Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Defect Closure Techniques After Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Large Colon Polyps.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zaver Himesh B, Erno Jason, Reszczynski Olivia, Battel Owen, Singh Aditya, Stoleru Gianna, Wanchek Tanya, Novicoff Wendy, Buerlein Ross C D, Copland Andrew P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Resection of large colon polyps carries a risk of delayed bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single- and dual-modality defect closure techniques following conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colon polyps.
METHODS: A decision-tree cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare payer perspective modeling a 20 mm right-sided polyp removed via conventional (hot) EMR. Model inputs were derived from pooled data from 4817 patients. Closure techniques evaluated included through-the-scope clips (TTSC), through-the-scope suturing (TTSS), hemostatic agent (HA), and multimodal combinations.
RESULTS: TTSC was the most cost-effective strategy (total cost $3842; 17.17 quality-adjusted life-years). HA and multimodal strategies (TTSS + TTSC, TTSC + HA) offered marginally higher effectiveness but at greater cost (HA, $3,932; TTSS + TTSC, $4339.25; TTSC + HA, $4,447.76), resulting in less favorable cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses suggested TTSC remained cost-effective up to a total clip cost of $544.86 and with technical success rates ≥ 67%.
CONCLUSION: TTSC provides favorable clinical and economic outcomes, with institutional costs and procedural expertise influencing optimal closure strategy selection.
METHODS: A decision-tree cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare payer perspective modeling a 20 mm right-sided polyp removed via conventional (hot) EMR. Model inputs were derived from pooled data from 4817 patients. Closure techniques evaluated included through-the-scope clips (TTSC), through-the-scope suturing (TTSS), hemostatic agent (HA), and multimodal combinations.
RESULTS: TTSC was the most cost-effective strategy (total cost $3842; 17.17 quality-adjusted life-years). HA and multimodal strategies (TTSS + TTSC, TTSC + HA) offered marginally higher effectiveness but at greater cost (HA, $3,932; TTSS + TTSC, $4339.25; TTSC + HA, $4,447.76), resulting in less favorable cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses suggested TTSC remained cost-effective up to a total clip cost of $544.86 and with technical success rates ≥ 67%.
CONCLUSION: TTSC provides favorable clinical and economic outcomes, with institutional costs and procedural expertise influencing optimal closure strategy selection.