Postesophagectomy anastomotic leak is a common postsurgical complication. The current standard method of detecting leak is esophagram usually late in the postoperative period. Perianastomotic drain amylase level had shown promising results in early detection anastomosis leak. Previous studies have shown that postoperative day 4 amylase level is more specific and sensitive than esophagram. The purpose of this study is to determine if implementing a drain amylase-based screening method for anastomotic leak can reduce length of stay and hospital cost relative to a traditional esophagram-based pathway. The drain amylase protocol we propose uses postoperative day 4 drain amylase level to direct the initiation of PO intake and discharge. We designed a decision analysis tree using TreeAge Pro software to compare the drain amylase-based screening method to the standard of care, the esophagram. We performed a retrospective review of postesophagectomy patients from a tertiary academic medical center (University hospital Cleveland medical center) where amylase level was measured routinely postoperatively. The patients were separated into amylase-based pathway group and the standard of care group based on their postop management. The length of stay, costs, complications, and leak rate of these two groups were used to inform the decision analysis tree. In the base-case analysis, the decision analysis demonstrated that an amylase-based screening method can reduce the hospital stay by one day and reduced costs by ∼$3,000 compared to esophagram group. To take the variability of the data into consideration, we performed a Monte Carlo simulation. The result showed again a median saving of 0.71 days and ∼$2,500 per patient in hospital cost. A ballistic sensitivity analysis was performed to show that the sensitivity of postoperative day 4 amylase level in detecting a leak was the most important factor in the model. We conclude that implementing an amylase-based screening method for anastomotic leak in postesophagectomy patient can significantly reduce hospital cost and length of stay. This study demonstrates a novel protocol to improve postesophagectomy care. Based on this result, we believe a prospective multicenter study is appropriate.
Background: Conventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN. Methods: A decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up nonmalignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when <$50,000/QALY. Results: Literature review suggests that rate of IPNs in the upper portion of the lung varied from 47 to 76%. Our model assumed that IPNs occur in upper and lower portions of the lung with equal frequency. The model also assumes an equal malignancy potential in upper lung IPNs despite data that malignancy occurs 61-66% in upper lung fields. In the base case analysis, a FCT will lead to an increase of 0.03 QALYs comparing to conventional CTCS (14.54 vs 14.51 QALY, respectively), which translates into an QALY increase of 16 days.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.