Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2022; 83(S 02): e449-e458
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730896
Original Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Type and Screens in Select Endonasal Skull Base Surgeries

Aviv Spillinger 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
2   Office of Research, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, United States
,
Meredith Allen
1   Department of Otolaryngology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
2   Office of Research, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, United States
,
Patrick Karabon
2   Office of Research, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, United States
,
Houmehr Hojjat
3   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, United States
,
Kerolos Shenouda
3   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, United States
,
Inaya Hajj Hussein
2   Office of Research, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, United States
,
Jeffrey T. Jacob
4   Department of Neurosurgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
Peter F. Svider
5   Department of Otolaryngology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey, United States
,
Adam J. Folbe 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
2   Office of Research, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, United States
3   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining preoperative type and screens (T/S) for common endonasal skull base procedures, and determine patient and hospital factors associated with receiving blood transfusions.

Study Design Retrospective database analysis of the 2006 to 2015 National (nationwide) Inpatient Sample and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Main Outcome Measures Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with transfusions. A cost-effectiveness analysis was then performed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of obtaining preoperative T/S to prevent an emergency-release transfusion (ERT), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,500.

Results A total of 93,105 cases were identified with an overall transfusion rate of 1.89%. On multivariate modeling, statistically significant factors associated with transfusion included nonelective admission (odds ratio [OR]: 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78–3.02), anemia (OR: 4.42; 95% CI: 3.35–5.83), coagulopathy (OR: 4.72; 95% CI: 2.94–7.57), diabetes (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.14–1.84), liver disease (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.27–4.43), pulmonary circulation disorders (OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.71–6.29), and metastatic cancer (OR: 5.85; 95% CI: 2.63–13.0; p < 0.01 for all). The ICER of preoperative T/S was $3,576 per ERT prevented. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the risk of transfusion should exceed 4.12% to justify preoperative T/S.

Conclusion Routine preoperative T/S does not represent a cost-effective practice for these surgeries using nationally representative data. A selective T/S policy for high-risk patients may reduce costs.

Keywords

skull base surgery - anterior skull base - blood transfusion - blood grouping and crossmatching - blood loss - surgical

Note

This study was presented in ePoster form at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Rhinologic Society, September 2020.




