Chen Binbin, Fan Changsheng, Tao Libo, Cui Bin
Academic Department, Beijing Medical and Health Economic Research Association, Beijing, China.
Center for Health Policy and Technology Evaluation, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China.
J Med Econ. 2024 Jan-Dec;27(1):1499-1505. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2425250. Epub 2024 Nov 12.
Endoscopic surgery is widely performed with an increasing use of powered vascular staplers (PVS). However, few studies have examined PVS use in China, most of which have focused on clinical effects; fewer studies have examined the economic benefits of PVS. This study evaluated the clinical and economic benefits of the PVS compared to standard-of-care (SOC) staplers in lobectomy using results from a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial conducted in China and actual clinical use in a hospital collected in a real healthcare setting.
Patients with lung cancer undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy were included in the study. The clinical and economic benefits of powered vascular stapler have been evaluated from a hospital's perspective based on parameters such as bleeding occurrence, hospitalization time, secondary thoracotomy, and hospitalization costs. To compare the bleeding associated with use of PVS and SOC stapler in clinical use, PVS single-arm multi-center clinical trial data is used for the intervention group, and sampling data from hospitals is used for the control group. To ensure the outcome indicators between the two groups are comparable, we set the same inclusion criteria for the two groups of data and then used propensity score matching (PSM) to match two groups of patients according to the baseline characteristics.
The results show that bleeding incidence in patients with SOC stapler group is 17.33% from hospital sampling data. In contrast, in the PVS group, it is 4.00%, and these rates are statistically different ( = 0.0167). Considering converted to open thoracic surgery, the rate of the SOC stapler group is 5.78% and that of the PVS group is 4.00%. These rates are not statistically different ( = 0.6166). Regarding hospitalization days, the length of the SOC stapler group is 18.97 days, while that in the PVS group is 12.38 days, and these data are statistically different ( = 0.0002). As patients in the PVS group have reduced bleeding, they will require less resource use from blood transfusion, drug services, and surgical services. If PVS is used for transection of vessel, it can reduce the bleeding incidence by 13.33% and save 75.47 CNY in blood transfusion costs, 571.36 CNY in drug costs, and 183.38 CNY in surgical service costs per patient. From these three aspects, the hospital saves per patient 830.21 CNY.
Compared with the SOC stapler group, the PVS group has a lower bleeding incidence and shorter hospital days for lobectomy. In terms of blood transfusion costs, drug costs, and surgical service costs, the hospital saves per patient 830.21 CNY.
内镜手术应用日益广泛,尤其是在使用电动血管吻合器(PVS)方面。然而,在中国,很少有研究关注 PVS 的使用情况,大多数研究都集中在临床效果上;较少的研究关注 PVS 的经济效益。本研究通过一项在中国进行的单臂、多中心临床试验的结果和医院实际临床使用中的数据,从医院角度评估了与标准护理(SOC)吻合器相比,在肺叶切除术中使用 PVS 的临床和经济效益。
纳入接受胸腔镜肺叶切除术的肺癌患者。基于出血发生、住院时间、二次开胸和住院费用等参数,从医院角度评估了电动血管吻合器的临床和经济效益。为了比较临床使用中 PVS 和 SOC 吻合器相关出血情况,采用 PVS 单臂多中心临床试验数据作为干预组,采用医院抽样数据作为对照组。为确保两组之间的结局指标具有可比性,我们为两组数据设定了相同的纳入标准,然后使用倾向评分匹配(PSM)根据基线特征对两组患者进行匹配。
研究结果显示,SOC 吻合器组医院抽样数据的出血发生率为 17.33%。相比之下,PVS 组的出血发生率为 4.00%,且差异具有统计学意义(=0.0167)。考虑到转为开胸手术,SOC 吻合器组的转化率为 5.78%,PVS 组为 4.00%,差异无统计学意义(=0.6166)。在住院天数方面,SOC 吻合器组为 18.97 天,PVS 组为 12.38 天,差异具有统计学意义(=0.0002)。由于 PVS 组患者出血减少,他们在输血、药物服务和手术服务方面的资源使用也会相应减少。如果在血管横断中使用 PVS,可以降低 13.33%的出血发生率,并为每位患者节省 75.47 元的输血费用、571.36 元的药物费用和 183.38 元的手术服务费用。从这三个方面来看,医院每位患者节省 830.21 元。
与 SOC 吻合器组相比,PVS 组肺叶切除术中的出血发生率更低,住院天数更短。在输血费用、药物费用和手术服务费用方面,医院每位患者节省 830.21 元。