We compared the cost-effectiveness of traditional recommended endoscopic hemostatic therapies and Hemospray alone or in combination when treating nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).Background:
Hemospray (TC-325) is a novel endoscopic hemostatic powder, achieving hemostasis through adherence to actively bleeding biological surfaces.Study:
A decision tree of patients with NVUGIB assessed 4 possible treatment strategies: traditional therapy alone (T), Hemospray alone (H), traditional therapy completed by Hemospray if needed (T+H), or Hemospray completed by traditional therapy if needed (H+T). Using published probabilities, effectiveness was the likelihood of avoiding rebleeding over 30 days. Costs in 2014 US$ were based on the US National Inpatient Sample. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.Results:
For all patients, T+H was more efficacious (97% avoiding rebleeding) and less expensive (average cost per patient of US$9150) than all other approaches. The second most cost-effective approach was H+T (5.57% less effective and US$635 more per patient). Sensitivity analyses showed T+H followed by a strategy of H+T remained more cost-effective than H or T alone when varying all probability assumptions across plausible ranges. Subgroup analysis showed that the inclusion of H (especially alone) was least adapted for ulcers and was more cost-effective when treating lesions at low risk of delayed rebleeding.Conclusions:
Hemospray improves the effectiveness of traditional hemostasis, being less costly in most NVUGIB patient populations. A Hemospray first approach is most cost-effective for nonulcer bleeding lesions at low risk of delayed hemorrhage.