HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Alessandro Brunelli Michele Salati Majed Refai Gaetano Rocco Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brunelli, A. Articles by Sabbatini, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Brunelli, A. Articles by Sabbatini, A. Related Collections Lung - cancer

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;134:624-629
© 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

General Thoracic Surgery

Risk-adjusted econometric model to estimate postoperative costs: An additional instrument for monitoring performance after major lung resection

^a Department of Thoracic Surgery, Umberto I Hospital, Ancona, Italy
^b National Cancer Institute Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy.

Received for publication January 9, 2007; revisions received March 8, 2007; accepted for publication March 16, 2007.

^_* Address for reprints: Alessandro Brunelli, MD, Via Santa Margherita 23, Ancona 60124, Italy. (Email: alexit_2000{at}yahoo.com).

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to develop a risk-adjusted model to estimate individual postoperative costs after major lung resection and to use it for internal economic audit.

Methods: Variable and fixed hospital costs were collected for 679 consecutive patients who underwent major lung resection from January 2000 through October 2006 at our unit. Several preoperative variables were used to develop a risk-adjusted econometric model from all patients operated on during the period 2000 through 2003 by a stepwise multiple regression analysis (validated by bootstrap). The model was then used to estimate the postoperative costs in the patients operated on during the 3 subsequent periods (years 2004, 2005, and 2006). Observed and predicted costs were then compared within each period by the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results: Multiple regression and bootstrap analysis yielded the following model predicting postoperative cost: 11,078 + 1340.3X (age > 70 years) + 1927.8X cardiac comorbidity – 95X ppoFEV₁%. No differences between predicted and observed costs were noted in the first 2 periods analyzed (year 2004, $6188.40 vs $6241.40, P = .3; year 2005, $6308.60 vs $6483.60, P = .4), whereas in the most recent period (2006) observed costs were significantly lower than the predicted ones ($3457.30 vs $6162.70, P < .0001).

Conclusions: Greater precision in predicting outcome and costs after therapy may assist clinicians in the optimization of clinical pathways and allocation of resources. Our economic model may be used as a methodologic template for economic audit in our specialty and complement more traditional outcome measures in the assessment of performance.