S T Patel1, P B Haser, H L Bush, K C Kent. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Cornell University Medical College, New York 10021, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Endovascular repair (EVR) is a less-invasive method for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) as compared with open surgical repair (OSR). The potential benefits of EVR include increased patient acceptance, less resource utilization, and cost savings. This study was designed to determine whether the EVR of AAAs is a cost-effective alternative to OSR. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov decision analysis model to compute long-term survival rates in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of patients who underwent either OSR or EVR. Probability estimates of the different outcomes of the two alternative strategies were made on the basis of a review of the literature. The average costs of (1) the immediate hospitalization ($16,016 for OSR, $20,083 for EVR), (2) the complications that resulted from each procedure, (3) the subsequent interventions, and (4) the surveillance protocol were determined on the basis of average resource utilization as reported in the literature and from our hospital's cost accounting system. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For our base-case analysis (70-year-old men with 5-cm AAAs), EVR was cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $22,826-society usually is willing to pay for interventions with cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $60,000 (eg, cost-effectiveness ratios for coronary artery bypass grafting and dialysis are $9500 and $54,400, respectively). This conclusion did not vary significantly with increases in procedural costs for EVR (ie, if the cost of the endograft increased from $8000 to $12,000, EVR remained cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $32,881). The cost-effectiveness of EVR was critically dependent on EVR producing a large reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate (stroke, dialysis-dependent renal failure, major amputation, myocardial infarction) as compared with OSR (ie, a reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate of OSR from 9.1% to 4.7% made EVR no longer cost-effective). CONCLUSION: Despite the high cost of new technology and the need for close postoperative surveillance, EVR is a cost-effective alternative for the repair of AAAs. However, the cost-effectiveness of this new technology is critically dependent on its potential to reduce morbidity and mortality rates as compared with OSR. EVR may not be cost-effective in medical centers where OSR can be performed with low risk.
PURPOSE: Endovascular repair (EVR) is a less-invasive method for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) as compared with open surgical repair (OSR). The potential benefits of EVR include increased patient acceptance, less resource utilization, and cost savings. This study was designed to determine whether the EVR of AAAs is a cost-effective alternative to OSR. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov decision analysis model to compute long-term survival rates in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of patients who underwent either OSR or EVR. Probability estimates of the different outcomes of the two alternative strategies were made on the basis of a review of the literature. The average costs of (1) the immediate hospitalization ($16,016 for OSR, $20,083 for EVR), (2) the complications that resulted from each procedure, (3) the subsequent interventions, and (4) the surveillance protocol were determined on the basis of average resource utilization as reported in the literature and from our hospital's cost accounting system. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For our base-case analysis (70-year-old men with 5-cm AAAs), EVR was cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $22,826-society usually is willing to pay for interventions with cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $60,000 (eg, cost-effectiveness ratios for coronary artery bypass grafting and dialysis are $9500 and $54,400, respectively). This conclusion did not vary significantly with increases in procedural costs for EVR (ie, if the cost of the endograft increased from $8000 to $12,000, EVR remained cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $32,881). The cost-effectiveness of EVR was critically dependent on EVR producing a large reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate (stroke, dialysis-dependent renal failure, major amputation, myocardial infarction) as compared with OSR (ie, a reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate of OSR from 9.1% to 4.7% made EVR no longer cost-effective). CONCLUSION: Despite the high cost of new technology and the need for close postoperative surveillance, EVR is a cost-effective alternative for the repair of AAAs. However, the cost-effectiveness of this new technology is critically dependent on its potential to reduce morbidity and mortality rates as compared with OSR. EVR may not be cost-effective in medical centers where OSR can be performed with low risk.
Authors: Sang Il Min; Seung-Kee Min; Sanghyun Ahn; Suh Min Kim; Daedo Park; Taejin Park; Jin Wook Chung; Jae Hyung Park; Jongwon Ha; Sang Joon Kim; In Mok Jung Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: David C Brewster; John E Jones; Thomas K Chung; Glenn M Lamuraglia; Christopher J Kwolek; Michael T Watkins; Thomas M Hodgman; Richard P Cambria Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David H Stone; Alexander J Horvath; Philip P Goodney; Eva M Rzucidlo; Brian W Nolan; Daniel B Walsh; Robert M Zwolak; Richard J Powell Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.268