These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost comparison of gastrojejunostomy versus duodenal stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.
    Author: Jeurnink SM, Polinder S, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, Siersema PD.
    Journal: J Gastroenterol; 2010 May; 45(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 20033227.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and stent placement are the most commonly used palliative treatments for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). In a recent randomized trial, stent placement was preferred in patients with a relatively short survival and GJJ in patients with a longer survival. As health economic aspects have only been studied in general terms, we estimated the cost of GJJ and that of stent placement in such patients. METHODS: In the SUSTENT study, patients were randomized to GJJ (n = 18) or stent placement (n = 21). Pancreatic cancer was the most common cause of GOO. We compared initial costs and costs during follow-up. For cost-effectiveness, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Food intake improved more rapidly after stent placement than after GJJ, but long-term relief of obstructive symptoms was better after GJJ. More major complications (P = 0.02) occurred and more reinterventions were performed (P < 0.01) after stent placement than after GJJ. Initial costs were higher for GJJ compared to stent placement (euro8315 vs. euro4820, P < 0.001). We found no difference in follow-up costs. Total costs per patient were higher for GJJ compared to stent placement (euro12433 vs. euro8819, P = 0.049). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GJJ compared to stent placement was euro164 per extra day with a gastric outlet obstruction scoring system (GOOSS) >or=2 adjusted for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Medical effects were better after GJJ, although GJJ had higher total costs. Since the cost difference between the two treatments was only small, cost should not play a predominant role when deciding on the type of treatment assigned to patients with malignant GOO (ISRCTN 06702358).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]