Person:
Montesino San Martín, Manuel

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Montesino San Martín

First Name

Manuel

person.page.departamento

ORCID

0000-0002-0822-600X

person.page.upna

811682

Name

Filters

2021 - 20232
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Insausti, Íñigo × Subject: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Prostatic artery embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a post hoc cost analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial
    (Springer Nature, 2021) Capdevila, Ferran; Insausti, Íñigo; Galbete Jiménez, Arkaitz; Sánchez Iriso, Eduardo; Montesino San Martín, Manuel; Estadística, Informática y Matemáticas; Estatistika, Informatika eta Matematika; Economía; Ekonomia
    Purpose: to perform a post hoc analysis of patient-incurred costs in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Materials and Methods: patients older than 60 years with indication of TURP were randomized to PAE or TURP procedure. After intervention and hospital discharge, patients were follow-up during 12 months The associated patient costs were categorized according to the study period: pre-intervention, intervention, hospitalization, and follow-up. Several items for both groups were analyzed within each study period. Results: the mean total costs per patient were lower for PAE (€ 3,192.87) than for TURP (€ 3,974.57), with this difference of € 781.70 being significant (p = 0.026). For most evaluated items, the mean costs were significantly higher for TURP. No significant differences were observed in the mean costs of PAE (€ 1,468.00) and TURP (€ 1,684.25) procedures (p = 0.061). However, the histopathology analysis, recovery room stay, and intraoperative laboratory analysis increased the interventional costs for TURP (€ 1,999.70) compared with PAE (€ 1,468.00) (p < 0.001). No cost differences were observed between PAE (€ 725.26) and TURP (€ 556.22) during the 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.605). None of patients required a repeat intervention during the study period. Conclusions: considering the short-term follow-up, PAE was associated with significantly lower costs compared with TURP. Future investigations in the context of routine clinical practice should be aimed at comparing the long-term effectiveness of both procedures and determining their cost-effectiveness.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Cost-utility analysis of prostatic artery embolization for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms
    (2023) Capdevila, Ferran; Insausti, Íñigo; San Miguel Elcano, Ramón; Sánchez Iriso, Eduardo; Montesino San Martín, Manuel; Ciencias de la Salud; Osasun Zientziak; Economía; Ekonomia
    Purpose: To perform a post hoc cost–utility analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cost–utility analysis over a 5-year period to compare PAE versus TURP from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial performed at a single institution. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from the cost and QALY values associated with these treatments. Further sensitivity analysis was performed to account for the impact of reintervention on the cost-effectiveness of both procedures. Results: At the 1-year follow-up, PAE resulted in mean cost per patient of €2904.68 and outcome of 0.975 QALYs per treatment. In comparison, TURP had cost €3846.72 per patient and its outcome was 0.953 QALYs per treatment. At 5 years, the cost for PAE and TURP were €4117.13 and €4297.58, and the mean QALY outcome was 4.572 and 4.487, respectively. Analysis revealed an ICER of €2121.15 saved per QALY gained when comparing PAE to TURP at long-term follow-up. Reintervention rate for PAE and TURP was 12% and 0%, respectively. Conclusions: Compared to TURP, in short term, PAE could be considered a cost-effective strategy within the Spanish healthcare system for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, in long term, the superiority is less apparent due to higher reintervention rates.