Natalie D Sridharan1, Rabih A Chaer2, Kenneth Smith3, Mohammad H Eslami2. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. Electronic address: domenickna2@upmc.edu. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared with TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of TCAR is not well-understood. METHODS: Incorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in United States dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and myocardial infarction, as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 years and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared with CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base-case risk, 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared with CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base-case cost, $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%. CONCLUSIONS: At current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.
OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared with TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of TCAR is not well-understood. METHODS: Incorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in United States dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and myocardial infarction, as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 years and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared with CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base-case risk, 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared with CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base-case cost, $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%. CONCLUSIONS: At current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.