RSS-Feed abonnieren
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/a-1873-0884
Cost-effective analysis of preliminary single-operator cholangioscopy for management of difficult biliary stones
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00025476/202209/lookinside/thumbnails/2557_10-1055-a-1873-0884-1.jpg)
Abstract
Background and study aims Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy (SOC) is a therapeutic modality for difficult biliary stone disease. Given its high success rate and increasing availability, analysis of the economic impact of early SOC utilization is critical for clinical decision-making. Our aim is to compare the cost-effectiveness of different first and second-line endoscopic modalities for difficult-to-treat choledocholithiasis.
Patients and methods A decision-tree model with a 1-year time horizon and a hypothetical cohort of 200 patients was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of SOC for first, second and third-line intervention in presumed difficult biliary stones. We adopted the perspective of a Canadian tertiary hospital, omitting recurrence rates associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Effectiveness estimates were obtained from updated meta-analyses. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess how changes in key parameters affected model conclusions.
Results First- and second-line SOC achieved comparable clinical efficacy from 96.3 % to 97.6% stone clearance. The least expensive strategy is third-line SOC (SOC-3: $800,936). Performing SOC during the second ERCP was marginally more expensive (SOC-2: $ 816,584) but 9 % more effective. The strategy of first-line SOC incurred the highest hospital expenditures (SOC-1: $ 851,457) but decreased total procedures performed by 16.9 % when compared with SOC-2. Sensitivity analysis was robust in showing SOC-2 as the most optimal approach.
Conclusions Second-line SOC was superior to first and third-line SOC for treatment of difficult biliary stones. When based on meta-analysis of non-heterogeneous trials, SOC-2 is more cost-effective and cost-efficient. Our study warrants a larger pragmatic effectiveness trial.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 01. Oktober 2021
Angenommen nach Revision: 08. Juni 2022
Accepted Manuscript online:
09. Juni 2022
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. September 2022
© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Stinton L, Shaffer E. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 2012; 6: 172-187
- 2 Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L. et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 472-491
- 3 Williamson JB, Draganov PV. The usefulness of SpyGlass choledochoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2012; 14: 534-541
- 4 Gutierrez B, Noor B, Raijmann I. et al. Efficacy and safety of digital single‐operator cholangioscopy for difficult biliary stones. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 16: 918-926
- 5 Chen YK, Parsi MA, Binmoeller KF. et al. Single-operator cholangioscopy in patients requiring evaluation of bile duct disease or therapy of biliary stones (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 805-14
- 6 Stinton L, Shaffer E. Epidemiology of Gallbladder Disease: Cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 2012; 6: 172-187
- 7 Üsküdar O, Parlak E, Dışıbeyaz S. et al. Major predictors for difficult common bile duct stone. Turk J Gastroenterol 2013; 24: 423-429
- 8 Lujian P, Xianneng C, Lei Z. Risk factors of stone recurrence after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones. Medicine 2020; 99: e20412
- 9 Almadi MA, Eltayeb M, Thaniah S. et al. Predictors of failure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in clearing bile duct stone on the initial procedure. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 132-138
- 10 Sabbah M, Nakhli A, Bellil N. et al. Predictors of failure of endoscopic retrograde pancreatocholangiography during common bile duct stones. Heliyon 2020; 6: e05515
- 11 Korrapati P, Ciolino J, Wani S. et al. The efficacy of peroral cholangioscopy for difficult bile duct stones and indeterminate strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E263-E275
- 12 Yasuda I, Itoi T. Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 376-385
- 13 Ang TL, Eu-Kwek AB. Safety and efficacy of SpyGlass cholangiopancreatoscopy in routine clinical practice in a regional Singapore hospital. Singapore Med J 2019; 60: 538-544
- 14 Deprez PH, Garces Duran R, Moreels T. et al. The economic impact of using single-operator cholangioscopy for the treatment of difficult bile duct stones and diagnosis of indeterminate bile duct strictures. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 109-118
- 15 Alrajhi S, Barkun A, Adam V. et al. Early cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy in difficult biliary stones is cost-effective. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2021; 145628482031388 DOI: 10.1177/17562848211031388.
- 16 Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L. et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 472-491
- 17 Doshi B, Yasuda I, Ryozawa S. et al. Current endoscopic strategies for managing large bile duct stones. Digest Endosc 2018; 30: 59-66
- 18 Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Elmunzer BJ. et al. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 799-815
- 19 Thosani N, Zubarik RS, Kochar R. Prospective evaluation of bacteremia rates and infectious complications among patients undergoing single-operator choledochoscopy during ERCP. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 424-431
- 20 Jin Z, Wei Y, Tang X. et al. Single-operator peroral cholangioscope in treating difficult biliary stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 256-269
- 21 Oh CH, Dong SH. Recent advances in the management of difficult bile-duct stones: a focus on single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy. Korean J Internal Med 2021; 36: 235-246
- 22 Angsuwatcharakon P, Kulpatcharapong S, Ridtitid W. et al. Digital cholangioscopy-guided laser versus mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stone removal after failed papillary large-balloon dilation: a randomized study. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1066-1073
- 23 Wong JC, Tang RS, Teoh AY. et al. Efficacy and safety of novel digital single-operator peroral cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy for complicated biliary stones. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E54-E58
- 24 Brewer Gutierrez OI, Bekkali NLH, Raijman I. et al. Efficacy and safety of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for difficult biliary stones. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 918-926.e1
- 25 Buxbaum J, Sahakian A, Ko C. et al. Randomized trial of cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy versus conventional therapy for large bile duct stones (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1050-1060
- 26 Chang WH, Chu CH, Wang TE. et al. Outcome of simple use of mechanical lithotripsy of difficult common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 593-596
- 27 Galetti F, Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB. et al. Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy vs. conventional therapy for complex bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2020; 33: e1491
- 28 Yodice M, Choma J, Tadros M. The expansion of cholangioscopy: established and investigational uses of SpyGlass in biliary and pancreatic disorders. Diagnostics 2020; 10: 132
- 29 Sethi A, Chen YK, Austin GL. et al. ERCP with cholangiopancreatoscopy may be associated with higher rates of complications than ERCP alone: A single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 251-256
- 30 Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L. et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices - budget impact analysis. Value Health 2007; 10: 336-347
- 31 Spada C, McNamara S, Despott EJ. et al. Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2019; 7: 614-641
- 32 Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO. et al. Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 156-159
- 33 Li G, Pang Q, Zhang X. et al. Dilation-assisted stone extraction: an alternative method for removal of common bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 857-864
- 34 Jun BoQ, Li HuaX, Tian MinC. et al. Small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation for removal of large common bile duct stones during ERCP. Pak J Med Sci 2013; 29: 907-912
- 35 Polsky D, Glick H. Costing and cost analysis in randomised trials: caveat emptor. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 179-188