Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29187216›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2017

Use of a flowable haemostat versus an oxidised regenerated cellulose agent in primary elective cardiac surgery: economic impact from a UK healthcare perspective.

Mayur R Joshi, Jacqueline Latham, Gabriel Okorogheye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Global & regional health technology assessment
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mayur R JoshiBaxter Healthcare Ltd., Wallingford Rd, Compton, Newbury, RG20 7QW, UK.
Jacqueline LathamBaxter Healthcare Ltd., Wallingford Rd, Compton, Newbury, RG20 7QW, UK. jackie.h.latham@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6392-513X
Gabriel OkorogheyeBaxter Healthcare Ltd., Wallingford Rd, Compton, Newbury, RG20 7QW, UK.
Baxter (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFlowable haemostatic agents have been shown to be superior to non-flowable agents in terms of haemostatic control and need for transfusion products in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We investigated the economic impact of the use of a flowable haemostatic agent (Floseal) compared with non-flowable oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) agent in primary elective cardiac surgery from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

methodsA cost-consequence framework based upon clinical data from a prospective trial and an observational trial and NHS-specific actual reference costs (2016) was developed to compare the economic impact of Floseal with that of ORC. The individual domains of care investigated comprised complications (major and minor) avoided, operating room time savings, surgical revisions for bleeding avoided and transfusions avoided. The cost impact of Floseal versus ORC on ICU days and extended bed days avoided was modelled separately.

resultsCompared with ORC, the use of Floseal would be associated with overall net savings to the NHS of £178,283 per 100 cardiac surgery patients who experience intraoperative bleeding requiring haemostatic therapy. Cost savings were apparent in all individual domains of care (complications avoided: £83,536; operating room time saved: £63,969; surgical revisions avoided: £34,038; and blood transfusions avoided: £22,317). Cost savings per 100 patients with Floseal over ORC in terms of ICU days avoided (n = 30) and extended bed days avoided (n = 51.7) were £57,960 and £21,965, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicated that these findings remained robust when the model parameters representing the clinical benefit of Floseal over ORC were reduced by up to 20%.

conclusionsDespite higher initial acquisition costs, the use of flowable haemostatic agents achieves substantial cost savings over non-flowable agents in cardiac surgery. These cost savings commence during the operating theatre and appear to continue to be realised throughout the postoperative period.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresCellulose, OxidizedCosts and Cost AnalysisElective Surgical ProceduresGelatin Sponge, AbsorbableHemostasis, SurgicalHemostaticsHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, EconomicPostoperative HemorrhageProspective StudiesState MedicineUnited KingdomCellulose, OxidizedFloSeal MatrixHemostaticsCardiac surgeryEconomic impactFloseal

Identifiers

PMID29187216
PMCPMC5707905
OpenAlexW2770029618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.