,463 per patient (€10,895 to €57,867). After bootstrap iterations, RA-MIDCAB was found to be €472 (2.8%) and €1,599 (10.3%) more expensive per patient than CABG and OPCAB, respectively.

Conclusions: In The Netherlands, the adoption of RA-MIDCAB did not show a significant economic impact on hospital resources. The additional robotic costs for the surgery were almost entirely offset by the cost savings during the postoperative hospital stay. However, these comparisons may differ when considering hybrid coronary revascularization with its additional percutaneous coronary intervention costs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery is the first journal whose main mission is to disseminate information specifically about advances in technology and techniques that lead to less invasive treatment of cardiothoracic and vascular disease. It delivers cutting edge original research, reviews, essays, case reports, and editorials from the pioneers and experts in the field of minimally invasive cardiothoracic and vascular disease, including biomedical engineers. Also included are papers presented at the annual ISMICS meeting. Official Journal of the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery
期刊最新文献
Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Surgery for Concomitant Ascending Aorta and Aortic Valve Replacement via Right Infra-Axillary Thoracotomy. Results of Vertical Infra-Axillary Thoracotomy for Total Repair of Tetralogy of Fallot. The 10 Commandments for the Ross Procedure. Dealing With the Aortic Annulus: Surgical Aortic Annulus Enlargement With a Ballon Catheter. A Risk Prediction Model for Prolonged Length of Stay After Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery.
×
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:481959085
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