Analysis of hospital and payer costs of care: aggressive warming versus routine warming in abdominal major surgery

Shujia Song,Lijian Pei,Hongda Chen,Yuelun Zhang,Chen Sun,Jie Yi,Yuguang Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1256254

2023-11-02

Abstract:Background: Hypothermia is common and active warming is recommended in major surgery. The potential effect on hospitals and payer costs of aggressive warming to a core temperature target of 37°C is poorly understood. Methods: In this sub-analysis of the PROTECT trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03111875), we included patients who underwent radical procedures of colorectal cancer and were randomly assigned to aggressive warming or routine warming. Perioperative outcomes, operation room (OR) scheduling process, internal cost accounting data from the China Statistical yearbook (2022), and price lists of medical and health institutions in Beijing were examined. A discrete event simulation (DES) model was established to compare OR efficiency using aggressive warming or routine warming in 3 months. We report base-case net costs and sensitivity analyses of intraoperative aggressive warming compared with routine warming. Costs were calculated in 2022 using US dollars (USD). Results: Data from 309 patients were analyzed. The aggressive warming group comprised 161 patients and the routine warming group comprised 148 patients. Compared to routine warming, there were no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications and total hospitalization costs of patients with aggressive warming. The potential benefit of aggressive warming was in the reduced extubation time (7.96 ± 4.33 min vs. 10.33 ± 5.87 min, p < 0.001), lower incidence of prolonged extubation (5.6% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.017), and decreased staff costs. In the DES model, there is no add-on or cancelation of operations performed within 3 months. The net hospital costs related to aggressive warming were higher than those related to routine warming in one operation (138.11 USD vs. 72.34 USD). Aggressive warming will have an economic benefit when the OR staff cost is higher than 2.37 USD/min/person, or the cost of disposable forced-air warming (FAW) is less than 12.88 USD/piece. Conclusion: Despite improving OR efficiency, the economic benefits of aggressive warming are influenced by staff costs and the cost of FAW, which vary from different regions and countries. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT03111875).