Search

AimsFollowing (minimally invasive) esophagectomy, patients often rely on tube feeding, since oral intake is often delayed. Consequently, additional support by a dietician and home care is needed until oral intake is commenced. In this study, the effects of direct start of oral feeding compared with tube feeding following an esophagectomy was evaluated on treatment costs and health-related quality of life (QoL).MethodsPatients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomized in the NUTRIENT II study between controls (nil-per-mouth during 5 days and subsequent tube feeding) and a group in whom oral feeding was started directly postoperatively. Total hospital costs (including readmission and outpatient costs) and home care data for a period of 6 months after surgery were analyzed. QoL (measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC OG-25) was assessed preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively.ResultsA total 132 patients were included (n = 65 direct oral feeding group and n = 67 control group). Mean patient hospital costs were euro26,014 in the intervention group over a 6-month period compared to euro26,989 in the control group (p = .825). Furthermore, people with direct oral feeding required significantly less home care assistance; i.e. 23 (48.9%) intervention patients versus 37 (77.1%) control patients (p = .004). Also, QoL in patients with direct oral feeding progressed more quickly when compared to the control group.LimitationsHospital costs were derived from a single hospital unit whereas costs from all the participating units may be a better reflection of the cost deviation. Availability of homecare data was limited, leading to difficulty in detecting differences in costs.ConclusionThis study suggests that direct oral feeding leads to similar total costs and a significantly reduced need for home care assistance. Furthermore, QoL in intervention group increased more quickly when compared to the control group.

Background: Colorectal surgery is associated with postoperative ileus (POI). Despite its widespread manifestation, the influence of POI on recovery, quality of life (QoL), and costs is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the inflammatory processes found in experimental studies are also evident in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In addition, the impact of POI on short and long-term QoL and costs was investigated.Methods: We analyzed the outcomes of the SANICS-II trial, including prospective evaluation of inflammatory parameters in blood samples, costs from a societal perspective and QoL, using validated questionnaires. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without POI, and in particular patients with POI as unique complication.Key Results: A total of 265 patients (POI, n = 66 vs non-POI, n = 199) were included and 38/66 had POI as only complication. CRP levels were significantly increased on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2, 3, and 4 in patients with POI. Furthermore, plasma levels of cytokines IL- 6, Il-8 and IL-10 were significantly increased the first 2 days after resection. Patients with POI had a higher overall complication rate and a reduced QoL 3 months postoperatively, even in the only POI group. Moreover, mean societal cost per patient with POI was 38%-47% higher at 3 months postoperatively.Conclusions & Inferences: Supporting findings from experimental studies, inflammatory parameters were increased in patients with only POI and comparable with all patients with POI. These results demonstrate the impact and large contribution of POI in postoperative inflammation, costs and QoL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Background: Postoperative ileus (POI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery severely increase healthcare costs and decrease quality of life. This study evaluates the effects of reducing POI and AL via perioperative gum chewing compared to placebo (control) on in-hospital costs, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and assesses cost-effectiveness. Methods: In patients undergoing elective, open colorectal surgery, changes in HRQoL were assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires and costs were estimated from a hospital perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Results: In 112 patients, mean costs for ward stay were significantly lower in the gum chewing group when compared to control ((sic)3522 (95% CI (sic)3034-(sic)4010) versus (sic)4893 (95% CI (sic)3843-(sic)5942), respectively, p = .020). No differences were observed in mean overall in-hospital costs, or in mean change in any of the HRQoL scores or utilities. Gum chewing was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to the control in more than 50% of the simulations for both POI and AL. Conclusion: Reducing POI and AL via gum chewing reduced costs for ward stay, but did not affect overall in-hospital costs, HRQoL, or mapped utilities. More studies with adequate sample sizes using validated questionnaires at standardized time points are needed.

Objective: To assess the quality of life and societal costs of patients prior to colorectal surgery in the Netherlands. Methods: This study is embedded in a previous randomized controlled trial (SANICS II). The quality of life was measured using EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. The iMTA medical consumption questionnaire (iMCQ) and the iMTA productivity costs questionnaire (iPCQ) were used to identify and measure healthcare and productivity costs. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age and gender. Results: A total of 178 patients were included in the cost analysis and a total of 161 patients in the quality of life analysis. The three-month mean societal cost per patient amounted to euro3,211 of which euro1,459 was due to productivity losses. The mean utility was 0.88 per patient. Gender was an important predictor in quality of life with men scoring significantly higher than women (0.92 versus 0.82) at p Conclusion: Colorectal cancer represents a high economic burden in the Netherlands. Further research with repeated cost and quality of life measurements would be needed to explore the change over time and the effects of surgery.

Aims: The objective of this (trial based) economic evaluation was to assess, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of perioperative enteral nutrition compared with standard care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Materials and methods: Alongside the SANICS II randomized controlled trial, global quality-of-life, utilities (measured by EQ-5D-5L), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e. cost per increased global quality-of-life score or quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) and cost effectiveness acceptability curves were visualized. Results: In total, 265 patients were included in the original trial (n = 132 in the perioperative enteral nutrition group and n = 133 in the standard care group). At 6 months, global quality-of-life (83 vs 83, p = .357) did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean total societal costs for the intervention and standard care groups were euro14,673 and euro11,974, respectively, but did not reach statistical significance (p = .109). The intervention resulted in an ICER of -euro6,276 per point increase in the global quality of life score. The gain in QALY was marginal (0.003), with an additional cost of euro2,941, and the ICUR (Incremental cost utility ratio) was estimated at euro980,333. Limitations: The cost elements for all the participating centers reflect the reference prices from the Netherlands. Patient-reported questionnaires may have resulted in recall bias. Sample size was limited by exclusion of patients who did not complete questionnaires for at least at two time points. A power analysis based on costs and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was not performed. The economic impact could not be analyzed at 1 month post-operatively where the effects could potentially be higher. Conclusions: This study suggests that perioperative nutrition is not beneficial for the patients in terms of quality-of-life and is not cost-effective.