J A Hirsch1, R V Chandra2,3, N S Carter4,3,5, D Beall6, M Frohbergh7, K Ong7. 1. From the Neuroendovascular Program (J.A.H.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Faculty of Medicine (R.V.C., N.S.C.). 3. Nursing and Health Sciences, and Neuroinverventional Radiology (R.V.C., N.S.C.), Monash Imaging, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Faculty of Medicine (R.V.C., N.S.C.) nicolescarter4@gmail.com. 5. Alfred Hospital (N.S.C.), Melbourne, Australia. 6. Clinical Radiology of Oklahoma (D.B.), Edmond, Oklahoma. 7. Exponent Inc (M.F., K.O.), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence from randomized controlled trials for the efficacy of vertebral augmentation in vertebral compression fractures has been mixed. However, claims-based analyses from national registries or insurance datasets have demonstrated a significant mortality benefit for patients with vertebral compression fractures who receive vertebral augmentation. The purpose of this study was to calculate the number needed to treat to save 1 life at 1 year and up to 5 years after vertebral augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 10-year sample of the 100% US Medicare data base was used to identify patients with vertebral compression fractures treated with nonsurgical management, balloon kyphoplasty, and vertebroplasty. The number needed to treat was calculated between augmentation and nonsurgical management groups from years 1-5 following a vertebral compression fracture diagnosis, using survival probabilities for each management approach. RESULTS: The adjusted number needed to treat to save 1 life for nonsurgical management versus kyphoplasty ranged from 14.8 at year 1 to 11.9 at year 5. The adjusted number needed to treat for nonsurgical management versus vertebroplasty ranged from 22.8 at year 1 to 23.8 at year 5. CONCLUSIONS: Both augmentation modalities conferred a prominent mortality benefit over nonsurgical management in this analysis of the US Medicare registry, with a low number needed to treat. The calculations based on this data base resulted in a low number needed to treat to save 1 life at 1 year and at 5 years.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence from randomized controlled trials for the efficacy of vertebral augmentation in vertebral compression fractures has been mixed. However, claims-based analyses from national registries or insurance datasets have demonstrated a significant mortality benefit for patients with vertebral compression fractures who receive vertebral augmentation. The purpose of this study was to calculate the number needed to treat to save 1 life at 1 year and up to 5 years after vertebral augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 10-year sample of the 100% US Medicare data base was used to identify patients with vertebral compression fractures treated with nonsurgical management, balloon kyphoplasty, and vertebroplasty. The number needed to treat was calculated between augmentation and nonsurgical management groups from years 1-5 following a vertebral compression fracture diagnosis, using survival probabilities for each management approach. RESULTS: The adjusted number needed to treat to save 1 life for nonsurgical management versus kyphoplasty ranged from 14.8 at year 1 to 11.9 at year 5. The adjusted number needed to treat for nonsurgical management versus vertebroplasty ranged from 22.8 at year 1 to 23.8 at year 5. CONCLUSIONS: Both augmentation modalities conferred a prominent mortality benefit over nonsurgical management in this analysis of the US Medicare registry, with a low number needed to treat. The calculations based on this data base resulted in a low number needed to treat to save 1 life at 1 year and at 5 years.
Authors: Lubdha M Shah; Jack W Jennings; Claudia F E Kirsch; Eric J Hohenwalter; Francesca D Beaman; R Carter Cassidy; Michele M Johnson; A Tuba Kendi; Simon Shek-Man Lo; Charles Reitman; Arjun Sahgal; Matthew J Scheidt; Kristofer Schramm; Daniel E Wessell; Mark J Kransdorf; Jonathan M Lorenz; Julie Bykowski Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Joshua A Hirsch; Ronil V Chandra; Vidsysagar Pampati; John D Barr; Allan L Brook; Laxmaiah Manchikanti Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Caroline A H Klazen; Paul N M Lohle; Jolanda de Vries; Frits H Jansen; Alexander V Tielbeek; Marion C Blonk; Alexander Venmans; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Marinus C Schoemaker; Job R Juttmann; Tjoen H Lo; Harald J J Verhaar; Yolanda van der Graaf; Kaspar J van Everdingen; Alex F Muller; Otto E H Elgersma; Dirk R Halkema; Hendrik Fransen; Xavier Janssens; Erik Buskens; Willem P Th M Mali Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Juan Carlos Martinez-Gutierrez; Thabele Leslie-Mazwi; Ronil V Chandra; Kevin L Ong; Raul G Nogueira; Mayank Goyal; Felipe C Albuquerque; Joshua A Hirsch Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Nebojsa Nick Knezevic; Mark V Boswell; Alan D Kaye; Joshua A Hirsch Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Teodora Bellone; Marco Scardapane; Pierre De Marini; Pierre-Alexis Autrusseau; Pierre Auloge; Julien Garnon; Jack W Jennings; Afshin Gangi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A Cianfoni; R L Delfanti; M Isalberti; P Scarone; E Koetsier; G Bonaldi; J A Hirsch; M Pileggi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Caroline Constant; John D Stroncek; Stephan Zeiter; Daniel Arens; Dirk Nehrbass; Dominic Gehweiler; Ursula Menzel; Lorin M Benneker; Ronald S Hill; Christoph E Albers Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 2.721