Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy vs. retropubic radical prostatectomy

Jim C. Hu, MD, MPH; Xiangmei Gu, MS; Stuart R. Lipsitz, ScD; Michael J. Barry, MD; Anthony V. D’Amico, MD, PhD; Aaron C. Weinberg, MD; Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557-1564. 
Full Text 
Context Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despite limited data on outcomes and greater costs compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness of MIRP vs RRP.
Design, Setting, and Patients Population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked data from 2003 through 2007. We identified men with prostate cancer who underwent MIRP (n = 1938) vs RRP (n = 6899).
Main Outcome Measures We compared postoperative 30-day complications, anastomotic stricture 31 to 365 days postoperatively, long-term incontinence and erectile dysfunction more than 18 months postoperatively, and postoperative use of additional cancer therapies, a surrogate for cancer control.
Results Among men undergoing prostatectomy, use of MIRP increased from 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-10.5%) in 2003 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.6%-46.9%) in 2006-2007. Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP were more likely to be recorded as Asian (6.1% vs 3.2%), less likely to be recorded as black (6.2% vs 7.8%) or Hispanic (5.6% vs 7.9%), and more likely to live in areas with at least 90% high school graduation rates (50.2% vs 41.0%) and with median incomes of at least $60 000 (35.8% vs 21.5%) (all P < .001). In propensity score–adjusted analyses, MIRP vs RRP was associated with shorter length of stay (median, 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P<.001) and lower rates of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 20.8%; P < .001), postoperative respiratory complications (4.3% vs 6.6%; P = .004), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.3% vs 5.6%; P = .03), and anastomotic stricture (5.8% vs 14.0%; P < .001). However, MIRP vs RRP was associated with an increased risk of genitourinary complications (4.7% vs 2.1%; P = .001) and diagnoses of incontinence (15.9 vs 12.2 per 100 person-years; P = .02) and erectile dysfunction (26.8 vs 19.2 per 100 person-years; P = .009). Rates of use of additional cancer therapies did not differ by surgical procedure (8.2 vs 6.9 per 100 person-years; P = .35).
Conclusion Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP experienced shorter length of stay, fewer respiratory and miscellaneous surgical complications and strictures, and similar postoperative use of additional cancer therapies but experienced more genitourinary complications, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction.

Author Affiliations: Division of Urologic Surgery (Drs Hu and Weinberg), Center for Surgery and Public Health (Drs Hu, Lipsitz, and Weinberg and Ms Gu), Department of Radiation Oncology (Dr D’Amico), and Division of General Internal Medicine (Dr Keating), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute (Dr Hu), The Medical Practices Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital (Dr Barry), and Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School (Dr Keating), Boston. 

Comment in

• Minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. [JAMA. 2010]
• Words of wisdom. Re: Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. [Eur Urol. 2010]
• Words of wisdom. Re: Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. [Eur Urol. 2010]
• Words of wisdom. Re: comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open radical prostatectomy. [Eur Urol. 2010]

Related articles

• Radical Prostatectomy for High Risk Patients
• Guidelines on Radiation Therapy after Prostatectomy.
• New Study Demonstrates that GenomeDx's Decipher™ Test was Superior to Current Risk Assessment ...
• Similar outcomes for robotic, laparoscopic prostatectomy
• Joint Guideline for Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy Issued By ASTRO and AUA
• Sf Assistance
• 23andMe Achieves Milestone in Building Sarcoma Research Community and Announces Appointment of Sarcoma Scientific Advisory Committee
• Open vs. Robotic Prostatectomy
• When Judging Value of Procedures, Surgical Volume Of Hospital Should Be Considered
• Hospital surgical volume should be considered when judging value of procedures

JAMA. 2013 Apr 17;309(15):1599-606. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.2773.

Relationship between occurrence of surgical complications and hospital finances.

Eappen S, Lane BH, Rosenberg B, Lipsitz SA, Sadoff D, Matheson D, Berry WR, Lester M, Gawande AA.

Source

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE:

The effect of surgical complications on hospital finances is unclear.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the relationship between major surgical complications and per-encounter hospital costs and revenues by payer type.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Retrospective analysis of administrative data for all inpatient surgical discharges during 2010 from a nonprofit 12-hospital system in the southern United States. Discharges were categorized by principal procedure and occurrence of 1 or more postsurgical complications, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis and procedure codes. Nine common surgical procedures and 10 major complications across 4 payer types were analyzed. Hospital costs and revenue at discharge were obtained from hospital accounting systems and classified by payer type. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital costs, revenues, and contribution margin (defined as revenue minus variable expenses) were compared for patients with and without surgical complications according to payer type.

RESULTS:

Of 34,256 surgical discharges, 1820 patients (5.3%; 95% CI, 4.4%-6.4%) experienced 1 or more postsurgical complications. Compared with absence of complications, complications were associated with a $39,017 (95% CI, $20,069-$50,394; P < .001) higher contribution margin per patient with private insurance ($55,953 vs $16,936) and a $1749 (95% CI, $976-$3287; P < .001) higher contribution margin per patient with Medicare ($3629 vs $1880). For this hospital system in which private insurers covered 40% of patients (13,544), Medicare covered 45% (15,406), Medicaid covered 4% (1336), and self-payment covered 6% (2202), occurrence of complications was associated with an $8084 (95% CI, $4903-$9740; P < .001) higher contribution margin per patient ($15,726 vs $7642) and with a $7435 lower per-patient total margin (95% CI, $5103-$10,507; P < .001) ($1013 vs -$6422).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

In this hospital system, the occurrence of postsurgical complications was associated with a higher per-encounter hospital contribution margin for patients covered by Medicare and private insurance but a lower one for patients covered by Medicaid and who self-paid. Depending on payer mix, many hospitals have the potential for adverse near-term financial consequences for decreasing postsurgical complications.

