Management of Fluid and Electrolytes—Because of the limited time available to evaluate patients in the clinic, it may be more difficult to monitor fluid volume and status. Approaches that help ensure safe fluid management in outpatient BMT patients include comprehensive fluid intake and output monitoring and recordkeeping by the patient and/or caregiver. Availability of this information for daily review can assist the team in making decisions about the need for intravenous hydration and/or diuresis. Administration of intravenous fluid overnight or continuously by ambulatory infusion pumps is also a safe, commonly used approach to maintaining adequate fluid volume and providing electrolyte replacement.
Nutritional Support—Standards for the administration of parenteral or enteral nutrition in BMT patients undergoing outpatient care also vary among centers. One recent publication describes a clinical pathway for nutritional management of BMT patients under-going outpatient care. Because of the decreased period of neutropenia and lower severity of mucositis with PBSC rescue, many centers are observing a decreased need for supplemental nutrition. A recent trial suggests that parenteral nutrition can be safely administered in the outpatient setting following BMT, but reports no clinical benefit over intravenous hydration in a group of malnourished BMT patients.
Central venous catheter care is another area that warrants special attention when BMT is carried out in the outpatient setting. Recent advances in catheter technology have introduced new multilumen catheters that are sufficient for infusion needs and blood drawing, as well as leukapheresis. New catheters, such as the Neostar catheter, or redesigned Hickman catheters avoid the need for placement of two central venous catheters and allow the use of one catheter for multiple purposes. These catheters remain in place for several weeks to months and require diligent care by the staff, patient, and caregivers to minimize infection, thrombosis, and other catheter-associated complications. Education of the patient and caregiver is essential to ensure appropriate catheter care and recognition of potential complications in the outpatient setting.
Criteria for Hospital Admission
Establishment of admission criteria for hospitalization is also essential to the success of outpatient BMT care. Criteria have been published by various centers and share common principles.[12-14]
For example, the criteria proposed by Meisenberg et al and Geller et al require that patients be readmitted for such complications as uncontrolled nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; hypotension that is unresponsive to fluid replacement; severe mucositis requiring continuous intravenous narcotics; the absence of a suitable caregiver; or other conditions, at the discretion of the attending physician.[12,14] These two programs do not require automatic admission for first neutropenic fever, but other programs may stipulate such admission, depending on available resources and supportive care strategies.
Other criteria that often warrant readmission include gastrointestinal complications, persistent bleeding, fever associated with signs and symptoms of sepsis, dehydration, symptomatic arrhythmias, or other significant organ dysfunction. Although these medically based admission criteria must be followed to ensure the safe care of the patient, less tangible, but equally important, psychosocial-based admission criteria must also be followed. Psychosocial issues that warrant admission include recognition that the caregiver is unable to meet demands of the outpatient program or that the patient has become noncompliant with outpatient-based instructions.
The impact of outpatient care on the field of BMT has been assessed primarily in historical control–based trials or descriptive reports, which have documented a decrease in BMT-associated costs or resources without compromises in patient safety or the efficacy of the procedure. The Duke program was the first to note a substantial reduction in the duration of hospitalization and charges related to the BMT procedure after implementation of their outpatient care approach. Over a 2-year period, 110 women with primary metastatic breast cancer undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with autologous PBSC or bone marrow transplantation were evaluated. The first 18 women were hospitalized for the entire procedure but were discharged to a local hotel each night. This group served as the pilot group to test the feasibility of the outpatient approach and served as the control group for comparison.
The remaining 92 women were managed under the early discharge and outpatient care approach. Using this approach, 95% of the women were discharged following high-dose chemotherapy administration. In terms of readmissions, approximately 30% of patients required prolonged hospital stays for a median of 11 days and 24% required shorter hospital stays, ranging from 1 to 4 days, usually for evaluation of first neutropenic fever.
Subsequently, Meisenberg et al published the results of a prospective study evaluating the feasibility of a total outpatient care approach for administration of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous PBSC transplantation and post-BMT care. In this study, 113 patients underwent 165 cycles of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous PBSC transplantation for various malignancies.
The first cohort of patients participated in a subtotal outpatient transplantation approach, in which patients were hospitalized for high-dose chemotherapy administration, then discharged for supportive care, and readmitted only for complications that could not be managed in the clinic. After it was determined that subtotal outpatient transplantation was safe, subsequent patients were given the option of a total outpatient transplantation approach, in which all high-dose chemotherapy and supportive care were administered in the outpatient setting.
