Xiaoxi Zhang1, Li Li1, Bo Hong1, Yi Xu1, Yuan Liu1, Qinghai Huang1, Jianmin Liu2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: chstroke@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Healthcare expenditures and cost reduction have been under critical surveillance in all countries and are critical for policymakers. This review aims at qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the difference of hospital costs and length of stay between endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping in ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RAs). METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, Embase, and the Web of Science database were searched and evaluated independently by 2 authors according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies describing economic hospital cost or length of stay in patients with RAs. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were included, describing 24,219 RAs treated with neurosurgical clipping and 24,962 RAs with endovascular coiling. Meta-analysis revealed that the total hospital costs (THCs) were similar between coiling versus clipping in RAs (standard mean difference [SMD], -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.22; I2 = 99%; P = 0.50). Subgroup analysis showed that THCs of clipping and coiling were similar in ruptured aneurysms in the United States. However, in South Korea, the THCs of coiling were significantly higher than clipping. In the long run, 1-year medical costs of endovascular treatment were significantly lower than that of clipping in RAs (SMD, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.25; I2 = 66%; P = 0.005). In addition, the length of stay of coiled patients was significantly shorter than clipped patients (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.45; I2 = 96%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical costs were region-specified. In the United States, total hospital costs and 1-year medical costs were similar in RA patients treated with endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping. However, in countries like South Korea and China, coiling was more expensive. The length of stay was much shorter in coiled patients in all countries.
OBJECTIVE: Healthcare expenditures and cost reduction have been under critical surveillance in all countries and are critical for policymakers. This review aims at qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the difference of hospital costs and length of stay between endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping in ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RAs). METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, Embase, and the Web of Science database were searched and evaluated independently by 2 authors according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies describing economic hospital cost or length of stay in patients with RAs. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were included, describing 24,219 RAs treated with neurosurgical clipping and 24,962 RAs with endovascular coiling. Meta-analysis revealed that the total hospital costs (THCs) were similar between coiling versus clipping in RAs (standard mean difference [SMD], -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.22; I2 = 99%; P = 0.50). Subgroup analysis showed that THCs of clipping and coiling were similar in ruptured aneurysms in the United States. However, in South Korea, the THCs of coiling were significantly higher than clipping. In the long run, 1-year medical costs of endovascular treatment were significantly lower than that of clipping in RAs (SMD, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.25; I2 = 66%; P = 0.005). In addition, the length of stay of coiled patients was significantly shorter than clipped patients (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.45; I2 = 96%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical costs were region-specified. In the United States, total hospital costs and 1-year medical costs were similar in RApatients treated with endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping. However, in countries like South Korea and China, coiling was more expensive. The length of stay was much shorter in coiled patients in all countries.
Authors: Jose A Figueroa-Sanchez; Ana S Ferrigno; David E Hinojosa-González; Gustavo Salgado-Garza; Hector R Martinez; Enrique Caro-Osorio; Jesus G Garza-Garcia Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Keng Siang Lee; John J Y Zhang; Vincent Nguyen; Julian Han; Jeremiah N Johnson; Ramez Kirollos; Mario Teo Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Sang-Won Park; Ji Young Lee; Nam Hun Heo; James Jisu Han; Eun Chae Lee; Dong-Yong Hong; Dong-Hun Lee; Man Ryul Lee; Jae Sang Oh Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Yang-Lan Lo; Zen Lang Bih; Ying-Hui Yu; Ming-Chang Li; Ho-Min Chen; Szu-Yuan Wu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.390