PURPOSE: Percutaneous image-guided techniques are associated with less tissue trauma and morbidity than open surgical techniques. Interventional radiology has received significant health care investment. The purpose was to determine the cost effectiveness of inserting implantable venous access devices (IVADs) by interventional radiologic means versus conventional operating room surgery in pediatric patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients presenting with a new tumor diagnosis and receiving a first-time IVAD in January to June 2000 (operative group; n = 30) and January to June 2004 (interventional group; n = 30) were included. A societal costing perspective was adopted. Costs included labor, materials, equipment, inpatient wards, parent travel, and parental productivity losses for 30 days after insertion. Severe complications related to IVAD insertion were microcosted. Costs related to cancer therapy were not included. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Interventional patients were older (7.3 years vs 4.1 years; P = .01). There were no significant differences between groups in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, or length of hospital stay. Interventional radiologic procedures were shorter (84.9 minutes vs 112.8 minutes; P = 0.01). Interventional radiologic insertion was slightly less costly than operative insertion (Can$622,860 and Can$627,005 per 30-patient group, respectively) and more effective in reducing the complication rate (two vs eight complications per group, respectively; P = .039). The results were sensitive to the cost of operating the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional radiology was slightly less costly than operative IVAD insertion and resulted in fewer serious complications. It should be considered for IVAD insertions in pediatric patients with cancer.
PURPOSE: Percutaneous image-guided techniques are associated with less tissue trauma and morbidity than open surgical techniques. Interventional radiology has received significant health care investment. The purpose was to determine the cost effectiveness of inserting implantable venous access devices (IVADs) by interventional radiologic means versus conventional operating room surgery in pediatric patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients presenting with a new tumor diagnosis and receiving a first-time IVAD in January to June 2000 (operative group; n = 30) and January to June 2004 (interventional group; n = 30) were included. A societal costing perspective was adopted. Costs included labor, materials, equipment, inpatient wards, parent travel, and parental productivity losses for 30 days after insertion. Severe complications related to IVAD insertion were microcosted. Costs related to cancer therapy were not included. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Interventional patients were older (7.3 years vs 4.1 years; P = .01). There were no significant differences between groups in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, or length of hospital stay. Interventional radiologic procedures were shorter (84.9 minutes vs 112.8 minutes; P = 0.01). Interventional radiologic insertion was slightly less costly than operative insertion (Can$622,860 and Can$627,005 per 30-patient group, respectively) and more effective in reducing the complication rate (two vs eight complications per group, respectively; P = .039). The results were sensitive to the cost of operating the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional radiology was slightly less costly than operative IVAD insertion and resulted in fewer serious complications. It should be considered for IVAD insertions in pediatric patients with cancer.