Of the 165 cycles of high-dose chemotherapy, 85% of the cycles were delivered using one of the outpatient care approaches. With both approaches, approximately 70% of patients never required readmission to the hospital and were successfully and safely managed in the outpatient setting. Among the 30% of patients who required readmission, the median duration of hospitalization was 7 days for those who underwent total outpatient transplantation and 10 days for those who received subtotal outpatient transplantation.
Other investigators have also noted a substantial reduction in overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with autologous PBSC transplantation in the outpatient setting, as compared with patients requiring the same treatment in the traditional inpatient setting due to medical or psychosocial reasons.[13,14,16,50] Of note, engraftment rates, transfusion requirements, duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy, and rates of documented bacteremia were similar between the inpatient and outpatient transplant groups (Table 6).
Overall Costs and Charges
The reduction in resources achieved with outpatient care of BMT patients can result in substantial decreases in the overall costs and charges associated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous PSPC rescue. In the Duke program, the average charge for the high-dose chemotherapy procedure decreased from $90,000 to $60,000 for adjuvant treatment of high-risk stage II-III breast cancer and from $115,000 to $90,000 for treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Similarly, Meisenberg et al recently reported a 25% reduction in the overall cost of care in the total outpatient BMT program, as compared with traditional inpatient care.
The University of Nebraska BMT program also realized decreases in transplant associated costs, morbidity, and mortality over a 5-year period. Variables that contributed to these reductions included an increased use of PBSCs and a shift from inpatient to outpatient care during the transplant procedure.[34,52]
It is difficult to compare financial information from different studies, as each reference may vary in the components of transplant included in the financial analysis. Thus, attention should be focused on the percentage reduction in cost or charge associated with outpatient care rather than the exact dollar amounts.
Shifts in Cost Centers
Although outpatient BMT care may decrease the overall cost of transplantation, certain departments, such as the pharmacy department, may experience a shift in cost centers rather than an overall reduction in cost. For example, the pharmacy at the University of Nebraska experienced approximately a 20% reduction in BMT-associated pharmacy costs over a 2-year period; however, the inpatient pharmacy noted a 60% reduction, while the outpatient pharmacy noted a 100% increase in BMT-associated pharmacy costs. This shift was due primarily to the implementation of an early transfer from the inpatient to outpatient approach.
Similarly, Rizzo et al reported that the reduction in inpatient facility charges in patients receiving care in their comprehensive outpatient BMT program ($67,000 reduction per patient) was largely offset by an increase in outpatient facility charges ($54,000 increase per patient).
Even though hospital and overall charges appear to be reduced in an outpatient program, cost-shifting must be acknowledged and addressed when establishing an outpatient BMT program. In the traditional inpatient BMT model, the cost of hospitalization represents the highest percentage of allocated resources. In a financial analysis of resource allocation in our outpatient transplant program, we found that the cost of outpatient staff, injectables, and operating overhead represent most of the direct and indirect costs per patient (Figure 3). Such shifts in cost centers and distribution of resources must be considered for program development and budgeting strategies during the implementation of an outpatient BMT program.
1. Statistical Center of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry and Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry: Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Newsletter. December 1998.
2. Hartmann O, Le Corroller AG, Blaise D, et al: Peripheral blood stem cell and bone marrow transplantation for solid tumors and lymphomas: Hematologic recovery and costs: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 126:600-607, 1997.
3. Schmitz N, Linch DC, Dreger P, et al: Randomized trial of filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation vs autologous bone-marrow transplantation in lymphoma patients. Lancet 347:353-357, 1996.
4. Beyer J, Schwella N, Zingsem J, et al: Hematopoietic rescue after high-dose chemotherapy using autologous peripheral-blood progenitor cells or bone marrow: Randomized comparison. J Clin Oncol 13:1328-1335, 1995.
5. Burns JM, Tierney DK, Long GD, et al: Critical pathway for administering high-dose chemotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell rescue in the outpatient setting. Oncol Nurs Forum 22:1219-1224, 1995.
6. Daniels LE: Developing a home chemotherapy service. Int J Palliative Nurs 1:81-85, 1995.
7. Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J: What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med 156:1414-1416, 1996.
8. Smith TJ, Hilner BE, Schmitz N, et al: Economic analysis of a randomized clinical trial to compare filgrastim-mobilized peripheral-blood progenitor-cell transplantation and autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 15:5-10, 1997.
9. Gilbert CJ: Peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation for breast cancer: Pharmacoeconomic considerations. Pharmacotherapy 16:101S-108S, 1996.
10. Peters WP, Ross M, Vredenburgh JJ, et al: The use of intensive clinic support to permit outpatient autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. Semin Oncol 21(suppl 7):25-31, 1994.
