Advertisement

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Economic Evaluation from a Standardized Hospital Case Costing System

  • Andrew D. Brown
  • Steffan F. Stella
  • Martin E. Simons
Clinical Investigation Arterial Interventions
  • 73 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Arterial Interventions

Abstract

Purpose

Minimally invasive alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) such as prostate arterial embolization (PAE) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) are being explored as adjuncts in the care of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, there are conflicting reports of the costs of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the direct and indirect hospital costs of TURP, PAE and PVP.

Materials and Methods

A chart review was performed in patients who underwent TURP, PVP and PAE from April 2015 to March 2017. All hospital costs were collected in accordance with the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, a standardized medical case costing system. Costs were characterized as direct or indirect and fixed or variable. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to study cost uncertainty.

Results

During the study period, a total of 209 men underwent TURP, 28 PVP and 21 PAE. Mean age (years) was as follows: TURP 71.43; PVP 73.66; PAE 70.77 (p = 0.366). Mean length of stay (days) was as follows: TURP 1.63; PVP 1.55; PAE 1 (p = 0.076). Total costs of the PAE group ($3829, SD $1582) were less than both PVP ($5719, SD $1515) and TURP groups ($5034, SD $1997, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in direct costs between the groups. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that PAE was the least costly alternative majority of the time.

Conclusions

The total hospital costs of PAE at our institution are significantly lower than those of PVP and TURP.

Keywords

BPH Cost Prostate artery embolization (PAE) Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) TURP 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent

This study has obtained IRB approval from research ethics board (University Health Network), and the need for informed consent was waived.

Consent for Publication

For this type of study, consent for publication is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Getzenberg RH, Kulkarni P. Etiology and pathogenesis. In: Kaplan SA, McVary KT, editors. Male lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. p. 218.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McConnell JD, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: diagnosis and treatment. Agency for health care policy and research. Clin Pract Guidel Quick Ref Guide Clin. 1994;8:1–17.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapple CR. Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction–Triumph: design and implementation. Eur Urol. 2001;39(Suppl. 3):31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taub DA, Wei JT. The economics of benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7:272–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hueber PA, Zorn KC. Canadian trend in surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia and laser therapy from 2007–2008 to 2011–2012. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7(9–10):e582–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borboroglu PG, Kane CJ, Ward JF, Roberts JL, Sands JP. Immediate and postoperative complications of transurethral prostatectomy in the 1990s. J Urol. 1999;162(4):1307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):969–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wasson JH, Reda DJ, Bruskewitz RC, Elinson J, Keller AM, Henderson WG. A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(2):75–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madersbacher S, Lackner J, Brössner C, et al. Reoperation, myocardial infarction and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy: a nation-wide, long-term analysis of 23,123 cases. Eur Urol. 2005;47(4):499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Sampige VP, et al. GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58:349–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouchier-Hayes DM, Van AS, Bugeja P, et al. A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up. BJU Int. 2010;105:964–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Capitan C, Blazquez C, Martin MD, et al. GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2011;60:734–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goh AC, Gonzalez RR. Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy versus transurethral prostate resection: a cost analysis. J Urol. 2010;183:1469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liatsikos E, Kyriazis I, Kallidonis P, et al. Photoselective GreenLight laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate in Greece: a comparative cost analysis. J Endourol. 2012;26:168–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whelan A. Prospective trial of GreenLight PVP (HPS120) versus transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in Ontario, Canada; 2013.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeMeritt JS, Elmasri FF, Esposito MP, Rosenberg GS. Relief of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related bladder outlet obstruction after transarterial polyvinyl alcohol prostate embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(6):767–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carnevale FC, Antunes AA, da Motta Leal Filho JM, de Oliveira Cerri LM, Baroni RH, Marcelino AS, Freire GC, Moreira AM, Srougi M, Cerri GG. Prostatic artery embolization as a primary treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: preliminary results in two patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33(2):355–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gao YA, Huang Y, Zhang R, et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate–a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. Radiology. 2014;270(3):920–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pisco JM, et al. Medium- and long-term outcome of prostate artery embolization for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: results in 630 patients. J Vasc Intvent Radiol. 2016;27:1115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uflacker A, Haskal ZJ, Bilhim T, Patrie J, Huber T, Pisco JM. Meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.08.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guidance document for the costing of health care resources in the Canadian setting, 2nd edn. Ottawa: CADTH; 2016.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995;57:289–300.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bank of Canada. Annual exchange rates. Bank of Canada, 2017. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/exchange/annual-average-exchange-rates/. Accessed 7 July 2018.
  24. 24.
    Lukacs B, Loeffler J, Bruyre F, et al. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with Greenlight 120-W laser compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whelan JP, Bowen JM, Burke N, et al. A prospective trial of GreenLight PVP (HPS120) versus transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in Ontario, Canada. J Can Urol Assoc. 2013;7:335–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whitty JA, Crosland P, Hewson K, Narula R, Nathan TR, Campbell PA, Keller A, Scuffham PA. A cost-minimisation analysis comparing photoselective vaporisation (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Queensland, Australia. BJU Int. 2014;113(Suppl 2):21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bagla S, Smirniotopoulos J, Orlando J, Piechowiak R. Cost analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40(11):1694–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew D. Brown
    • 1
  • Steffan F. Stella
    • 2
  • Martin E. Simons
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations