Clinical outcomes and cost of open, laparoscopic, and percutaneous ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundOpen (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and percutaneous (PA) ablation are all ablation approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) utilized in the United States today. However, it remains unclear today which approach is (A) most effective, (B) cost‐efficient, and (C) nationally practiced.MethodsIn‐hospital mortality and cost were collected from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for patients undergoing liver ablation from 2011 to 2018. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, disposition, and perioperative composite complications. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for differences in patient and hospital baseline characteristics.ResultsOne thousand and one hundred and twenty‐five LA, 1221 OA, and 1068 PA liver ablations were analyzed. After IPTW, in‐hospital mortality risk was significantly lower in PA versus OA cohorts (0.57% vs. 2.90%, p < 0.001) and reduced among PA patients, yet not significantly different from the LA cohort (0.57% vs. 1.64%, p = 0.056). The median length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the PA and LA group compared to OA (2 days vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). The median hospitalization costs were significantly lower for PA ($44,884 vs. $90,187, p < 0.001) and LA ($61,445 vs. $90,187, p < 0.001) compared to OA. Moreover, we found significant regional differences regarding the use of each ablation approach, with the Midwest having the lowest rates of PA and LA.ConclusionsAmong patients hospitalized after ablation for HCC, PA leads to the lowest hospital cost. Both PA and LA result in lower peri‐operative morbidity and mortality relative to OA. Despite these reported advantages, there are significant regional differences with respect to ablation availability suggesting the need to promote the standardization of best practices.