Publication History

Received: 28 September 2020

Accepted: 23 April 2021

Article published online:
31 May 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Frank SM, Oleyar MJ, Ness PM, Tobian AAR. Reducing unnecessary preoperative blood orders and costs by implementing an updated institution-specific maximum surgical blood order schedule and a remote electronic blood release system. Anesthesiology 2014; 121 (03) 501-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mebel D, Akagami R, Flexman AM. Use of tranexamic acid is associated with reduced blood product transfusion in complex skull base neurosurgical procedures: a retrospective cohort study. Anesth Analg 2016; 122 (02) 503-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lagman C, Sheppard JP, Beckett JS. et al. Red blood cell transfusions following resection of skull base meningiomas: risk factors and clinical outcomes. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2018; 79 (06) 599-605
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Alobaid A, Dehdashti AR. Hemostasis in skull base surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2016; 49 (03) 677-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Singh R, Siddiqui SH, Choi Y. et al. Morbidity and mortality associated with ventral skull base surgery: analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2019; 9 (12) 1485-1491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hagemann J, Roesner J, Helling S. et al. Long-term outcome for open and endoscopically resected sinonasal tumors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 160 (05) 862-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bander ED, Singh H, Ogilvie CB. et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to tuberculum sellae and planum sphenoidale meningiomas in a similar cohort of patients. J Neurosurg 2018; 128 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Villwock JA, Villwock MR, Goyal P, Deshaies EM. Current trends in surgical approach and outcomes following pituitary tumor resection. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (06) 1307-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Murad MH, Fernández-Balsells MM, Barwise A. et al. Outcomes of surgical treatment for nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010; 73 (06) 777-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 HCUP National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2006–2015. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Rockville, MD: . Accessed March 29, 2020 at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Zaidi HA, Chapple K, Little AS. National treatment trends, complications, and predictors of in-hospital charges for the surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in adults from 2007 to 2011. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37 (05) E6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Villwock JA, Villwock MR, Deshaies EM, Goyal P. Clinical and economic impact of time from admission for CSF rhinorrhea to surgical repair. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (03) 539-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36 (01) 8-27
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Houchens RL, Ross D, Elixhauser A. Using the HCUP national inpatient sample to estimate trends. 2015 . HCUP methods series report # 2006–05 ONLINE. January 4, 2016. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed June 28, 2020 at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/methods.jsp
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Houchens R, Elixhauser A. Final report on calculating Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) variances for data years 2011 and earlier. 2015 . HCUP methods series report # 2003–02 online. December 14, 2015. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed June 28, 2020 at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/methods.jsp
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Houchens R, Ross D, Elixhauser A. Final report on calculating National Inpatient Sample (NIS) variances for data years 2012 and later. 2015 . HCUP methods series report # 2015–09 online. December 14, 2015. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed June 28, 2020 at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/methods.jsp
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Einerson BD, Stehlikova Z, Nelson RE, Bellows BK, Kawamoto K, Clark EAS. Transfusion preparedness strategies for obstetric hemorrhage: a cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Obstetrics and Gynecology. Vol 130. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017: 1347-1355
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K. et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ 2016; 94 (12) 925-930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fong ML, Urriza Rodriguez D, Elberm H, Berry DP. Are type and screen samples routinely necessary before laparoscopic cholecystectomy?. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25 (02) 447-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Geynisman-Tan J, Bochenska K, Gillingham A. et al. Clinical utility of routine preoperative laboratory assessment in a urogynecologic population. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020; 26 (09) 550-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rayborn MK, Turner JL, Park SG. Cost effectiveness of preoperative screening for healthy patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy. J Perioper Pract 2017; 27 (06) 129-134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Stangenberg L, Curran T, Shuja F, Rosenberg R, Mahmood F, Schermerhorn ML. Development of a risk prediction model for transfusion in carotid endarterectomy and demonstration of cost-saving potential by avoidance of “type and screen. J Vasc Surg. Vol 64. Mosby Inc.; 2016: 1711-1718
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Tischler EH, Chen AF, Matthews CN, Arnold WV, Smith EB. Are preoperative serologic type and screen tests necessary for primary total joint arthroplasty patients in specialty surgical hospitals?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (11) 2442-2446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dexter F, Ledolter J, Davis E, Witkowski TA, Herman JH, Epstein RH. Systematic criteria for type and screen based on procedure's probability of erythrocyte transfusion. Anesthesiology 2012; 116 (04) 768-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Frank SM, Rothschild JA, Masear CG. et al. Optimizing preoperative blood ordering with data acquired from an anesthesia information management system. Anesthesiology 2013; 118 (06) 1286-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rowan NR, Turner MT, Valappil B. et al. Injury of the carotid artery during endoscopic endonasal surgery: surveys of skull base surgeons. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2018; 79 (03) 302-308
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chin OY, Ghosh R, Fang CH, Baredes S, Liu JK, Eloy JA. Internal carotid artery injury in endoscopic endonasal surgery: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (03) 582-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Goodell PP, Uhl L, Mohammed M, Powers AA. Risk of hemolytic transfusion reactions following emergency-release RBC transfusion. Am J Clin Pathol 2010; 134 (02) 202-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yazer MH, Waters JH, Spinella PC. AABB (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks)/Trauma, Hemostasis, Oxygenation Resuscitation Network (THOR) Working Party. Use of uncrossmatched erythrocytes in emergency bleeding situations. Anesthesiology 2018; 128 (03) 650-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Boisen ML, Collins RA, Yazer MH, Waters JH. Pretransfusion testing and transfusion of uncrossmatched erythrocytes. Anesthesiology 2015; 122 (01) 191-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Butch SH, Judd WJ, Steiner EA, Stoe M, Oberman HA. Electronic verification of donor-recipient compatibility: the computer crossmatch. Transfusion 1994; 34 (02) 105-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shah MD, Goldstein DP, McCluskey SA. et al. Blood transfusion prediction in patients undergoing major head and neck surgery with free-flap reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136 (12) 1199-1204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Abu-Ghanem S, Warshavsky A, Carmel NN. et al. Predictive factors for perioperative blood transfusion in neck dissection. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (04) 851-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Azmy MC, Pinto J, Patel NM, Govindan A, Kalyoussef E. Risk factors for blood transfusion with neck dissection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161 (06) 922-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Povolotskiy R, Cerasiello SY, Siddiqui SH, Baredes S, Eloy JA, Hsueh WD. Anemia and blood transfusion requirements in endoscopic sinus surgery: a propensity-matched analysis. Laryngoscope 2020; 130 (06) 1377-1382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 van Klei WA, Moons KGM, Leyssius ATR, Knape JTA, Rutten CLG, Grobbee DE. A reduction in type and screen: preoperative prediction of RBC transfusions in surgery procedures with intermediate transfusion risks. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87 (02) 250-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar