Cost-effectiveness of the enhanced recovery program in patients undergoing colon surgery. Results of randomized clinical trial

AIM: to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the enhanced recovery program (ERP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: a randomized clinical trial was carried out. A total of 152 patients were divided into ERP (n = 77) and conventional (n = 75) groups. To study the cost-effectiveness of ERP, direct medical costs were assessed at all stages of treatment (outpatient, inpatient, and also within 30 days after discharge from the hospital). Cost minimization analysis (CMA) was used.

RESULTS: the median total costs at the stage of outpatient check-up ERP and conventional groups where comparable (33115-35146 rubles; p = 0.1). The total cost of inpatient treatment in the main group was 175,535 rubles, in the control group — 199,055 rubles (p < 0.0001). The costs of outpatient follow-up in ERP group were significantly higher compared to the conventional group (p = 0.0005). The difference, according to Hodges-Lehmann estimation, was 940.7 rubles. The cost of the entire cycle of treatment in the ERP group was 214805 rubles, in the conventional — 237890 rubles (p < 0.0001). Thus, the total reduction in treatment costs associated with ERP amounted to 23,085 rubles (9.7% expenditures)

CONCLUSION: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the implementation of the Enhanced Recovery Program showed an overall cost reduction of 9.7% due to a reduction in costs at the inpatient stage.

1. Ko CY, Maggard M, Agustin M. Quality in surgery: Current issues for the future. World Journal of Surgery. 2005;10(29):1204–1209.

2. Lukashevych I.V., Achkasov S.I., Sushkov O.I., Savushkin A.V. Results of the optimized perioperative care protocol implementation in patients with elective colon resection. Koloproktologia. 2015;3(53):52–59. (in Russ.).

3. Achkasov S.I., Surovegin E.S., Sushkov O.I., Lukashevych I.V., et al. Results of the implementation of the enhanced recovery program in coloproctology. Koloproktologia. 2018;2(64):32–38. (in Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2018-0-2-32-38

4. Achkasov S.I., Lukashevich I.V., Surovegin E.S. Correlation between compliance of enhanced recovery program protocol and efficacy of perioperative care in patients with colon cancer. Oncological coloroctology. 2016;2(6):29–34. (in Russ).

5. Anderson ADG, McNaught CE, MacFie J, Tring I, et al. Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization and standard perioperative surgical care. British Journal of Surgery. 2003;12(90):1497–1504.

6. Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, et al. Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Journal of Surgery. 2014;6(38):1531–1541.

7. Jurowich CF, Reibetanz J, Krajinovic K, et al. Cost analysis of the fast track concept in elective colonic surgery. Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie. 2011;3(136):256–263.

8. King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, et al. The influence of an Enhanced Recovery Programme on clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease. 2006;6(8):506–513.

9. Stowers MDJ, Lemanu DP, Hill AG. Health economics in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/ Journal canadien d’anesthésie. 2014;2(62):219–230.

10. Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, et al. Laparoscopy in Combination with Fast Track Multimodal Management is the Best Perioperative Strategy in Patients Undergoing Colonic Surgery. Annals of Surgery. 2011;6(254):868–875.

11. Yagudina R.I., Kulikov A.Yu., Tikhomirova A.V. The possibility of pharmacoeconomic data transferability from one country to another country. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;3:28–30. (in Russ.).

12. Ehrlich A, Kellokumpu S, Wagner B, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open colonic resection within fast-track and traditional perioperative care pathways: Clinical outcomes and in-hospital costs. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery. 2015;4(104):211–218.

13. Archibald LH, Mark JO, Craig MG, et al. Enhanced recovery after colon surgery in a community hospital system. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2011;7(54):840–845.