BACKGROUND: The advent of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) for the control of posterior epistaxis provides an effective, low-morbidity treatment option. In the current practice algorithm, ESPAL is pursued after failure of posterior packing. Given the morbidity and limited effectiveness of posterior packing, we sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of first-line ESPAL compared to the current practice model. METHODS: A standard decision analysis model was constructed comparing first-line ESPAL and current practice algorithms. A literature search was performed to determine event probabilities and published Medicare data largely provided cost parameters. The primary outcomes were cost of treatment and resolution of epistaxis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed for key parameters. RESULTS: Costs for the first-line ESPAL arm and the current practice arm were $6450 and $8246, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables including duration of packing. The baseline difference of $1796 in favor of the first-line ESPAL arm was increased to $6263 when the duration of nasal packing was increased from 3 to 5 days. Current practice was favored (cost savings of $437 per patient) if posterior packing duration was decreased from 3 to 2 days. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ESPAL is cost-saving as first-line therapy for posterior epistaxis. Given the improved effectiveness and patient comfort of ESPAL compared to posterior packing, ESPAL should be offered as an initial treatment option for medically stable patients with posterior epistaxis.
BACKGROUND: The advent of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) for the control of posterior epistaxis provides an effective, low-morbidity treatment option. In the current practice algorithm, ESPAL is pursued after failure of posterior packing. Given the morbidity and limited effectiveness of posterior packing, we sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of first-line ESPAL compared to the current practice model. METHODS: A standard decision analysis model was constructed comparing first-line ESPAL and current practice algorithms. A literature search was performed to determine event probabilities and published Medicare data largely provided cost parameters. The primary outcomes were cost of treatment and resolution of epistaxis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed for key parameters. RESULTS: Costs for the first-line ESPAL arm and the current practice arm were $6450 and $8246, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables including duration of packing. The baseline difference of $1796 in favor of the first-line ESPAL arm was increased to $6263 when the duration of nasal packing was increased from 3 to 5 days. Current practice was favored (cost savings of $437 per patient) if posterior packing duration was decreased from 3 to 2 days. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ESPAL is cost-saving as first-line therapy for posterior epistaxis. Given the improved effectiveness and patient comfort of ESPAL compared to posterior packing, ESPAL should be offered as an initial treatment option for medically stable patients with posterior epistaxis.