Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Oct;88(10):1075-84. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.06.022.
To determine whether technically innovative cardiac surgical platforms (ie, robotics) deployed in conjunction with surgical process improvement (systems innovation) influence total hospital costs to address the concern that expanding adoption might increase health care expenses.
We studied 185 propensity-matched patient pairs (370 patients) undergoing isolated conventional open vs robotic mitral valve repair with identical repair techniques and care teams between July 1, 2007, and January 31, 2011. Two time periods were considered, before the implementation of system innovations (pre-July 2009) and after implementation. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate the effect of the type of surgery on cost while adjusting for a time effect.
Baseline characteristics of the study patients were similar, and all patients underwent successful mitral valve repair with no early deaths. Median length of stay (LOS) for patients undergoing open repair was unchanged at 5.3 days (P=.636) before and after systems innovation implementation, and was lower for robotic patients at 3.5 and 3.4 days, respectively (P=.003), throughout the study. The overall median costs associated with open and robotic repair were $31,838 and $32,144, respectively (P=.32). During the preimplementation period, the total cost was higher for robotic ($34,920) than for open ($32,650) repair (P<.001), but during the postimplementation period, the median cost of robotic repair ($30,606) became similar to that of open repair ($31,310) (P=.876). The largest decrease in robotic cost was associated with more rapid ventilator weaning and shortened median intensive care unit LOS, from 22.7 hours before July 2009 to 9.3 hours after implementation of systems innovations (P<.001).
Following the introduction of systems innovation, the total hospital cost associated with robotic mitral valve repair has become similar to that for a conventional open approach, while facilitating quicker patient recovery and diminished utilization of in-hospital resources. These data suggest that innovations in techniques (robotics) along with care systems (process improvement) can be cost-neutral, thereby improving the affordability of new technologies capable of improving early patient outcomes.
确定技术创新的心脏外科平台(如机器人)与手术过程改进(系统创新)结合使用是否会影响总医院成本,以解决扩大采用可能会增加医疗费用的担忧。
我们研究了 185 对倾向匹配的患者(370 例患者),这些患者在 2007 年 7 月 1 日至 2011 年 1 月 31 日期间接受了单纯常规开放手术与机器人二尖瓣修复术的治疗,手术方法相同,护理团队也相同。考虑了两个时间段,分别是系统创新实施前(2009 年 7 月前)和实施后。使用广义线性混合模型来估计手术类型对成本的影响,同时调整时间效应。
研究患者的基线特征相似,所有患者均成功接受了二尖瓣修复术,且早期无死亡。接受开放手术的患者的中位住院时间(LOS)在系统创新实施前后均保持不变,分别为 5.3 天(P=.636),而机器人患者的 LOS 分别为 3.5 和 3.4 天,分别为(P=.003),在整个研究期间。接受开放和机器人修复的患者的总中位成本分别为 31838 美元和 32144 美元(P=.32)。在实施前期间,机器人修复的总成本(34920 美元)高于开放修复(32650 美元)(P<.001),但在实施后期间,机器人修复的中位成本(30606 美元)变得与开放修复(31310 美元)相似(P=.876)。机器人成本的最大降幅与更快的呼吸机脱机和缩短的重症监护病房中位 LOS 有关,从 2009 年 7 月前的 22.7 小时降至系统创新实施后的 9.3 小时(P<.001)。
在引入系统创新后,机器人二尖瓣修复术的总医院成本已变得与常规开放手术相似,同时促进了患者更快的康复和减少了医院资源的利用。这些数据表明,技术(机器人)创新与护理系统(流程改进)的创新可以做到成本中性,从而提高了能够改善早期患者结局的新技术的可负担性。