TY - JOUR
T1 - Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction
AU - Fisher, Alexander V.
AU - Hanlon, Bret
AU - Fernandes-Taylor, Sara
AU - Schumacher, Jessica R.
AU - Lawson, Elise H.
AU - Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean M.
AU - Minter, Rebecca M.
AU - Weber, Sharon M.
AU - Abbott, Daniel E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Background: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes. Methods: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure—defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube—was measured. Results: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1–3.8], p 0.028). Conclusion: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.
AB - Background: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes. Methods: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure—defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube—was measured. Results: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1–3.8], p 0.028). Conclusion: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071944488&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071944488&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.08.009
DO - 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.08.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 31519358
AN - SCOPUS:85071944488
SN - 1365-182X
VL - 22
SP - 529
EP - 536
JO - HPB
JF - HPB
IS - 4
ER -