Second-look endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease: A decision-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Second-look endoscopy after initial therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease may decrease the risk of rebleeding; however, it is not recommended routinely. Understanding conditions under which second-look endoscopy is beneficial might be useful for clinical decision making. METHODS: Using a decision model, literature-based probabilities, and Medicare reimbursement costs, we compared routine second-look endoscopy with no second-look endoscopy. We measured rebleeding, need for surgery, hospital mortality, and costs, and calculated the cost to avoid each outcome, expressed as the number needed to treat, along with the cost per outcome prevented. RESULTS: In the base case, routine second-look endoscopy reduced rebleeding from 16% to 10% (needed to treat=16) but had no effect on other outcomes. The cost to prevent 1 case of rebleeding was nearly $13,000. Threshold analysis revealed a rebleeding threshold of 31% to neutralize the cost difference between routine second-look endoscopy and no routine second-look endoscopy. If routine second-look endoscopy was 100% effective in preventing rebleeding, then the rebleeding threshold for cost neutrality would be 17.5%. When rebleeding risks after the index endoscopy and second-look endoscopy were simultaneously considered, the cost per bleed prevented ranged from a cost savings of $165 when the respective risks were 25% and 5%, to a cost of nearly $33,000 when the risks were 20% and 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that routine second-look endoscopy is not indicated after therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease. However, if rebleeding risk is 31% or greater, then routine second-look endoscopy reduces this risk at no additional cost.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Volume46
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Peptic Ulcer
Endoscopy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Hemorrhage
Costs and Cost Analysis
Numbers Needed To Treat
Cost Savings
Hospital Costs
Medicare
Hospital Mortality

Keywords

  • endoscopy
  • gastroin testinal bleeding
  • peptic ulcer disease

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{241cf7fac28948e0b1da217c68230a29,
title = "Second-look endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease: A decision-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Second-look endoscopy after initial therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease may decrease the risk of rebleeding; however, it is not recommended routinely. Understanding conditions under which second-look endoscopy is beneficial might be useful for clinical decision making. METHODS: Using a decision model, literature-based probabilities, and Medicare reimbursement costs, we compared routine second-look endoscopy with no second-look endoscopy. We measured rebleeding, need for surgery, hospital mortality, and costs, and calculated the cost to avoid each outcome, expressed as the number needed to treat, along with the cost per outcome prevented. RESULTS: In the base case, routine second-look endoscopy reduced rebleeding from 16{\%} to 10{\%} (needed to treat=16) but had no effect on other outcomes. The cost to prevent 1 case of rebleeding was nearly $13,000. Threshold analysis revealed a rebleeding threshold of 31{\%} to neutralize the cost difference between routine second-look endoscopy and no routine second-look endoscopy. If routine second-look endoscopy was 100{\%} effective in preventing rebleeding, then the rebleeding threshold for cost neutrality would be 17.5{\%}. When rebleeding risks after the index endoscopy and second-look endoscopy were simultaneously considered, the cost per bleed prevented ranged from a cost savings of $165 when the respective risks were 25{\%} and 5{\%}, to a cost of nearly $33,000 when the risks were 20{\%} and 15{\%}. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that routine second-look endoscopy is not indicated after therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease. However, if rebleeding risk is 31{\%} or greater, then routine second-look endoscopy reduces this risk at no additional cost.",
keywords = "endoscopy, gastroin testinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease",
author = "Thomas Imperiale and Nan Kong",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182410351",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology",
issn = "0192-0790",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Second-look endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease

T2 - A decision-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Imperiale, Thomas

AU - Kong, Nan

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - BACKGROUND: Second-look endoscopy after initial therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease may decrease the risk of rebleeding; however, it is not recommended routinely. Understanding conditions under which second-look endoscopy is beneficial might be useful for clinical decision making. METHODS: Using a decision model, literature-based probabilities, and Medicare reimbursement costs, we compared routine second-look endoscopy with no second-look endoscopy. We measured rebleeding, need for surgery, hospital mortality, and costs, and calculated the cost to avoid each outcome, expressed as the number needed to treat, along with the cost per outcome prevented. RESULTS: In the base case, routine second-look endoscopy reduced rebleeding from 16% to 10% (needed to treat=16) but had no effect on other outcomes. The cost to prevent 1 case of rebleeding was nearly $13,000. Threshold analysis revealed a rebleeding threshold of 31% to neutralize the cost difference between routine second-look endoscopy and no routine second-look endoscopy. If routine second-look endoscopy was 100% effective in preventing rebleeding, then the rebleeding threshold for cost neutrality would be 17.5%. When rebleeding risks after the index endoscopy and second-look endoscopy were simultaneously considered, the cost per bleed prevented ranged from a cost savings of $165 when the respective risks were 25% and 5%, to a cost of nearly $33,000 when the risks were 20% and 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that routine second-look endoscopy is not indicated after therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease. However, if rebleeding risk is 31% or greater, then routine second-look endoscopy reduces this risk at no additional cost.

AB - BACKGROUND: Second-look endoscopy after initial therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease may decrease the risk of rebleeding; however, it is not recommended routinely. Understanding conditions under which second-look endoscopy is beneficial might be useful for clinical decision making. METHODS: Using a decision model, literature-based probabilities, and Medicare reimbursement costs, we compared routine second-look endoscopy with no second-look endoscopy. We measured rebleeding, need for surgery, hospital mortality, and costs, and calculated the cost to avoid each outcome, expressed as the number needed to treat, along with the cost per outcome prevented. RESULTS: In the base case, routine second-look endoscopy reduced rebleeding from 16% to 10% (needed to treat=16) but had no effect on other outcomes. The cost to prevent 1 case of rebleeding was nearly $13,000. Threshold analysis revealed a rebleeding threshold of 31% to neutralize the cost difference between routine second-look endoscopy and no routine second-look endoscopy. If routine second-look endoscopy was 100% effective in preventing rebleeding, then the rebleeding threshold for cost neutrality would be 17.5%. When rebleeding risks after the index endoscopy and second-look endoscopy were simultaneously considered, the cost per bleed prevented ranged from a cost savings of $165 when the respective risks were 25% and 5%, to a cost of nearly $33,000 when the risks were 20% and 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that routine second-look endoscopy is not indicated after therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease. However, if rebleeding risk is 31% or greater, then routine second-look endoscopy reduces this risk at no additional cost.

KW - endoscopy

KW - gastroin testinal bleeding

KW - peptic ulcer disease

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866235892&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866235892&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182410351

DO - 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182410351

M3 - Article

C2 - 22298087

AN - SCOPUS:84866235892

VL - 46

JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

SN - 0192-0790

IS - 9

ER -