6533b828fe1ef96bd1287b35

RESEARCH PRODUCT

The economic burden of endoscopic treatment for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Christoph BaltinArnulf H. HoelscherSeung Hon ChonThomas ZanderMichael HallekRobert KleinertFelix BerlthAlexander UrbanskiFlorian KronAnna Kron

subject

MaleEsophageal NeoplasmsEconomicsmedicine.medical_treatmentCancer TreatmentSocial SciencesAnastomotic LeakIndirect costs0302 clinical medicineCost of IllnessMedicine and Health SciencesAged 80 and overMultidisciplinarymedicine.diagnostic_testQREsophageal cancerMiddle AgedSurgical OncologyOncologyEsophagectomy030220 oncology & carcinogenesisMedicine030211 gastroenterology & hepatologyFemaleResearch ArticleClinical OncologyAdultmedicine.medical_specialtyVacuumScienceSelf Expandable Metallic StentsSurgical and Invasive Medical ProceduresAnastomosis03 medical and health sciencesDigestive System ProceduresHealth EconomicsEsophagusAnastomotic leaksmedicineIvor lewisHumansddc:610Agedbusiness.industryStentEndoscopymedicine.diseaseEndoscopySurgeryHealth CareEsophagectomyClinical Medicinebusiness

description

BackgroundComplications after surgery for esophageal cancer are associated with significant resource utilization. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic burden of two frequently used endoscopic treatments for anastomotic leak management after esophageal surgery: Treatment with a Self-expanding Metal Stent (SEMS) and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT).Materials and methodsBetween January 2012 and December 2016, we identified 60 German-Diagnosis Related Group (G-DRG) cases of patients who received a SEMS and / or EVT for esophageal anastomotic leaks. Direct costs per case were analyzed according to the Institute for Remuneration System in Hospitals (InEK) cost-accounting approach by comparing DRG payments on the case level, including all extra fees per DRG catalogue.ResultsIn total, 60 DRG cases were identified. Of these, 15 patients were excluded because they received a combination of SEMS and EVT. Another 6 cases could not be included due to incomplete DRG data. Finally, N = 39 DRG cases were analyzed from a profit-center perspective. A further analysis of the most frequent DRG code -G03- including InEK cost accounting, revealed almost twice the deficit for the EVT group (N = 13 cases, € - 9.282 per average case) compared to that for the SEMS group (N = 9 cases, € - 5.156 per average case).ConclusionEndoscopic treatments with SEMS and EVT for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomies are not cost-efficient for German hospitals. Due to longer hospitalization and insufficient reimbursements, EVT is twice as costly as SEMS treatment. An adequate DRG cost compensation is needed for SEMS and EVT.

10.1371/journal.pone.0221406http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6713440