Cost Analysis of Open Surgical BedsideTracheostomy in Intensive CareUnit Patients

Objectives: Open surgical tracheostomy (OST) is a common procedure performed on intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The procedure can be performed bedside in the ICU (bedside open surgical tracheostomy, BeOST) or in the operating room (operating room open surgical tracheostomy, OROST), with comparable safety and long-term complication rates. We aimed to perform a cost analysis and evaluate the use of human resources and the total time used for both BeOSTs and OROSTs. Methods: All OSTs performed in 2017 at 5 different ICUs at Oslo University Hospital Ullevål were retrospectively evaluated. The salaries of the personnel involved in the 2 procedures were obtained from the hospital’s finance department. The time taken and the number of procedures performed were extracted from annual reports and from the electronic patient record system, and the annual expenditures were calculated. Results: Altogether, 142 OSTs were performed, of which 122 (86%) and 20 (14%) were BeOSTs and OROSTs, respectively. A BeOST cost 343 EUR (95% CI: 241.4-444.6) less than an OROST. Bedside open surgical tracheostomies resulted in an annual cost efficiency of 41.818 EUR. In addition, BeOSTs freed 279 hours of operating room occupancy during the study year. Choosing BeOST instead of OROST made 1 nurse, 2 surgical nurses, and 1 anesthetic nurse redundant. Conclusion: Bedside open surgical tracheostomy appears to be cost-, time-, and resource-effective than OROST. In the absence of contraindications, BeOSTs should be performed in ICU patients whenever possible

Cost comparison analysis of laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Background: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABFB) surgery has become an established treatment procedure for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD), Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC II), type D lesions. However, studies with an economic evaluation of this procedure are sparse. The main purpose of our study was to compare the costs of LABFB and open aortobifemoral bypass (OABFB) surgery. Patients and methods: This is a substudy of a larger randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial (NLAST). Perioperative data were collected on 70 patients undergoing surgery for AIOD, TASC type D lesions. Thirty-four patients were randomized to LABFB and 36 patients to OABFB. Treatment costs were calculated for the two operative treatments until 30 postoperative days. In addition to fixed and variable costs, direct and indirect costs were also included. Results: The mean total cost of LABFB was 19,798 € and for OABFB 34,016 € until 30 postoperative days. Laparoscopic procedure was 14,218 € less costly than the open procedure. The main factor leading to less cost of LABFB was shorter length of hospital stay (mean 5.3 days, 95% CI 4.1–6.5) as compared to OABFB (mean 10.1 days, 95% CI 7.5–12.6). Ten patients, three in the LABFB and seven in the OABFB group, had complications that resulted in reoperations within the 30 postoperative days. The mean cost of treatment for the complicated patients was 49,349 € and 82,985 €, respectively, for LABFB and OABFB. Conclusion: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass procedure costs less than open aortobifemoral bypass for the treatment of advanced aortoiliac occlusive disease