Cost Utility of Competing Strategies to Prevent Endoscopic Transmission of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

Almario CV, May FP, Shaheen NJ, Murthy R, Gupta K, Jamil LH, Lo SK, Spiegel BM. Cost Utility of Competing Strategies to Prevent Endoscopic Transmission of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2015 Dec 1; 110(12):1666-74.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Prior reports have linked patient transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE, or "superbug") to endoscopes used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a decision analysis to measure the cost-effectiveness of four competing strategies for CRE risk management. METHODS: We used decision analysis to calculate the cost-effectiveness of four approaches to reduce the risk of CRE transmission among patients presenting to the hospital for symptomatic common bile duct stones. The strategies included the following: (1) perform ERCP followed by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endoscope reprocessing procedures; (2) perform ERCP followed by "endoscope culture and hold"; (3) perform ERCP followed by ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization of the endoscope; and (4) stop performing ERCP in lieu of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with common bile duct exploration (CBDE). Our outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, ERCP with FDA-recommended endoscope reprocessing was the most cost-effective strategy. Both the ERCP with culture and hold ($4,228,170/QALY) and ERCP with EtO sterilization ($50,572,348/QALY) strategies had unacceptable incremental costs per QALY gained. LC with CBDE was dominated, being both more costly and marginally less effective vs. the alternatives. In sensitivity analysis, ERCP with culture and hold became the most cost-effective approach when the pretest probability of CRE exceeded 24%. CONCLUSIONS: In institutions with a low CRE prevalence, ERCP with FDA-recommended reprocessing is the most cost-effective approach for mitigating CRE transmission risk. Only in settings with an extremely high CRE prevalence did ERCP with culture and hold become cost-effective.