Cost-effectiveness analysis of a sealing hemostat patch (HEMOPATCH) vs standard of care in cardiac surgery
- 7 December 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Journal of Medical Economics
- Vol. 21 (3), 273-281
- https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1400977
Abstract
Background: A recent randomized controlled trial showed that patients undergoing ascending aorta surgery treated with HEMOPATCH to control bleeding had a significantly better hemostasis success rate than with dry or wet gauze compression or similar standard of care (SOC). Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness using two different agents for hemostasis (HEMOPATCH vs dry or wet gauze compression or similar SOC) in cardiac surgery from the European hospital perspective. Methods: A literature-based cost-effectiveness model estimating average cost per successful hemostasis event was developed based on the hemostasis efficacy difference (HEMOPATCH=97.6%, SOC=65.8%, p<.001). Additional clinically significant end-points studied in the trial (blood transfusions and surgical revisions) were also analyzed. It was assumed that each surgery utilized two units of HEMOPATCH (dimensions of 4.5x9cm) and two units of SOC. Product acquisition costs for HEMOPATCH and SOC were included along with outcome-related costs derived from the literature and inflation-adjusted to 2017 EUR and GBP. Results are presented for an average hospital with an annual case load of 574 cardiac surgeries. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Considering only product acquisition cost, HEMOPATCH had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of (sic)1,659, (sic)1,519, (sic)1,623, and (sic) 1,725 per hemostasis success when compared to SOC for Italy, Spain, France, and the UK, respectively. However, when considering the cost and potential difference in the frequency of transfusions and revisions compared to SOC, the use of HEMOPATCH was associated with an annual reduction of six revisions and 60 transfusions, improving the ICER to (sic)1,440, (sic)1,222, (sic)1,461, and (sic) 1,592, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated model robustness. Conclusions: This analysis supports the use of HEMOPATCH over SOC in cardiac surgery in European hospitals to improve hemostasis success rates and potential cost offsets from reduced transfusions, complications, and surgical revisions.This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessment of the effect on blood loss and transfusion requirements when adding a polyethylene glycol sealant to the anastomotic closure of aortic procedures: a case–control analysis of 102 patients undergoing Bentall proceduresJournal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2012
- Impact of major bleeding and blood transfusions after cardiac surgery: Analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY (ACUITY) trialAmerican Heart Journal, 2012
- Morbidity of Bleeding After Cardiac Surgery: Is It Blood Transfusion, Reoperation for Bleeding, or Both?The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2011
- Impact of bleeding-related complications and/or blood product transfusions on hospital costs in inpatient surgical patientsBMC Health Services Research, 2011
- A Comprehensive Review of Topical Hemostatic AgentsAnnals of Surgery, 2010
- Costs of excessive postoperative hemorrhage in cardiac surgeryThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2009
- Topical Hemostatic Agents in Surgery: A Surgeon's PerspectiveAORN Journal, 2008
- Reexploration for bleeding after coronary artery bypass surgery: risk factors, outcomes, and the effect of time delayThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2004
- Impact of regionalisation of cardiac surgery in Emilia-Romagna, ItalyJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2004
- The Effectiveness of a Fibrinogen-Thrombin- Collagen-based Hemostatic Agent in an Experimental Arterial Bleeding ModelAnnals of Surgery, 1987