Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (Mar 2022)

Cost Utility Analysis of Multidisciplinary Postacute Care for Stroke: A Prospective Six-Hospital Cohort Study

  • Yu-Ching Chen,
  • Yu-Ching Chen,
  • Yu-Jo Yeh,
  • Chung-Yuan Wang,
  • Chung-Yuan Wang,
  • Hsiu-Fen Lin,
  • Hsiu-Fen Lin,
  • Ching-Huang Lin,
  • Hong-Hsi Hsien,
  • Kuo-Wei Hung,
  • Jung-Der Wang,
  • Hon-Yi Shi,
  • Hon-Yi Shi,
  • Hon-Yi Shi,
  • Hon-Yi Shi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.826898
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundFew studies have compared the optimal duration and intensity of organized multidisciplinary neurological/rehabilitative care delivered in a regional/district hospital with the standard rehabilitative care delivered in the general neurology/rehabilitation ward of a medical center. This study measured functional outcomes and conducted cost-utility analysis of an organized multidisciplinary postacute care (PAC) project in secondary care compared with standard rehabilitative care delivered in tertiary care.MethodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled 1,476 patients who had a stroke between March 2014 and March 2018 and had a modified Rankin scale score of 2–4. After exact matching for age ± 1 year, sex, year of stroke diagnosis, nasogastric tube, and Foley catheter and propensity score matching for the other covariates, we obtained 120 patients receiving PAC (the PAC group) from four regional/district hospitals and 120 patients not receiving PAC (the non-PAC group) from two medical centers.ResultsAt baseline, the non-PAC group showed significantly better functional outcomes than the PAC group, including EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Barthel index (BI). During weeks 7–12 of rehabilitation, improvements in all functional outcomes were significantly larger in the PAC group (P < 0.001) except for Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Cost-utility analysis revealed that the PAC group had a significantly lower mean (± standard deviation) of direct medical costs (US$3,480 ± $1,758 vs. US$3,785 ± $3,840, P < 0.001) and a significantly higher average gain of quality-adjusted life years (0.1993 vs. 0.1233, P < 0.001). The PAC project was an economically “dominant” strategy.ConclusionsThe PAC project saved costs and significantly improved the functional outcomes of patients with stroke with slight to moderately severe disabilities. Randomized control trials are required to corroborate these results.

Keywords