11. Weaver CH, Schwartzberg L, Zhen B, et al: High-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell infusion in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Results of outpatient treatment in community cancer centers. Bone Marrow Transplant 20:753-760, 1997.
12. Meisenberg BR, Miller WE, McMillan R, et al: Outpatient high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue for hematologic and nonhematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 15:11-17, 1997.
13. Gluck S, des Rochers C, Cano C, et al: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous blood cell transplantation: A safe and effective outpatient approach. Bone Marrow Transplant 20:431-434, 1997.
14. Geller RB, Dix SP, Belt RJ, et al: Minimum resource utilization for patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma undergoing mobilization and high-dose chemotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell transplants as outpatients (abstract). Blood 90:370a, 1997.
15. Yee GC: Peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation: Economic issues. Pharmacotherapy 18(suppl 1):9S-16S, 1998.
16. Rizzo DJ, Vogelsang GB, Krumm S, et al: Outpatient BMT for hematologic malignancies: Cost-saving or cost-shifting? J Clin Oncol 17:2811-2818, 1997.
17. Trabert E: Outpatient bone marrow transplantation: Examining the impact on quality and cost of care. The oncology round table. Oncology Watch, vol 8, 1998.
18. Stetz KM, McDonald JC, Compton K: Needs and experiences of family caregivers during marrow transplantation. Oncol Nurs Forum 23:1422-1427, 1996.
19. Compton K, McDonald JC, Stetz KM: Understanding the caring relationship during marrow transplantation: Family caregivers and health-care professionals. Oncol Nurs Forum 23:1428-1432, 1996.
20. McDonald JC, Stetz KM, Compton K: Educational interventions for family caregivers during marrow transplantation. Oncol Nurs Forum 23: 1432-1439, 1996.
21. Sharma N, Hendrix L, O’Connell K, et al: Obstacles to performing high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell rescue in the outpatient setting (abstract). Blood 90(suppl 1):116a, 1997.
22. Stadtmauer EA, Schneider CJ, Silberstein LE: Peripheral blood progenitor cell generation and harvesting. Semin Oncol 22:291-300, 1995.
23. Bensinger WI, Longin K, Appelbaum F, et al: Peripheral blood stem cells collected after recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF): An analysis of factors correlating with the tempo of engraftment after transplantation. Br J Haematol 87:825-831, 1994.
24. Gianni AM, Siena S, Bregni M, et al: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to harvest circulating hematopoietic stem cells for autotransplantation. Lancet 9:580-583, 1989.
25. Brugger W, Birken R, Berta H, et al: Peripheral blood progenitor cells mobilized by chemotherapy plus G-CSF accelerate both neutrophil and platelet recovery after high-dose VP16, ifosfamide, and cisplatin. Br J Haematol 84:402, 1993.
26. Elias AD, Ayash L, Anderson KC, et al: Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells by chemotherapy and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor for hematologic support after high-dose intensification for breast cancer. Blood 79:3036-3044, 1992.
27. Demirer T, Rowley S, Buckner CD, et al: Peripheral blood stem-cell collection after paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide, and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with breast and ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1714-1719, 1995.
28. Jagannath S, Dicke KA, Armitage JO, et al: High-dose cyclophosphamide, carmustine, and etoposide and autologous bone marrow transplantation for patients with advanced Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Intern Med 104:163-168, 1986.
29. Peters WP, Ross M, Vredenburgh JJ, et al: High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow support as consolidation after standard-dose adjuvant therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 11:1132-1143, 1993.
30. Philip T, Guglielmi C, Hagenbeek A, et al: Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemotherapy-sensitive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 333:1540-1545, 1995.
31. Antman K, Ayashl, Elias A, et al: A phase II study of high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with autologous marrow support in women with measurable advanced breast cancer responding to standard-dose therapy. J Clin Oncol 10:102-110, 1992.
32. Bensinger WI, Buckner CD: Preparative regimens, in Forman SJ, Thomas ED, Blume KG (eds): Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, 2nd ed, pp 123-134. Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Scientific, 1999.
33. Weaver CH, Schwartzberg LS, Hainsworth J, et al: Treatment-related mortality in 1000 consecutive patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in community cancer centers. Bone Marrow Transplant 19:671-678, 1997.
34. Davis TL: Peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation: Impact on the pharmacy workload and budget. Pharmacotherapy 18(suppl 1):24S-29S, 1998.
35. Weaver CH, West WH, Schwartzberg LS, et al: Induction, mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC), high-dose chemotherapy, and PBSC infusion in patients with untreated stage IV breast cancer: Outcomes by intent to treat analyses. Bone Marrow Transplant 19:661-670, 1999.
