Abstract：
BACKGROUND: A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in children (2-17 y) with perforated appendicitis demonstrated an 89% probability of reduced intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) rate with povidone-iodine (PVI) irrigation, compared with no irrigation (NI). We hypothesized that PVI also reduced 30-day hospital costs.
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.
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.
摘要：
背景：一项针对穿孔性阑尾炎儿童（2-17岁）进行的随机对照试验（RCT）表明，使用聚维酮碘（PVI）冲洗降低腹内脓肿（IAA）率的可能性为89％。与无灌溉(NI)相比。我们假设PVI也降低了30天的住院费用。
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。
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。
