Jong Hun Kim1, Jong Bum Choi1, Hyun Kyu Park2, Kyung Hwa Kim1, Ja Hong Kuh2. 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Korea. ; Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk National University Hospital, Korea. 2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with significant carotid artery stenosis (range, 70% to 99%) generally undergo either carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) to prevent stroke. In this study, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of these two treatment modalities. METHODS: A total of 47 patients (mean age, 67.1±9.1 years; male, 87.2%) undergoing either CEA (n=28) or CAS (n=19) for the treatment of significant carotid artery stenosis were enrolled in this study. Hospitalization costs were subdivided into three parts, namely pre-procedure, procedure and resource, and post-procedure costs. RESULTS: Total hospitalization costs were similar in both groups of CEA and CAS (6,377 thousand won [TW] vs. 6,703 TW, p=0.255); however, the total cost minus the pre-procedure cost was higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group (4,948 TW vs. 5,941 TW, p<0.0001). The pre-procedure cost of the CEA group was higher than that of the CAS group (1,429 TW vs. 762 TW, p<0.0001). However, the procedure and resource cost was higher in the CAS group because the resource cost was approximately three times higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group. The post-procedure cost was higher in the CEA group because hospital stays were approximately two times longer. CONCLUSION: The total hospitalization cost was not different between the CEA and the CAS groups. The pre-procedure cost was high in the CEA group, but the cost from procedure onset to discharge, including the resource cost, was significantly lower in this group.
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with significant carotid artery stenosis (range, 70% to 99%) generally undergo either carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) to prevent stroke. In this study, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of these two treatment modalities. METHODS: A total of 47 patients (mean age, 67.1±9.1 years; male, 87.2%) undergoing either CEA (n=28) or CAS (n=19) for the treatment of significant carotid artery stenosis were enrolled in this study. Hospitalization costs were subdivided into three parts, namely pre-procedure, procedure and resource, and post-procedure costs. RESULTS: Total hospitalization costs were similar in both groups of CEA and CAS (6,377 thousand won [TW] vs. 6,703 TW, p=0.255); however, the total cost minus the pre-procedure cost was higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group (4,948 TW vs. 5,941 TW, p<0.0001). The pre-procedure cost of the CEA group was higher than that of the CAS group (1,429 TW vs. 762 TW, p<0.0001). However, the procedure and resource cost was higher in the CAS group because the resource cost was approximately three times higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group. The post-procedure cost was higher in the CEA group because hospital stays were approximately two times longer. CONCLUSION: The total hospitalization cost was not different between the CEA and the CAS groups. The pre-procedure cost was high in the CEA group, but the cost from procedure onset to discharge, including the resource cost, was significantly lower in this group.
Authors: P A Ringleb; J Allenberg; H Brückmann; H-H Eckstein; G Fraedrich; M Hartmann; M Hennerici; O Jansen; G Klein; A Kunze; P Marx; K Niederkorn; W Schmiedt; L Solymosi; R Stingele; H Zeumer; W Hacke Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P M Rothwell; M Eliasziw; S A Gutnikov; A J Fox; D W Taylor; M R Mayberg; C P Warlow; H J M Barnett Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-01-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: H J M Barnett; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; D L Sackett; S J Peerless; G G Ferguson; A J Fox; R N Rankin; V C Hachinski; D O Wiebers; M Eliasziw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245