Comment in

The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.

Destroy user interface controlMaking surgical complications pay. [JAMA. 2013]

Related articles

• Reducing surgical complications may increase costs
• Study Examines Relationship Between Occurrence Of Surgical Complications And Hospital Finances
• Study examines relationship between occurrence of surgical complications and hospital finances
• Post-Surgical Complications Contribute To Hospital Revenue
• Post-Surgical Complications Contribute T
• Improving Quality Patient Outcomes a Money Loser for Hospitals
• Hospitals Profit $40,000 for Some Patients With Complications
• Patients With Surgical Complications Provide Greater Hospital Profit-margins: Research

Harvard docs disciplined for conflicts of interest

Published 2 julio, 2011 by Ed Silverman

Via: Pharmalot

Three years after they were fingered in a US Senate probe into the interplay between academics who receive grant money from both pharma and the National Institutes of Health, three prominent psychiatrists from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital have been sanctioned for violating conflict of interest rules and failing to report the extent of their payments.

In a mea culpa addressed to their colleagues, Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens wrote that “we want to offer our sincere apologies to HMS and MGH communities…We always believed we were complying in good faith with the institutional polices and our mistakes were honest ones. We now recognize that we should have devoted more time and attention to the detailed requirements of these policies and to their underlying objectives.”

And what is their punishment? They must refrain from “all industry-sponsored outside activities” for one year; for two years after the ban ends, they must obtain permission from the med school and the hospital before engaging in any of these activities and they must report back afterward; they must undergo certain training and they face delays before being considered for promotion or advancement (you can read their letter here).

The hospital had this to say: “A committee at Massachusetts General Hospital that has been looking into conflict-of-interest questions involving three MGH child psychiatrists has completed its review. Appropriate remedial actions have been taken by the hospital to address specific issues (read the statement). And a Harvard Med School spokesman sent us this: “We confirm that the review of their compliance with the Harvard Medical School Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment has concluded, and appropriate actions have been taken.” He added that the conflicts policy was revised last year.

The sanctions result from a long-standing controversy over the explosive use of antipsychotics in children. Biederman, in particular (see photo), had been one of the most influential researchers in child psychiatry. Although his studies were small and often financed by drugmakers, his work helped fuel a 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder.

For more than a decade, Biederman and his colleagues aggressively promoted the diagnosis and use of antipsychotics to treat childhood bipolar disorder, a problem that once was largely believed to be confined to adults. But the docs maintained thisr was underdiagnosed in kids and the meds could be used for treatment, even though they had not been approved for most pediatric use at the time. Meanwhile, the relationships with drugmakers were never properly disclosed (back story).

And for years, payments they received from drugmakers were not thoroughly reported to university officials. Yet, millions of dollars in NIH grants, which were administered by the hospital, were awarded to the docs at the same time they were receiving money from various drugmakers that make and sell antipsychotics and antidepressants. Which ones? Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

At one point, Biederman pushed J&J to fund a research center at MassGen that would focus on the use of its Risperdal antipsychotic in children, well before the med was approved for pediatric use. He was then placed in charge of the institute and began a study of 40 children between 4 and 6 years old who were given Risperdal and Lilly’s Zyprexa, another antipsychotic. At the time, Harvard and MGH rules forbid researchers from running trials with drugmakers if they receive more than $10,000 from a company that makes the drug (back story).

But in June 2008, US Senator Chuck Grassley made a far-reaching statement before Congress that pulled the curtain back on the money involved. The statement is memorialized in the Congressional Record. Referring to the three docs, he said “they are some of the top psychiatrists in the country, and their research is some of the most important in the field. They have also taken millions of dollars from the drug companies.”

“Out of concern about the relationship between this money and their research, I asked Harvard and Mass General Hospital last October to send me the conflict of interest forms that these doctors had submitted to their institutions. Universities often require faculty to fill these forms out so that we can know if the doctors have a conflict of interest. The forms I received were from the year 2000 to the present. Basically, these forms were a mess. My staff had a hard time figuring out which companies the doctors were consulting for and how much money they were making.”

How much were they making? At first, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars combined. But at his behest, the med school and hospital asked the docs to take a second look. “And this is when things got interesting. Dr. Biederman suddenly admitted to over $1.6 million dollars from the drug companies. And Dr. Spencer also admitted to over $1 million. Meanwhile, Dr. Wilens also reported over $1.6 million in payments from the drug companies.

“The question you might ask is: Why weren’t Harvard and Mass General watching over these doctors? The answer is simple: They trusted these physicians to honestly report this money.” And as Grassley then noted, there was still more money that went unreported (click on ‘payments to physicians’ here to read the complete statement and the chart showing payments to each doc).

pic thx to jerome kassirer

Related articles

• Harvard's Web Communication Plan (litteramedia.wordpress.com)
• ‪Noam Chomsky: Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism In The Real World (1996) (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
• The Harvard Mea Culpa: Biederman, Wilens and Spencer , "Dear Colleagues" (bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com)
• 53 reviews of Harvard University (rateitall.com)
• Harvard Issues New Conflicts Policy (prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Harvard Medical School Bolsters Code on Conflicts (businessweek.com)
• "WI Supreme Court reinstates law limiting public union collective bargaining “rights”" and related posts (qando.net)