RESUMEN
Background: The presence of pleural effusions and ascites in patients is often considered a marker of illness severity and a poor prognostic indicator. This study aims to compare inpatient and outpatient costs of alternative invasive treatments for ascites and pleural effusions. Methods: The retrospective single-institution study included inpatient cases treated for pleural effusion (J90 and J91) or ascites (R18) at the University Hospital Cologne (UHC) in Germany between January 01, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Costs for punctures and indwelling catheter systems (ICSs) as well as pleurodesis were analyzed in different comparator treatment pathways. Real-world data from the UHC tertiary care center were based on diagnosis-related group fees from 2020 to 2021. A simulation of outpatient expenses was carried out to compare inpatient and outpatient costs for each pathway from a payer perspective. Results: A total of 4323 cases (3396 pleural effusions and 1302 ascites) were analyzed. For ascites, inpatient implantation with home care drainage was found to be the most expensive option, with total costs of 1,918.58 per procedure, whereas outpatient puncture was the least expensive option at 60.02. For pleural effusions, the most expensive treatment pathway was pleurodesis at 8,867.84 compared with the least costly option of outpatient puncture resulting in total costs per procedure of 70.03. A break-even analysis showed that outpatient puncture remains the most inexpensive treatment option, and the ICS comprises a cost-saving potential. Longevity of several months with the use of ICSs results in both enhanced quality of life for patients and increased cost savings.