OBJECTIVE: In this study we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive vein harvesting. The great saphenous vein is the most commonly used conduit in coronary artery bypass surgery. In the past decade minimally invasive techniques have been developed to reduce the surgical trauma associated with the conventional open vein-harvesting technique. There is strong evidence to suggest that minimally invasive harvesting can reduce postoperative wound healing complications, pain, mobility restriction, and hospital stay. Despite the increasingly widespread use of this technique, formal cost-effectiveness analysis has never been performed. METHODS: Economic analysis was performed according to the National Institute of Healthcare and Clinical Excellence guidelines on the evaluation of technology by using published data on postoperative pain and mobility restriction, locally collected data, National Health Service reference costs, and manufacturer's data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate and quantify the uncertainty associated with the results of our analysis. RESULTS: The results of our analysis demonstrate that minimally invasive vein harvesting was more cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,858.87/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), comparing favorably with other health care interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated with 95.6% certainty that endoscopic harvesting was more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Alternative analysis suggested that even with considerable uncertainty associated with quality of life after vein harvesting, minimally invasive harvesting was more cost-effective than conventional vein harvesting. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive harvesting is the most cost-effective method of harvesting the great saphenous vein and can significantly improve a patient's quality of life.
OBJECTIVE: In this study we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive vein harvesting. The great saphenous vein is the most commonly used conduit in coronary artery bypass surgery. In the past decade minimally invasive techniques have been developed to reduce the surgical trauma associated with the conventional open vein-harvesting technique. There is strong evidence to suggest that minimally invasive harvesting can reduce postoperative wound healing complications, pain, mobility restriction, and hospital stay. Despite the increasingly widespread use of this technique, formal cost-effectiveness analysis has never been performed. METHODS: Economic analysis was performed according to the National Institute of Healthcare and Clinical Excellence guidelines on the evaluation of technology by using published data on postoperative pain and mobility restriction, locally collected data, National Health Service reference costs, and manufacturer's data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate and quantify the uncertainty associated with the results of our analysis. RESULTS: The results of our analysis demonstrate that minimally invasive vein harvesting was more cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,858.87/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), comparing favorably with other health care interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated with 95.6% certainty that endoscopic harvesting was more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Alternative analysis suggested that even with considerable uncertainty associated with quality of life after vein harvesting, minimally invasive harvesting was more cost-effective than conventional vein harvesting. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive harvesting is the most cost-effective method of harvesting the great saphenous vein and can significantly improve a patient's quality of life.
Authors: Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy; William R Critchley; Rajamiyer V Venkateswaran; James Barnard; Ann Caress; James E Fildes; Nizar Yonan Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Bart S Ferket; Jonathan M Oxman; Alexander Iribarne; Annetine C Gelijns; Alan J Moskowitz Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 5.209