Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Alexander V. Fisher, Bret Hanlon, Sara Fernandes-Taylor, Jessica R. Schumacher, Elise H. Lawson, Sean M. Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Rebecca M Minter, Sharon M. Weber, Daniel E. Abbott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalHPB
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Gastric Outlet Obstruction
Gastric Bypass
Natural History
Stents
Costs and Cost Analysis
Gastrostomy
Treatment Failure
Reoperation
Hospitalization
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Fisher, A. V., Hanlon, B., Fernandes-Taylor, S., Schumacher, J. R., Lawson, E. H., Ronnekleiv-Kelly, S. M., ... Abbott, D. E. (Accepted/In press). Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. HPB. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2019.08.009

Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. / Fisher, Alexander V.; Hanlon, Bret; Fernandes-Taylor, Sara; Schumacher, Jessica R.; Lawson, Elise H.; Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean M.; Minter, Rebecca M; Weber, Sharon M.; Abbott, Daniel E.

In: HPB, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fisher, Alexander V. ; Hanlon, Bret ; Fernandes-Taylor, Sara ; Schumacher, Jessica R. ; Lawson, Elise H. ; Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean M. ; Minter, Rebecca M ; Weber, Sharon M. ; Abbott, Daniel E. / Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. In: HPB. 2019.
@article{1e9754d9b963498b960e8604496d86c5,
title = "Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction",
abstract = "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{\circledR} 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.",
author = "Fisher, {Alexander V.} and Bret Hanlon and Sara Fernandes-Taylor and Schumacher, {Jessica R.} and Lawson, {Elise H.} and Ronnekleiv-Kelly, {Sean M.} and Minter, {Rebecca M} and Weber, {Sharon M.} and Abbott, {Daniel E.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.hpb.2019.08.009",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "HPB",
issn = "1365-182X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

}

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.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

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

JO - HPB

JF - HPB

SN - 1365-182X

ER -