Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2021
Cost-effectiveness of Inpatient Tympanostomy Prophylaxis.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Yeakel Heather, Pasick Luke J, Kirchner Gregory J, McKinnon Brian J, Chiffer Rebecca C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Tympanostomy is the most common pediatric ambulatory surgery. Post-tympanostomy otorrhea is a prevalent complication leading to high costs to patients for treatment. The cost-effectiveness of intraoperative prophylaxis for both patient and institution has not been examined.
STUDY DESIGN: An analytical observational study of data collected from the literature and purchasing records.
METHODS: A break-even analysis was performed to determine the required absolute risk reduction (ARR) and final infection rate in post-tympanostomy otorrhea to make intraoperative prophylaxis using ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin dexamethasone otic version cost effective with the following outpatient treatments: ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone ophthalmic version, and ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone otic version. Absolute risk reduction is a statistic used to express the difference in risk between a treatment and control. The conservative initial infection rate used was 10%.
RESULTS: Ofloxacin intraoperative prophylaxis was not cost effective when prescribing ofloxacin outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.20. Ofloxacin intraoperative prophylaxis was cost-effective with an ARR of 0.08 for ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone ophthalmic version outpatient treatment. Ofloxacin intraoperative prophylaxis was cost-effective for ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone otic version outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.01.Ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone intraoperative prophylaxis was not cost-effective when prescribing ofloxacin outpatient treatment with an ARR of 1.52. Ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone intraoperative prophylaxis was not cost-effective when prescribing ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone ophthalmic version outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.60. Ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone intraoperative prophylaxis was cost effective when prescribing ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone otic version outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.09.
CONCLUSION: Intraoperative prophylaxis can be cost effective for preventing post-tympanostomy otorrhea. Physicians can use this economic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions for their patients and institutions.
STUDY DESIGN: An analytical observational study of data collected from the literature and purchasing records.
METHODS: A break-even analysis was performed to determine the required absolute risk reduction (ARR) and final infection rate in post-tympanostomy otorrhea to make intraoperative prophylaxis using ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin dexamethasone otic version cost effective with the following outpatient treatments: ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone ophthalmic version, and ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone otic version. Absolute risk reduction is a statistic used to express the difference in risk between a treatment and control. The conservative initial infection rate used was 10%.
RESULTS: Ofloxacin intraoperative prophylaxis was not cost effective when prescribing ofloxacin outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.20. Ofloxacin intraoperative prophylaxis was cost-effective with an ARR of 0.08 for ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone ophthalmic version outpatient treatment. Ofloxacin intraoperative prophylaxis was cost-effective for ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone otic version outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.01.Ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone intraoperative prophylaxis was not cost-effective when prescribing ofloxacin outpatient treatment with an ARR of 1.52. Ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone intraoperative prophylaxis was not cost-effective when prescribing ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone ophthalmic version outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.60. Ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone intraoperative prophylaxis was cost effective when prescribing ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone otic version outpatient treatment with an ARR of 0.09.
CONCLUSION: Intraoperative prophylaxis can be cost effective for preventing post-tympanostomy otorrhea. Physicians can use this economic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions for their patients and institutions.