Cost-consequence analysis of two different active flowable hemostatic matrices in spine surgery patients

Area of Science:

• Health Economics
• Surgical Innovation
• Medical Device Analysis

Background:

• A prior analysis indicated higher resource use and complications with SURGIFLO compared to FLOSEAL in spine surgery.
• This study evaluates the cost-consequence of using FLOSEAL versus SURGIFLO in major and severe spine surgery.

Purpose of the Study:

• To conduct a cost-consequence analysis comparing FLOSEAL and SURGIFLO hemostatic matrices in US hospitals.
• To determine the economic impact of using FLOSEAL over SURGIFLO in major and severe spine surgeries.

Main Methods:

• A cost-consequence model was developed from a US hospital provider perspective.
• Clinical data from a retrospective analysis and 2012 National Inpatient Sample data were used.
• Costs associated with hemostatic matrices, blood transfusions, and operating room time were analyzed.

Main Results:

• FLOSEAL use resulted in fewer blood product transfusions and reduced operating room time compared to SURGIFLO.
• Annual cost savings were estimated at $151 per major and $574 per severe spine surgery for medium-volume hospitals.
• Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed FLOSEAL was cost-saving in 76% of major and 97% of severe spine surgery simulations.

Conclusions:

• FLOSEAL hemostatic matrices offer potential for substantial cost savings in US hospitals for both major and severe spine surgery.
• The economic benefits of using FLOSEAL are independent of the specific case-mix of spinal surgery procedures.