Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Two treatment options exist for choledocholithiasis (CDL): endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and common bile duct exploration (CBDE). Resource utilization measured by total in-hospital charges (THC) and length of stay (LOS) was compared using the propensity score (PS). In this study, PS was the probability that a patient received CBDE based on comorbidities and demographics. The power of this method lies in balancing groups on variables by PS, resulting in 90% bias reduction and improved inferential validity compared to traditional analytic techniques.

Methods

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients with CDL who had ERCP or CBDE were identified in the 2002 U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patients were ordered into five PS balanced strata. Mean THC, LOS, and estimated costs were compared. A linear regression model was used to estimate the contribution that LOS had on estimated costs. Monetary values were adjusted to 2004 dollars.

Results

A total of 40,982 patients underwent LC with CDL in 2002; 27,739 had either ERCP (93%) or CBDE (7%). Mean age was 52.7 ± 0.4 years, with 74% women. Mean THC were less for CBDE ($25,200 ± $1,800) than for ERCP ($29,900 ± $800, p < 0.05). Mean LOS was less for CBDE (4.9 ± 0.2 days) than for ERCP (5.6 ± 0.1 days, p < 0.05). PS adjusted analysis revealed an estimated overall cost savings of $4,500 ± $1,600 and reduced LOS (0.6 ± 0.2 days) per hospitalization for CBDE. Mean THC, LOS, and estimated costs across PS score balanced strata were generally higher in the ERCP group compared to the CBDE group. LOS contributed 53% to increased THC and 62% of estimated costs. A higher cumulative incidence of complications was evident with CBDE (0.5–4.6%) compared to ERCP (0.3–3.6%).

Conclusions

Based on this PS analysis, CBDE incurs less THC, reduces LOS, and has less estimated costs for CDL compared to ERCP. Furthermore, CBDE appears to be dramatically underutilized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2002) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP-2002). Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA

  2. Becker SO, Ichino A (2002) Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata J 2: 358–377

    Google Scholar 

  3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2004) Available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/providers/hipps/ippspufs.asp

  4. Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, et al. (1999) E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi. Surg Endosc 13: 952–957

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45: 613–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Medical Care 36: 8–27

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fielding GA, (2002) The case for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surg 9: 723–728

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239: 43–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Joffe MM, Rosenbaum PR (1999) Invited commentary: propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol 150: 327–333

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kapoor R, Kaushik SP, Saraswat VA, Choudhuri G, Sikora SS, Saxena R, Kapoor VK (1996) Prospective randomized trial comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by surgery with surgery alone in good risk patients with choledocholithiasis. HPB Surg 9: 145–148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liberman MA, Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, Fallas MJ, Rosenthal R, Hiatt J (1996) Cost-effective management of complicated choledocholithiasis: laparoscopic transcystic duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy. J Am Coll Surg 182: 488–494

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. National Institutes of Health (2002) NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy. NIH Consensus State-of-the-Science Statements 19: 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  13. Paganini AM, Feliciotti F, Guerrieri M, Tamburini A, De Sanctis A, Campagnacci R, Lezoche E (2001) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Techniques A 11: 391–400

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Petelin JB (2003) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 17: 1705–1715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Radensky PW, Berliner E, Archer JW, Dournaux SF (2001) Inpatient costs of major cardiovascular events. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 1: 205–217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP (1998) Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet 351: 159–161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Statistical Assoc 79: 516–524

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sahai AV, Mauldin PD, Marsi V, Hawes RH, Hoffman BJ (1999) Bile duct stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a decision analysis to assess the roles of intraoperative cholangiography, EUS, and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 49: 334–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sgourakis G, Karaliotas K (2002) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study. Minerva Chir 57: 467–474

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stain SC, Cohen H, Tsuishoysha M, Donovan AJ (1991) Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy or common bile duct exploration. Ann Surg 213: 627-634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Suc B, Escat J, Cherqui D, Fourtanier G, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Millat B (1998) Surgery vs endoscopy as primary treatment in symptomatic patients with suspected common bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 133: 702–708

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Urbach DR, Khajanchee YS, Jobe BA, Standage BA, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL (2001) Cost-effective management of common bile duct stones: a decision analysis of the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography, and laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 15: 4–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004) Consumer price index for medical care. Available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi . U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Surgical Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, A-1124 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    B. K. Poulose & M. D. Holzman

  2. Departments of Biostatistics and Preventive Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, A-1124 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    P. G. Arbogast

Authors
  1. B. K. Poulose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. G. Arbogast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. D. Holzman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. K. Poulose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poulose, B.K., Arbogast, P.G. & Holzman, M.D. National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores. Surg Endosc 20, 186–190 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0235-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0235-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation