ArticleCureus2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Early Versus Late Interventional Radiology Drainage in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Decision Analysis Based on Cost Utility and Budget Impact.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal timing of interventional radiology (IR) drainage in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis remains uncertain. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of early (five to six weeks) vs. late (> six weeks) IR drainage using a decision analysis model.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 76 patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis (2017-2021) was screened. Twenty-two patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in a decision analysis model; 11 underwent early IR drainage and 11 underwent late IR drainage. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. A budget impact analysis was also conducted.
resultsEarly IR drainage was associated with shorter ICU stays (mean 17 vs. 26 days, p=0.01) and fewer IR drainage sessions (median 12 vs. 28, p=0.04) compared to late drainage. Readmissions were fewer in the early group (four vs. eight; p=0.31), although this difference was not statistically significant. Rates of surgery, including ischemia or fistula, disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome, and bleeding complications, were comparable between groups. Total costs were lower in the early drainage group (£23,533-£48,526) vs. the late group (£29,168-£56,110), with slightly higher QALYs (1.77 vs. 1.76 years). The ICER for early drainage was £15,340.96 per QALY gained, within accepted UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. The budget impact analysis projected annual healthcare savings of £75,835 with early intervention.
conclusionIn this small decision analysis, IR drainage at five to six weeks demonstrated cost-effectiveness advantages, with significantly shorter ICU stays, fewer drainage procedures, reduced costs, and similar complication rates compared to drainage after six weeks. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and guide clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.