36. Barbounis V, Koumakis G, Vassilo-manolakis M, et al: A phase II study of ondansetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving high-dose polychemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Support Care Cancer 3:301-306, 1995.
37. Okamoto S, Takahaski S, Tanosaki R, et al: Granisetron in the prevention of vomiting induced by conditioning for stem cell transplantation: A prospective randomized study. Bone Marrow Transplant 17:679-683, 1996.
38. Gilbert CJ, Ohly KV, Rosner G, et al: Randomized, double-blind comparison of a prochlorperazine-based vs a metoclopramide-based antiemetic regimen in patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation. Cancer 76:2330-2337, 1995.
39. Miyahara TT, Dix SP, Devine SP, et al: Evaluation of supportive care guidelines for monitoring breast cancer bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients in the outpatient setting (abstract). Blood 86(suppl 1):213a, 1995.
40. Frakes LA, Brehm TL, Kosty MP, et al: An all oral antiemetic regimen for patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem cell transplant. Bone Marrow Transplant 20:473-478, 1997.
41. Shepherd JD, Pringle LE, Barnett MJ, et al: Mesna vs hyperhydration for the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis in bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol 9:2016-2020, 1991.
42. Dix SP, Cord MK, Howard SJ, et al: Safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion, patient controlled antiemetic pump to facilitate outpatient administration of high-dose chemotherapy. Bone Marrow Transplant 24(5):561-566, 1999.
43. Gilbert C, Meisenberg B, Vredenburgh J, et al: Sequential prophylactic oral and empiric once-daily parenteral antibiotics for neutropenia and fever after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow support. J Clin Oncol 12:1005-1011, 1994.
44. Meisenberg B, Gollard R, Brehm T, et al: Prophylactic antibiotics eliminate bacteremia and allow safe outpatient management following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue. Support Care Cancer 4:364-369, 1996.
45. McGuire TR, Tarantolo S, Reed E: Peripheral blood progenitor cells: Enabling outpatient transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 18:17S-23S, 1998.
46. Dix SP, Geller RB, Barnhart CS, et al: Single-agent trovafloxacin vs quinoline and cephalexin as anti-bacterial prophylaxis during BMT (abstract). Blood 92(suppl 1):332b, 1998.
47. Vose JM, Reed EC, Pippert GC, et al: Mesna compared with continuous bladder irrigation as uroprotection during high-dose chemotherapy and transplantation: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 11:1306-1310, 1993.
48. Dickson TC: Clinical pathway nutrition management for outpatient bone marrow transplantation. J Am Diet Assoc 97:61-63, 1997.
49. Charuhas PM, Fosberg KL, Bruemmer B, et al: A double-blind randomized trial comparing outpatient parenteral nutrition with intravenous hydration: Effect on resumption of oral intake after marrow transplantation. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 21:157-161, 1997.
50. Ruiz-Arguelles G, et al: Non-cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells autotransplants for hematological malignancies can be performed entirely on an outpatient basis. Am J Hematol 58:161-164, 1998.
51. Meisenberg B, et al: Reduced charges and costs associated with outpatient autologous stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 21:927-932, 1998.
52. Bennett CL, Armitage JL, Armitage GO, et al: Costs of care and outcomes for high-dose therapy and autologous transplantation for lymphoid malignancies: Results from the University of Nebraska 1987 through 1991. J Clin Oncol 13:969-973, 1995.
53. Dix SP, Simonich HA, Craycraft L, et al: Resource allocation for outpatient BMT programs utilizing case-rate managed care contracts (abstract). Blood 92(suppl 1):279a, 1998.
54. Chao NJ, Tierney K, Bloom JR, et al: Dynamic assessment of quality of life after autologous bone marrow transplantation. Blood 80:825-830, 1992.
55. Andrykowski MA, Bruehl S, Bardy MJ, et al: Physical and psychosocial status of adults 1 year after bone marrow transplantation: A prospective study. Bone Marrow Transplant 15:837-844, 1995.
56. McQuellon RP, Craven B, Russell GB, et al: Quality of life in breast cancer patients before and after autologous bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 18:579-584, 1996.
57. McQuellon RP, Russell GB, Rambo TD: Quality of life and psychological distress of bone marrow transplant recipients: The “time trajectory” to recovery over the first year. Bone Marrow Transplant 21:477-486, 1998.
58. Lawrence CC, Gilbert CJ, Peters WP Evaluation of symptom distress in a bone marrow transplant outpatient environment. Ann Pharmacother 30:941-945, 1996.