Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 477–484 | Cite as

Preoperative paravertebral blocks for the management of acute pain following mastectomy: a cost-effectiveness analysis

  • Anaeze C. OffodileIIEmail author
  • Clifford C. Sheckter
  • Austin Tucker
  • Anna Watzker
  • Kevin Ottino
  • Martin Zammert
  • William V. Padula
Review

Abstract

Purpose

Preoperative paravertebral blocks (PPVBs) are routinely used for treating post-mastectomy pain, yet uncertainties remain about the cost-effectiveness of this modality. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PPVBs at common willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

Methods

A decision analytic model compared two strategies: general anesthesia (GA) alone versus GA with multilevel PPVB. For the GA plus PPVB limb, patients were subjected to successful block placement versus varying severity of complications based on literature-derived probabilities. The need for rescue pain medication was the terminal node for all postoperative scenarios. Patient-reported pain scores sourced from published meta-analyses measured treatment effectiveness. Costing was derived from wholesale acquisition costs, the Medicare fee schedule, and publicly available hospital charge masters. Charges were converted to costs and adjusted for 2016 US dollars. A commercial payer perspective was adopted. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated against WTP thresholds of $500 and $50,000 for postoperative pain control.

Results

The ICER for preoperative paravertebral blocks was $154.49 per point reduction in pain score. 15% variation in inpatient costs resulted in ICER values ranging from $124.40–$180.66 per pain point score reduction. Altering the probability of block success by 5% generated ICER values of $144.71–$163.81 per pain score reduction. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis yielded cost-effective trials 69.43% of the time at $500 WTP thresholds.

Conclusion

Over a broad range of probabilities, PPVB in mastectomy reduces postoperative pain at an acceptable incremental cost compared to GA. Commercial payers should be persuaded to reimburse this technique based on convincing evidence of cost-effectiveness.

Keywords

Mastectomy Paravertebral block Cost-effectiveness analysis Pain 

Notes

Acknowledgements and Funding Information

The present study was not supported by a pharmaceutical company and no persons or entity had input into the design or analysis of the cost-effective analysis besides the listed authors. Additionally, the authors have no acknowledgements, conflicts of interest, or any financial disclosures to report regarding the content of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    SEER cancer statistics factsheets: female breast cancer. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2016
  2. 2.
    Habermann EB, Abbott A, Parsons HM, Virnig BA, Al-Refaie WB, Tuttle TM (2010) Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States? J Clin Oncol 28(21):3437–3441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Powell RW (1990) Breast pain. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW (eds) Clinical methods: the history, physical, and laboratory examinations, 3rd edn. Butterworths, Boston. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK277/. Accessed 25 Mar 2017
  4. 4.
    Terkawi AS, Tsang S, Sessler DI, Terkawi RS, Nunemaker MS, Durieux ME et al (2015) Improving analgesic efficacy and safety of thoracic paravertebral block for breast surgery: a mixed-effects meta-analysis. Pain Physician 18(5):E757–E780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tahiri Y, Tran DQH, Bouteaud J, Xu L, Lalonde D, Luc M et al (2011) General anaesthesia versus thoracic paravertebral block for breast surgery: a meta-analysis. JPRAS 64(10):1261–1269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK (2010) Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth 105(6):842–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coopey SB, Specht MC, Warren L, Smith BL, Winograd JM, Fleischmann K (2013) Use of preoperative paravertebral block decreases length of stay in patients undergoing mastectomy plus immediate reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 20(4):1282–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boughey JC, Goravanchi F, Parris RN, Kee SS, Kowalski AM, Frenzel JC et al (2009) Prospective randomized trial of paravertebral block for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg 198(5):720–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kairaluoma PM, Bachmann MS, Rosenberg PH, Pere PJ (2006) Preincisional paravertebral block reduces the prevalence of chronic pain after breast surgery. Anesth Analg 103(3):703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snyder GL, Greenberg S (2010) Effect of anaesthetic technique and other perioperative factors on cancer recurrence. Br J Anaesth 105(2):106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naja ZM, El-Rajab M, Al-Tannir MA, Ziade FM, Tayara K, Younes F et al (2006) Thoracic paravertebral block: influence of the number of injections. Reg Anesth Pain Med 31(3):196–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pace MM, Sharma B, Anderson-Dam J, Fleischmann K, Warren L, Stefanovich P (2016) Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade: a retrospective study of the incidence of complications. Anesth Analg 122(4):1186–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patient price information list. X-ray and radiological charges. Akron General Hospital. Cleveland Clinic. http://www.akrongeneral.org/portal/page/portal/AGMC_PAGEGROUP/Price_guide/PRICE_GUIDE8. Accessed 22 Mar 2017
  14. 14.
    Chamberlain RS, Patil S, Minja EJ, Kordears K (2012) Does residents’ involvement in mastectomy cases increase operative cost? If so, who should bear the cost? J Surg Res 178(1):18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dabbagh A, Elyasi H (2007) The role of paravertebral block in decreasing postoperative pain in elective breast surgeries. Med Sci Monit 13(10):CR464–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Medicare payment rates for pain management procedures (2016). http://www.halyardhealth.com/media/272239/2016-Medicare-Payment-Rates-for-PMP-Procedures.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2017
  17. 17.
    Red book. Micromedex. Truven Health Analytics Inc. http://micromedex.com/products/product-suites/clinical-knowledge/redbook. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  18. 18.
    Medicare C (2016) for, Baltimore MS 7500 SB, Usa M Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare impact files for Fiscal year 2016. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2016-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page-Items/FY2016-IPPS-Final-Rule-Data-Files.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=ascending. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  19. 19.
    Purser L, Warfield K, Richardson C (2014) Making pain visible: an audit and review of documentation to improve the use of pain assessment by implementing pain as the fifth vital sign. Pain Manag Nurs 15(1):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paletta Guedes RA, Paletta Guedes VM, Chaoubah A, Montesi Pereira F, Montesi Pereira P, Pereira Da Silva AC (2011) Topical versus peribulbar anesthesia in non-penetrating deep sclerectomy. A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Fr Ophtalmol 34(9):629–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vaz FAA, Abreu RAA, de Soárez PC, Speranzini MB, Fernandes LC, Matos D (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. Arq Gastroenterol 47(2):159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeckhauser R, Shepard D (1976) Where now for savinglives? Law Contemp Probl 40(4):5–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Padula WV, Heru S, Campbell JD (2016) Societal implications of health insurance coverage for medically necessary services in the US transgender population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med 31(4):394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van den Bosch JE, Bonsel GJ, Moons KG, Kalkman CJ (2006) Effect of postoperative experiences on willingness to pay to avoid postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Anesthesiology 104(5):1033–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feldman LS, Delaney CP, Ljungqvist O, Carli F (2015) The SAGES/ERAS® Society manual of enhanced recovery programs for gastrointestinal surgery. Springer, New York, p 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robinson R (1993) Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 307(6908):859–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness–the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 371(9):796–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Macario A, Fleisher LA (2006) Is there value in obtaining a patient’s willingness to pay for a particular anesthetic intervention? Anesthesiology 104(5):906–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chou R, Gordon DB, de Leon-Casasola OA, Rosenberg JM, Bickler S, Brennan T et al (2016) Management of postoperative pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Committee on Regional Anesthesia, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council. J Pain 17(2):131–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryMD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Department of AnesthesiaBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Policy and ManagementJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations