METHODS: We conducted a retrospective economic analysis of a pilot RCT. Hospital costs, inflated to 2019 U.S. dollars, were obtained for index admissions and 30-day emergency visits and readmissions. Cost differences between groups were assessed using frequentist and Bayesian generalized linear models.
RESULTS: We observed a 95% Bayesian probability that PVI reduced 30-day mean total hospital costs ($16,555 [PVI] versus $18,509 [NI]; Bayesian cost ratio: 0.90, 95% CrI, 0.78-1.03). The mean absolute difference per patient was $1,954 less with PVI (95% CI, -$4,288 to $379).
CONCLUSIONS: PVI likely reduced the IAA rate and 30-day hospital costs, suggesting the intervention is both clinically superior and cost saving.
方法:我们对试点RCT进行了回顾性经济分析。医院费用,膨胀到2019年美元,获得了索引入院和30天紧急就诊和再入院。使用频率论和贝叶斯广义线性模型评估组间的成本差异。
结果:我们观察到,PVI减少30天平均总住院费用的概率为95%($16,555[PVI]对$18,509[NI];贝叶斯成本比:0.90,95%CrI,0.78-1.03)。PVI患者的平均绝对差异为1,954美元(95%CI,-4,288美元至379美元)。
结论:PVI可能降低了IAA率和30天的住院费用,这表明干预措施在临床上既优越又节约成本。