Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients suspected of pancreaticobiliary disease

A P Ainsworth*, S R Rafaelsen, P A Wamberg, T Pless, J Durup, M B Mortensen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether initial endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is more cost effective than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of EUS, MRCP and ERCP was performed on 163 patients. The effectiveness of an investigation was defined as the percentage of patients with no need for further evaluation after the investigation in question had been performed. Costs were assumed from the budget-holder's point of view.

RESULTS: MRCP, EUS and ERCP had a total accuracy of 0.91, 0.93 and 0.92, respectively. Eighty-four (52%) patients needed endoscopic therapy in combination with ERCP, giving an effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP of 0.44, 0.45 and 0.92, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP was 6622, 7353 and 4246 Danish Kroner (DKK) per fully investigated and treated patient (1 DKK=0.14 EUR).

CONCLUSION: Within a patient population with a probability of therapeutic ERCP in 50% of the patients, ERCP was the most cost-effective strategy.

Original languageEnglish
JournalScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume39
Issue number6
Pages (from-to)579-583
ISSN0036-5521
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2004

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients suspected of pancreaticobiliary disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this