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

20211
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Sánchez Iriso, Eduardo × Subject: Costs ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • 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.