Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (Aug 2022)

Indirect comparison between powered and manual circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomoses: clinical and economic outcomes in China

  • Junwei Bai,
  • Yingnan Zhao,
  • Hong Liang,
  • Junmeng Li,
  • Chao Zhang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00380-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 7

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Aims This study aimed to examine the economic and clinical benefits of a new powered circular stapler for left-sided colorectal construction in China. Methods A decision analysis model was constructed for a cohort of adult patients who underwent left-sided colorectal anastomoses, using either the Echelon Circular Powered (ECP) stapler) or the conventional manual circular staplers (MCS). The complications rates and healthcare resource utilization in the ECP cohort were obtained from the single-arm ECP trial (NCT03326895). For the MCS cohort, retrospective data from 20 Chinese hospitals were analyzed. Listing prices were used to estimate the costs of the staplers in China. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to adjust for the imbalance between the two cohorts. Anastomotic leak rate, length of stay (LOS), 90-day readmission rate, and direct medical costs were used for the decision analysis model parameters. A budget impact analysis was conducted to compare the total hospitalization expenditure between ECP and manual circular staplers from the hospital’s perspective in China. Results Assuming 100 procedures per year, the anastomotic leak rate was 1.79 and 29.76 per 100 procedures in the ECP and MCS cohorts, respectively. LOS was 1,426.91 days in the ECP cohort, compared to 1,702.38 days in the MCS cohort. The 90-day readmission rate was also lower in the ECP cohort than the MCS cohort (19.10 vs. 26.19 per 100 procedures). For the 100 procedures, the annual total hospitalization costs for left-sided colorectal anastomosis were reduced from ¥7,152,251 using manual circular staplers to ¥6,919,306 using ECP. Despite a higher acquisition cost of ECP compared to the manual staplers (¥711,200 vs. ¥441,700), an annual saving of ¥232,945in the total cost resulted from lower rates of complications and shorter LOS. Sensitivity analyses presented consistent savings using ECP, and the ECP cost and cost of the index hospitalization with anastomotic leak were found the most influencing factors. Conclusions There were clinical and economic benefits of ECP, compared to manual circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomoses. Further direct comparative studies on the use of ECP in practice in Chinese hospital settings are warranted.

Keywords