Background & aims: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency and rebleeding is associated with an increased risk of death. Proper assessment of high-risk lesions and appropriate endoscopic hemostasis are required for the best outcomes. The endoscopic Doppler probe examination (DPE) allows for a more complete assessment of the stigmata of hemorrhage, providing better evaluation of the need for endoscopic hemostasis and determination of its completeness. We aimed to evaluate whether use of the DPE provides an additional advantage in cost and effectiveness compared with traditional endoscopic visual assessment (TEA) of high-risk stigmata in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Methods: We drew a decision tree representing the choice between DPE and TEA approaches for patients undergoing an index endoscopy for active nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinical probabilities were retrieved from randomized controlled trial data. Costs were expressed in 2017 US dollars. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The adopted time horizon was 30 days after the index endoscopy.
Results: We found that DPE is a dominant strategy over the TEA, in that DPE is more efficacious (92.6% of patients avoiding rebleeding vs 78.6% for TEA) and less expensive ($8502 vs $9104 for TEA). The economic dominance of DPE over TEA was robust to sensitivity analyses across all assumptions of the model when varied among ranges spanning 30% of their respective baseline values.
Conclusions: In a cost-effectiveness analysis, we found DPE to be an economically dominant strategy to TEA (the traditional approach) in the management of high-risk lesions in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. DPE was less costly and more effective.
Keywords: Comparison; Hemorrhage; Model; Prevention.
Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.