Volume 2, Issue 3 (July 2023)
Health Science Monitor 2023, 2(3): 210-216 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mahmodlou R, Yusefzadeh H, Farjami A, Nabilou B. Cost–effectiveness analysis of jejunostomy tube feeding versus conventional nutritional method in esophageal cancer: a retrospective case control study. Health Science Monitor 2023; 2 (3) :210-216
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-114-en.html
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-114-en.html
Associate Professor. Department of Health Economics and Management, School of Public Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran.
Abstract: (761 Views)
Background & Aims: Esophageal cancer is a research priority due to its invasive nature and poor prognosis. It ranks sixth in mortality among all forms of cancer and esophagectomy is the most conventional treatment. Jejunostomy tube feeding can reduce complications in patients and hospital costs. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of jejunostomy tube feeding, as opposed to the common nutritional method.
Materials & Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted at a teaching hospital in Iran in 2015. The sample of the study included 100 candidates for esophagectomy. In the case group (enteral), a Jejunostomy tube was inserted for 50 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The control group (parenteral) consisted of 50 patients undergoing esophagectomy without jejunostomy tube.
Results: The median oral intake was on the third day in the case group, with a shorter hospital stay (P=0.02) compared to the control group. The mean total costs of hospitalization per patient in the case group and in the control group were 2228 and 3666 US dollars, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the jejunostomy tube against the common nutritional method was about 40 US dollars per day of the median decrease in oral intake.
Conclusion: According to our findings, jejunostomy tube is cost-effective and preferable to the common nutritional method with a decreased median of oral intake start day, a decreased span of hospitalization, fewer complications in the nutritional support of the patients undergoing esophagectomy, and finally, more comfort for patients. The decrease in the average length of stay in hospitals is also important from the point of view of policymaking. So, this method can be a cost-effective alternative to the common nutritional method.
Materials & Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted at a teaching hospital in Iran in 2015. The sample of the study included 100 candidates for esophagectomy. In the case group (enteral), a Jejunostomy tube was inserted for 50 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The control group (parenteral) consisted of 50 patients undergoing esophagectomy without jejunostomy tube.
Results: The median oral intake was on the third day in the case group, with a shorter hospital stay (P=0.02) compared to the control group. The mean total costs of hospitalization per patient in the case group and in the control group were 2228 and 3666 US dollars, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the jejunostomy tube against the common nutritional method was about 40 US dollars per day of the median decrease in oral intake.
Conclusion: According to our findings, jejunostomy tube is cost-effective and preferable to the common nutritional method with a decreased median of oral intake start day, a decreased span of hospitalization, fewer complications in the nutritional support of the patients undergoing esophagectomy, and finally, more comfort for patients. The decrease in the average length of stay in hospitals is also important from the point of view of policymaking. So, this method can be a cost-effective alternative to the common nutritional method.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Health Economics
Received: 2023/04/19 | Accepted: 2023/05/22 | Published: 2023/07/19
Received: 2023/04/19 | Accepted: 2023/05/22 | Published: 2023/07/19
References
1. Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG. 2013;19(34):5598. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. DeMeester TR, editor Esophageal carcinoma: current controversies. Seminars in surgical oncology; 1997: Wiley Online Library.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2388(199707/08)13:4<217::AID-SSU2>3.0.CO;2-8 [DOI]
3. Russell MC, Thourani VH, Miller Jr JI. Modified nissen fundoplication combined with Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2007;84(5):1780-2. [DOI] [PMID]
4. Velanovich V, Mohlberg N. The split-stomach fundoplication after esophagogastrectomy. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery. 2006;10(2):178-85. [DOI] [PMID]
5. Junemann-Ramirez M, Awan M, Khan Z, Rahamim J. Anastomotic leakage post-esophagogastrectomy for esophageal carcinoma: retrospective analysis of predictive factors, management and influence on longterm survival in a high volume centre. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. 2005;27(1):3-7. [DOI] [PMID]
6. Srinathan SK, Hamin T, Walter S, Tan AL, Unruh HW, Guyatt G. Jejunostomy tube feeding in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2013;56(6):409. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Fanning M, Mc Hugh A, Browne C, Ravi N, Reynolds J, Healy L. PTU-200 Home jejunostomy feeding post-oesophagectomy: a change in practice. Gut. 2012;61(Suppl 2):A267-A. [DOI]
8. Fisher C, Blalock B. Clogged feeding tubes: a clinician's thorn. Pract Gastroenterol. 2014;17. [URL]
9. Júnior LGT, de Vasconcellos Santos FA, Correia MITD. Randomized clinical trial: nasoenteric tube or jejunostomy as a route for nutrition after major upper gastrointestinal operations. World journal of surgery. 2014;38(9):2241-6. [DOI] [PMID]
10. Brunicardi F, Andersen D, Billiar T, Dunn D, Hunter J, Matthews J, et al. Schwartz's principles of surgery, 10e: McGraw-hill; 2014. [Google Scholar]
11. Al Batani R, Abdullah DC, Bahari MB. Evaluation of the total parenteral nutrition service at Universiti Sains Malaysia Hospital. e-SPEN, the European e-Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 2007;2(6):e111-e5. [DOI]
12. Gupta V. Benefits versus risks: a prospective audit. World journal of surgery. 2009;33(7):1432-8. [DOI] [PMID]
13. Galhego R, Moura R, Enne M. Jejunostomy or nasoenteric tube: Which is the best route for nutrition after Whipple procedure. HPB. 2016;18:e370. [DOI]
14. Elliott R, Payne K. Essentials of economic evaluation in healthcare: pharmaceutical press; 2005. [Google Books]
15. Robinson R. Economic evaluation and health care. What does it mean? Bmj. 1993;307(6905):670-3. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Fox-Rushby J, Cairns J. Economic evaluation: McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2005.17. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes: Oxford university press; 2015. [URL]
17. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health economics. 1994;3(2):95-104. [DOI] [PMID]
18. Chin K-F, Townsend S, Wong W, Miller GV. A prospective cohort study of feeding needle catheter jejunostomy in an upper gastrointestinal surgical unit. Clinical Nutrition. 2004;23(4):691-6. [DOI] [PMID]
19. Mazaki T, Ebisawa K. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in the English literature. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2008;12(4):739-55. [DOI] [PMID]
20. Fenton JR, Bergeron EJ, Coello M, Welsh RJ, Chmielewski GW. Feeding jejunostomy tubes placed during esophagectomy: are they necessary? The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2011;92(2):504-12. [DOI] [PMID]
21. Muennig P, Bounthavong M. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. [Google Books]
22. Minarich MJ, Schwarz RE. Experience with a simplified feeding jejunostomy technique for enteral nutrition following major visceral operations. Translational gastroenterology and hepatology. 2018;3. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
23. Brett K, Argáez C. Gastrostomy versus Gastrojejunostomy and/or Jejunostomy Feeding Tubes: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Guidelines. 2018. [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
