Voigt, Jeffrey

AimsPrior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients.MethodsLifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.ResultsFor treatment-naïve patients, the lifetime ICER for OPRA was $279/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For treatment-refractory patients the ICER was $273/QALY. In sensitivity analysis, the variable thresholds that would affect a change in the course of treatment based on cost (from socket to OPRA), included the following for the treatment-naïve group: yearly replacement components for socket > $8,511; cost yearly replacement parts OPRA < $1,758; and for treatment-refractory group: yearly replacement component for socket of > $12,467.ConclusionThe use of the OPRA prosthesis in physically active transfemoral amputees should be considered as a cost-effective alternative in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory socket prosthesis patients. Disease-specific quality of life assessments such as Q-TFA are more sensitive when evaluating cost-effectiveness.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):218–226.

The standard method for cardiac allograft preservation for the past 50 years has been static storage using crushed ice. A heart transplant transportation system designed to improve preservation quality with temperature monitoring, the Paragonix SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS), was evaluated for its impact on postoperative costs relative to conventional ice storage. Observational US multicenter registry data collected during the August 2015 to November 2021 timeframe from 12 transplant hospitals were analyzed using logistic regression analysis and propensity matching to balance measured baseline covariates and to reduce selection bias. Hospital cost and outcome data post-transplant were then evaluated using various statistical methods. One hundred seventy-four (174) patients were identified resulting in 87 matches. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The SCTS group had a significantly lower proportion of ICU days on post-transplant mechanical circulatory support ( p < 0.0001); significantly fewer patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( p = 0.017); and significantly fewer patients experiencing severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) ( p = 0.03). Overall hospital plus mechanical circulatory support post-transplant costs were significantly lower by $26.7K in the CTS cohort ( p = 0.03). Use of the SCTS is associated with improved clinical outcomes resulting in significantly lower overall hospital care costs.