BACKGROUND: The Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) showed that carotid endarterectomy was beneficial for symptom-free patients with carotid stenosis of 60% or more. This finding raises the question of whether widespread screening to identify cases of asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be implemented. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a screening program to identify cases of asymptomatic carotid stenosis would be a cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using published data from clinical trials. SETTING: General population of asymptomatic 65-year-old men. INTERVENTION: Patients who were screened for carotid disease with duplex Doppler ultrasonography were compared with patients who were not screened. If ultrasonography found significant carotid stenosis (> or = 60%), disease was confirmed by angiography before carotid endarterectomy was done. MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and marginal cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: When the conditions and results of ACAS were modeled and it was assumed that the survival advantage produced by endarterectomy would last for 30 years, the lifetime marginal cost-effectiveness of screening relative to no screening was $120,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that marginal cost-effectiveness decreased to $50,000 or less per quality-adjusted life-year only under implausible conditions (for example, if a free screening instrument with perfect test characteristics was used or an asymptomatic population with a 40% prevalence of carotid stenosis was found). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery offers a real but modest absolute reduction in the rate of stroke at a substantial cost. A program to identify candidates for endarterectomy by screening asymptomatic populations for carotid stenosis costs more per quality-adjusted life-year than is usually considered acceptable.
BACKGROUND: The Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) showed that carotid endarterectomy was beneficial for symptom-free patients with carotid stenosis of 60% or more. This finding raises the question of whether widespread screening to identify cases of asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be implemented. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a screening program to identify cases of asymptomatic carotid stenosis would be a cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using published data from clinical trials. SETTING: General population of asymptomatic 65-year-old men. INTERVENTION: Patients who were screened for carotid disease with duplex Doppler ultrasonography were compared with patients who were not screened. If ultrasonography found significant carotid stenosis (> or = 60%), disease was confirmed by angiography before carotid endarterectomy was done. MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and marginal cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: When the conditions and results of ACAS were modeled and it was assumed that the survival advantage produced by endarterectomy would last for 30 years, the lifetime marginal cost-effectiveness of screening relative to no screening was $120,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that marginal cost-effectiveness decreased to $50,000 or less per quality-adjusted life-year only under implausible conditions (for example, if a free screening instrument with perfect test characteristics was used or an asymptomatic population with a 40% prevalence of carotid stenosis was found). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery offers a real but modest absolute reduction in the rate of stroke at a substantial cost. A program to identify candidates for endarterectomy by screening asymptomatic populations for carotid stenosis costs more per quality-adjusted life-year than is usually considered acceptable.
Authors: Arthur Knapp; Violetta Cetrullo; Brett A Sillars; Nat Lenzo; Wendy A Davis; Timothy M E Davis Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Damon C Scales; Jay Riva-Cambrin; Dave Wells; Valerie Athaide; John T Granton; Allan S Detsky Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 9.097