TY - JOUR
T1 - The Optimal Length of Stay after Microvascular Breast Reconstruction
T2 - A Cost-Utility Analysis
AU - Mericli, Alexander F.
AU - Selber, Jesse C.
AU - Largo, Rene D.
AU - Tran, Jacquelynn P.
AU - Liu, Jun
AU - Reece, Gregory P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/8/1
Y1 - 2022/8/1
N2 - Background: Length of stay can have a large impact on overall surgical costs. Several studies have demonstrated that a shortened length of stay is safe and effective after microvascular breast reconstruction. The optimal length of stay from a cost-utility perspective is not known. Methods: The authors used a decision tree model to evaluate the cost-utility, from the perspective of the hospital, of a variety of length-of-stay strategies. Health state probabilities were estimated from an institutional chart review. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses. Results: Over a 10-year period, the authors' overall flap loss and take-back rates were 1.6 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively. After rollback, a 3-day length of stay was identified as the most cost-effective strategy, with an expected cost of $41,680.19 and an expected health utility of 25.68 quality-adjusted life-years. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis confirmed that discharge on postoperative day 3 was the most cost-effective strategy in the majority of simulations when the willingness-to-pay threshold varied from $50,000 to $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusion: This cost-utility analysis suggests that a 3-day length of stay is the most cost-effective strategy after microvascular breast reconstruction.
AB - Background: Length of stay can have a large impact on overall surgical costs. Several studies have demonstrated that a shortened length of stay is safe and effective after microvascular breast reconstruction. The optimal length of stay from a cost-utility perspective is not known. Methods: The authors used a decision tree model to evaluate the cost-utility, from the perspective of the hospital, of a variety of length-of-stay strategies. Health state probabilities were estimated from an institutional chart review. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses. Results: Over a 10-year period, the authors' overall flap loss and take-back rates were 1.6 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively. After rollback, a 3-day length of stay was identified as the most cost-effective strategy, with an expected cost of $41,680.19 and an expected health utility of 25.68 quality-adjusted life-years. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis confirmed that discharge on postoperative day 3 was the most cost-effective strategy in the majority of simulations when the willingness-to-pay threshold varied from $50,000 to $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusion: This cost-utility analysis suggests that a 3-day length of stay is the most cost-effective strategy after microvascular breast reconstruction.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135347932&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135347932&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009316
DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009316
M3 - Article
C2 - 35653514
AN - SCOPUS:85135347932
SN - 0032-1052
VL - 150
SP - 279E-289E
JO - Plastic and reconstructive surgery
JF - Plastic and reconstructive surgery
IS - 2
ER -