Cost-effectiveness of tunneled peritoneal catheters versus repeat paracenteses for recurrent ascites in gynecologic malignancies.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of tunneled peritoneal catheter (TPC) versus repeated large-volume paracentesis (LVP) for patients with recurrent ascites secondary to gynecological malignancy.METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single institution from 2016 through 2019 of patients with recurrent ascites from gynecologic malignancies that underwent either TPC or LVP. Data on procedural complications and hospital admissions were extracted. A cost-effectiveness analysis with Markov modeling was performed comparing TPC and LVP. Statistical analyses include base case calculation, Monte Carlo simulations and deterministic sensitivity analyses.RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the cohorts in the average number of hospital days (p = 0.21) or emergency department visits (p = 0.69) related to ascites. Palliative care was more often involved in the care of patients who had a TPC. The base case calculation showed TPC to be the more cost-effective strategy with a slightly lower health benefit (0.22980 versus 0.22982 QALY) and lower cost ($3043 versus $3868) relative to LVP (ICER of LVP compared to TPC: $44,863,103/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed TPC was the more cost-effective strategy in 8028/10,000 simulations. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed TPC to be more cost-effective if its complication risk was >0.81% per 22 days or its procedural cost of TPC insertion was >$1997. When varying the cost of complications, TPC was more cost-effective if the cost of its complication was less than $49,202.CONCLUSIONS: TPC is the more cost-effective strategy when compared to LVP in patients with recurrent ascites from gynecological malignancy.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.011

View details for PubMedID 35086684