Dane Moran1,2, Mark G Shrime3, Sam Nang4, Iv Vycheth4, Din Vuthy4, Raksmey Hong4, William V Padula2, Kee B Park5,6,7. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 733 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 3. Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 641 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Preah Kossamak Hospital, Street 271, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 5. Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 641 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. keebpark@gmail.com. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Preah Kossamak Hospital, Street 271, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. keebpark@gmail.com. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Preah Kossamak Hospital, St 265, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. keebpark@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidural hematoma (EDH) is a common and potentially deadly occurrence following a severe traumatic brain injury. Our aim was to determine whether craniotomy is cost-effective when indicated for the treatment of EDH when a trained neurosurgeon is available. METHODS: A decision tree was used to model the cost-effectiveness of craniotomy available versus craniotomy unavailable for the management of traumatic EDH from a Cambodian societal and provider perspective. Costs and effectiveness parameters were obtained from patient data at a large government hospital in Cambodia. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY and budget impact were calculated for each intervention at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $9787.80/QALY (3× GDP per capita PPP). The time horizon reflected full life span, and costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Compared to craniotomy unavailable for EDH ($945.80; 11.78 QALYs), craniotomy available came at a higher cost and greater effectiveness ($1520.73; 12.78 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $574.93. One-way analysis demonstrated that craniotomy unavailable became more cost-effective than craniotomy available when the percent chance of having a GOS of 4 or 5 was 60% for patients with an EDH where craniotomy was indicated but not performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that craniotomy available was more cost-effective than conservative management in 84.4% of simulations at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Craniotomy is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a traumatic EDH who meet criteria for operation when trained neurosurgeons are available onsite.
BACKGROUND: Epidural hematoma (EDH) is a common and potentially deadly occurrence following a severe traumatic brain injury. Our aim was to determine whether craniotomy is cost-effective when indicated for the treatment of EDH when a trained neurosurgeon is available. METHODS: A decision tree was used to model the cost-effectiveness of craniotomy available versus craniotomy unavailable for the management of traumatic EDH from a Cambodian societal and provider perspective. Costs and effectiveness parameters were obtained from patient data at a large government hospital in Cambodia. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY and budget impact were calculated for each intervention at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $9787.80/QALY (3× GDP per capita PPP). The time horizon reflected full life span, and costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Compared to craniotomy unavailable for EDH ($945.80; 11.78 QALYs), craniotomy available came at a higher cost and greater effectiveness ($1520.73; 12.78 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $574.93. One-way analysis demonstrated that craniotomy unavailable became more cost-effective than craniotomy available when the percent chance of having a GOS of 4 or 5 was 60% for patients with an EDH where craniotomy was indicated but not performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that craniotomy available was more cost-effective than conservative management in 84.4% of simulations at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Craniotomy is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a traumatic EDH who meet criteria for operation when trained neurosurgeons are available onsite.
Authors: Adnan A Hyder; Katharine A Allen; Gayle Di Pietro; Claudia A Adriazola; Rochelle Sobel; Kelly Larson; Margie Peden Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Aziz S Alali; David M J Naimark; Jefferson R Wilson; Robert A Fowler; Damon C Scales; Eyal Golan; Todd G Mainprize; Joel G Ray; Avery B Nathens Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: M Ross Bullock; Randall Chesnut; Jamshid Ghajar; David Gordon; Roger Hartl; David W Newell; Franco Servadei; Beverly C Walters; Jack E Wilberger Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: N Aoki; T Kitahara; T Fukui; J R Beck; K Soma; W Yamamoto; I Kamae; T Ohwada Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1998 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jacqueline M Regan; Emmagene Worley; Christopher Shelburne; Ranjit Pullarkat; Joseph C Watson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David D Kim; Madison C Silver; Natalia Kunst; Joshua T Cohen; Daniel A Ollendorf; Peter J Neumann Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.981