Abstract
BackgroundThis was a retrospective, matching-adjusted indirect comparison of clinical outcomes between patients from a single-arm trial of the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECP) and those from a historical cohort of patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resection using conventional manual circular staplers, extracted from the Premier Healthcare Database.MethodsPatients in the ECP trial cohort were propensity score matched to those in the historical cohort through nearest neighbor matching. Outcomes included 30-day readmission rates; length of stay (LOS) for the index admission; rates of anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, ileus/small bowel obstruction, infection, bleeding, and stoma creation.ResultsThe study included 168 patients in the ECP trial cohort and 4544 patients in the historical cohort; 165 ECP trial patients were matched to 1348 historical cohort patients. After matching, conversions were more prevalent in the historical cohort than the ECP trial cohort (4.2% ECP vs. 10.2% historical, p = 0.001). Relative to the historical cohort, the ECP trial cohort had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day inpatient readmission (6.1% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.019), anastomotic leak (1.8% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001), ileus/small bowel obstruction (4.8% vs. 14.7%, p < 0.001), infection (1.8% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.001), and bleeding (1.8% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001) during the index admission or within 30 days thereafter. No statistically significant differences in rates of pelvic abscess, stoma creation, or LOS were found between the two cohorts. Three sensitivity analyses to address the difference in conversion rates yielded largely consistent results, with loss of statistical significance for inpatient admission in some cases. This study is limited by its potential for differences in unmeasurable factors between the ECP trial and historical cohorts.ConclusionsIn this study, the ECP trial cohort had lower incidence proportions of several surgical complications as compared with the historical cohort. Further controlled prospective clinical studies are needed to confirm the validity of this finding.
Highlights
This was a retrospective, matching-adjusted indirect comparison of clinical outcomes between patients from a single-arm trial of the ECHELON CIRCULARTM Powered Stapler (ECP) and those from a historical cohort of patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resection using conventional manual circular staplers, extracted from the Premier Healthcare Database
Relative to the historical cohort, ECP trial patients had a lower proportion of females (47.3% vs. 55.1%) and a higher proportion of non-Hispanic or Latino patients (89.9% vs. 78.9%)
The ECP trial cohort had lower rates of anastomotic leak (1.8% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001), ileus/small bowel obstruction (4.8% vs. 14.7%, p < 0.001), infection (1.8% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.001), and bleeding (1.8% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001) during the index admission or within 30 days thereafter, as compared with the historical cohort
Summary
This was a retrospective, matching-adjusted indirect comparison of clinical outcomes between patients from a single-arm trial of the ECHELON CIRCULARTM Powered Stapler (ECP) and those from a historical cohort of patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resection using conventional manual circular staplers, extracted from the Premier Healthcare Database. Outcomes included 30-day readmission rates; length of stay (LOS) for the index admission; rates of anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, ileus/small bowel obstruction, infection, bleeding, and stoma creation. Relative to the historical cohort, the ECP trial cohort had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day inpatient readmission (6.1% vs 10.8%, p = 0.019), anastomotic leak (1.8% vs 6.9%, p < 0.001), ileus/small bowel obstruction (4.8% vs 14.7%, p < 0.001), infection (1.8% vs 5.7%, p = 0.001), and bleeding (1.8% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001) during the index admission or within 30 days thereafter. No statistically significant differences in rates of pelvic abscess, stoma creation, or LOS were found between the two cohorts. Three sensitivity analyses to address the difference in conversion rates yielded largely consistent results, with loss of statistical significance for inpatient admission in some cases. Further controlled prospective clinical studies are needed to confirm the validity of this finding
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
