In-hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared to transurethral resection of the prostate: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
To perform a post-hoc analysis of in-hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS
In-hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel, and accommodation were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two-sided t-tests adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t-test).

RESULTS
Mean total costs per patient (± SD) were higher for TURP at €9,137 ± 3,301 than for PAE at €8,185 ± 1,630. The mean difference (md) of €952 was not statistically significant (p=0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (md €623 (p=0.009)), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE with an md of €1,627 (p< 0.001). Procedural costs of €1,433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2,590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE.

CONCLUSIONS
Since in-hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient's clinical condition and expectations - rather than finances - should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.