Uterine-Artery Embolization or Myomectomy for Uterine Fibroids

Cost-effectiveness of Myomectomy versus Hysterectomy in Women with Uterine Fibroids

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Increasing evidence suggests that hysterectomy to treat uterine fibroids (UFs), even with ovarian conservation (OC), is associated with a 33% increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of various treatment approaches for UFs to understand the trade-offs among development of CAD vs new fibroids.

DESIGN

We developed a Markov model to include women with UFs who no longer desired pregnancy. The outcomes of interest were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total treatment costs. We conducted sensitivity analyses to test the effect of uncertain model inputs.

SETTING

Health system perspective.

PATIENTS

A hypothetical cohort of 10 000 40-year-old women.

INTERVENTIONS

Myomectomy, hysterectomy with OC, and hysterectomy without OC.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Myomectomy was the best-value strategy, costing US$528 217 and providing 19.38 QALYs. Neither hysterectomy with OC nor hysterectomy without OC was found to be cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gain as hysterectomy with OC provided more benefit than myomectomy at an average cost of $613 144 to gain one additional QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that if the risk of new symptomatic UFs that required treatment after myomectomy was more than 13%, annually (base case, 3.6%), or the quality of life after myomectomy was less than 0.815 (base case, 0.834), then myomectomy would no longer be cost-effective, under a willingness-to-pay amount of US$100 000.

CONCLUSION

Myomectomy is an optimal treatment of UFs compared with hysterectomy among women aged 40 years. The increased risk of CAD after hysterectomy and its associated costs and the effects on morbidity and quality of life made hysterectomy a costlier and less effective long-term strategy.

Collateral damage of the COVID-19 pandemic: an alarming decline in critical procedures in otorhinolaryngology in a German university hospital

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on the diagnosis and treatment of ENT patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of the pandemic on the number of otolaryngological procedures, particularly for critical diagnoses with potential negative effects due to prolonged symptom duration.

METHODS

We evaluated 10,716 surgical procedures between January 1, 2018 and May 31, 2020, focusing on the 16-week period around March 16, 2020, which includes 1080 observations. We further analyzed subsets of critical procedures.

RESULTS

We found a decline in critical procedures by 43% although no critical procedures were postponed by the hospital. Meanwhile, the share of critical procedures increased up to 90% caused by the cancellation of elective surgery. Especially worrisome was that diagnostic procedures for suspected malignancies decreased by 41% during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The decline in critical procedures in otorhinolaryngology as collateral damage of the COVID-19 pandemic is considerable and therefore alarming.

Pre-existing cerebrovascular disease and poor outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis

Background

Due to pro-inflammatory and hypercoagulation states, COVID-19 infection is believed to increase the risk of stroke and worsen the outcomes of the patients having pre-existing cerebrovascular diseases (CeVD). There is limited literature on prevalence of pre-existing CeVD in COVID-19 patients, and outcomes are unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CeVD.

Methods

English full-text-observational studies having data on epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 patients were identified searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using MeSH-terms COVID-19 OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV from December 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020. Studies having CeVD or stroke as one of the pre-existing comorbidities and described outcomes including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation utilization, and mortality were selected with consensus of three reviewers. Following MOOSE protocol, 11 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of CeVD and outcomes were calculated. Meta-regression was performed, and correlation coefficient (r) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated to evaluate the effects of pre-existing CeVD on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was used to calculate OR along with its 95% CI from the studies containing data on composite poor outcome.

Results

Out of 8/11 studies showing data on mortality and mechanical ventilation, and 7/11 on ICU admission, pooled prevalence of pre-existing CeVD was 4.4% (244/4987). In age-adjusted meta-regression analysis, pre-existing CeVD was associated with ICU admission [r: 0.60; OR: 1.82 (1.25–2.69)], mechanical ventilation [r: 0.29; OR: 1.33 (1.09–1.63)], and mortality [r: 0.35; OR: 1.42 (1.14–1.77)] amongst COVID-19 hospitalizations. 9/11 studies reported data on binary composite outcomes, the pooled prevalence of pre-existing CeVD was 4.3% (155/3603) and 7.46% (83/1113) amongst COVID-19 hospitalizations and COVID-19 hospitalization-related poor outcomes, respectively. In meta-analysis, COVID-19 patient with pre-existing CeVD had 2.67-fold (1.75–4.06) higher odds of poor outcomes.

Conclusion

COVID-19 patients with pre-existing cerebrovascular disease have poor outcomes and extra precautions should be taken in managing such patients during the ongoing pandemic.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-020-10141-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.