Share this Article
Tan MLM, Feng J, Gordois A, Wong ESD
Correspondence: Dr Mark Tan Ming Long, email@example.com
Introduction The aim of the study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the Lower Extremity Amputation Prevention (LEAP) strategy in comparison to standard clinical practice for treating patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI).
Methods A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of the LEAP programme relative to pre-LEAP practice was performed from the perspective of Singapore hospitals. The cost incorporated in the analysis included direct medical costs incurred during the admission. Outcomes included the number of amputations, number of deaths and length of hospital stay after the initial treatment.
Results During the study period, the LEAP group had a lower amputation rate (29 percent versus 76 percent, p-value is 0.00001), lower related death rate (one percent versus 19 percent, p-value is 0.00001) and fewer in-hospital days per patient (17.8 days versus 23.16 days, p-value is 0.048) as compared to the standard clinical practice group. The implementation of the LEAP strategy generated cost savings of S$2,566 per patient during admission when compared with the pre-LEAP approach. The results were robust to variations in input parameters.
Conclusion The LEAP strategy dominated standard practice in the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CLI. The implementation of the LEAP strategy significantly improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital costs.
Keywords: cost-effectiveness, critical limb ischaemia, hospital cost savings, limb salvage, percutaneous angioplasty
Singapore Med J 2011; 52(9): 662–668