Search

Purpose To determine the association between frailty, 30-day complications, rehospitalization, and transplant-free survival (TFS) following conventional and drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on a cohort of 125 patients with treatment-naïve hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent conventional or drug-eluting beads chemoembolization at our institution between 2014 and 2015. Liver function parameters, Barcelona clinic liver cancer tumor stage, and all components of the five-item modified frailty index (mFI-5) were used to determine the patient's frailty status. Key end points included severe (grade 3 or above) adverse events of chemoembolization, 30-day rehospitalization rates, and TFS. Logistic regression analysis was performed on conventional predictors of postoperative complications after chemoembolization. Median survival was estimated and compared using the Kaplan–Meier's estimator and log-rank test. Results Among 125 patients who underwent first-time chemoembolization, higher frailty score was an independent predictor of both 30-day hospital readmission and severe liver toxicity (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively) on multivariate logistic regression analysis. Each point increase in mFI-5 conferred a threefold or twofold increase in the risk of experiencing 30-day rehospitalization or postoperative severe adverse events, respectively. At the data censor date, patients with mFI-5 score ≥ 2 had decreased overall TFS (28.1 vs. 39.8 months, p = 0.03). Conclusion Increasing frailty as determined by mFI-5 is an independent predictor of 30-day complications and lower TFS following chemoembolization.

To compare the cost-effectiveness of tunneled peritoneal catheter (TPC) versus serial large-volume paracenteses (LVP) for patients with recurrent ascites.Retrospective, single-institution analysis of 100 consecutive patients undergoing LVP and eventual TPC placement (2015-2018) was performed with extraction of procedural complications and hospital admissions. LVPs were associated with 17 adverse events (AEs) while only 9 AEs occurred after TPC placement. While undergoing routine LVP, the patients had 30 hospitalizations monthly (177 days in total) and 10 hospitalizations monthly (51 days) after TPC placement. A cost-effectiveness analysis with Markov modeling was performed comparing TPC and LVP. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Statistical analyses include base case calculation, Monte Carlo simulations, and deterministic sensitivity analyses.TPC placement was the dominant strategy with a comparable health benefit of 0.08060 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) (LVP: 0.08057 QALY) at a lower cost of $4151 (LVP: $8401). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed TPC was superior in 97.49% of simulations. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the superiority of TPC compared to LVP if the TPC complication rate was 9.47% per week and the complication rate for LVP was 1.32% per procedure. TPC was more cost-effective when its procedural cost was $5427 (base case: 1174.5), and remained as such when the cost of LVP was varied as much as $10,000 (base case: $316.48).In this study, TPC was more cost-effective than LVP in patients with recurrent ascites due to the reduced risk of infection, emergency department visits, and length of hospitalization stays.