Management of Ureteroenteric Stricture: Predictive Modeling to Compare Cost

Ureteroenteric stricture occurs in as many as 15% of patients after cystectomy with urinary diversion. First-line management is typically percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) drainage. We sought to compare costs of a urologic approach of retrograde stenting through flexible endoscopy and an interventional radiology (IR) approach of PCN and antegrade stenting using predictive modeling. The purpose of this study is to inform best practice for initial stricture management based on existing literature regardless of the benign stricture rate following radical cystectomy. Our hypothesis is that initial management by a urologist may be superior to IR management.

The primary outcome measure was cost based on 2015 Medicare reimbursement rates by Current Procedural Technology codes with a secondary endpoint of number of procedures a patient undergoes. We developed a simulation model to replicate the experience of stricture patients. The model describes three arms: urologic management with retrograde stent placement, sequential management by IR, and single-stage IR management. We simulated 10,000 patients through the model with the percentage of patients pursuing each treatment arm and success rates chosen based on a review of relevant literature and clinic experience.

The average cost of urologic management is $703.23 compared with the average cost of $838.09 for patients using radiologic management. Within radiologic management, the average cost is $862.98 for sequential IR management and $639.44 for single-stage IR management. Patients would undergo an average of 2.53 procedures for those patients initially sent to urology and 2.91 procedures for those sent to radiology. For sequential IR, the average is 3.02 procedures, and for single-stage IR, it is 2.03 procedures. From a cost perspective, the success rate at which retrograde stent placement becomes worth attempting is 35%. If radiologic management is attempted initially, sequential IR management represents a cost-conscious option that limits the total number of procedures.

The disparity in cost between IR and urologic management of ureteral stricture provides a rationale for rural practices that may not have immediate access to IR to manage the patient.