Cost-consequence analysis of different active flowable hemostatic matrices in cardiac surgical procedures

Abstract

Outcome differences associated with FLOSEAL vs SURGIFLO that were previously reported in a comparative effectiveness study may result in substantial cost savings for US hospitals.

Floseal only versus in combination in spine surgery: a comparative, retrospective hospital database evaluation of clinical and healthcare resource outcomes

“…The authors are currently performing simulation modelbased analyses to evaluate the overall differences in cost associated with the FO versus F + G/T hemostasis strategy. Evidence of approximately 1000 iterations from our different 'economic Floseal databases' utilized in a previous cost-consequence analysis of a large retrospective analysis of Floseal and Surgiflo kit with thrombin in major spine surgery cases (Price et al [15]; Makhija et al [23]) found that the use of F was associated with less transfusion use, less operative time and less product volume utilization with these factors resulting in a cost savings of $151 per major and $574 per severe spine surgery.…”

Cost–consequence analysis of a hemostatic matrix alone or in combination for spine surgery patients

“…In another study comparing the use of F to a different flowable hemostatic matrix (Surgiflo) in cardiac surgery, the author concluded that utilization of F vs. Surgiflo in cardiac surgery procedures could potentially avoid 11 major complications, 31 minor complications, 9 surgical revisions, 79 blood product transfusions and 260.3 hours of cumulative operating time, which corresponds to a net annualized saving of $1.5 million ($6256 per surgery) for an average hospital that perform 245 cardiac surgeries per year 14 .…”

“…JME peer reviewers on this manuscript have received an honorarium from JME for their review work, but have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose. 12 Floseal vs. Surgiflo þ thrombin Spine surgery $151 per major surgery, $547 per severe surgery Tackett et al, 2014 13 Floseal vs. Surgicel/Gelfoam Cardiac surgery $8960 per case Makhija et al, 2017 14 Floseal vs. Surgiflo Cardiac surgery $6256 per surgery…”

“…Effective use of hemostatic agents has been shown to be cost saving in cardiac surgery 12,13 and major and severe spine surgery 14 . From the currently available literature, it is not clear whether clinical differences between use of F versus F þ G/T amount to significant cost differences for US hospitals performing minor, major and severe spine surgeries.…”

Efficacy of Topical Hemostatic Agents: A Comparative Evaluation of Two Gelatin/Thrombin-Based Hemostatic Matrices in a Porcine Kidney Surgical Model

“…17 Similarly, US studies of cardiac surgery and spine surgery have shown that, compared with StGM, SmGM can reduce rates of blood product transfusions as well as operating time, again resulting in cost savings. 18,19 These two hemostatic agents have previously been compared in humans. One study of patients undergoing partial nephrectomy showed no significant differences between SmGM and StGM in ischemia time or blood loss.…”