Cost-effectiveness of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

被引:66
作者
Michaels, JA [1 ]
Drury, D [1 ]
Thomas, SM [1 ]
机构
[1] No Gen Hosp, Acad Vasc Unit, Sheffield S5 7AU, S Yorkshire, England
关键词
D O I
10.1002/bjs.5119
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The rapid introduction of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has considerable implications for the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This study was undertaken to determine an optimal strategy for the use of EVAR based on the best currently available evidence. Methods: Economic modelling and probabilistic sensitivity analysis considered reference cases representing. a fit 70-year-old with a 5.5-cm diameter AAA (RC1) and an 80-year-old with a 6.5-cm AAA unfit for open surgery (RC2). Results were assessed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with open repair (RC1) or conservative management (RC2). Results: In RC1 EVAR produced a gain of 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an estimated cost of Ell 449, giving an ICER of 110000 pound per QALY. EVAR consistently had an ICER above 230 000 per QALY over a range of sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios. In RC2 EVAR produced an estimated benefit of 1.64 QALYs for an incremental cost of 14077 pound giving an incremental cost per QALY of 8579. pound Conclusion. It is unlikely that EVAR for fit patients suitable for open repair is within the commonly accepted range of cost-effectiveness for a new technology. For those unfit for conventional open repair it is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to non-operative management. Sensitivity analysis suggests that research efforts should concentrate on determining accurate rates for late complications and reintervention, particularly in patients with high operative risks.
引用
收藏
页码:960 / 967
页数:8
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2004, GUID METH TECHN APPR
[2]   The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Ashton, HA ;
Buxton, MJ ;
Day, NE ;
Kim, LG ;
Marteau, TM ;
Scott, RAP ;
Thomspon, SG ;
Walker, NM .
LANCET, 2002, 360 (9345) :1531-1539
[3]  
Ashton HA, 2002, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V325, P1135
[4]   Mid-term results of endovascular versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients anatomically suitable for endovascular repair [J].
Becquemin, JP ;
Bourriez, A ;
D'Audiffret, A ;
Zubilewicz, T ;
Kobeiter, H ;
Allaire, E ;
Mellière, D ;
Desgranges, P .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2000, 19 (06) :656-661
[5]  
*DEP HLTH, 2004, NHS REF COSTS 2003 N
[6]  
DRURY D, 2004, NATL I CLIN EXCELLEN
[7]   Clinical outcomes audit in vascular surgery: a shield for our profession [J].
Earnshaw, JJ .
ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 2003, 85 (04) :256-259
[8]   Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial [J].
Greenhalgh, RM ;
Brown, LC ;
Kwong, GPS ;
Powell, JT ;
Thompson, SG .
LANCET, 2004, 364 (9437) :843-848
[9]  
*HARV CTR RISK AN, 2004, CAT PREF SCOR
[10]   Volume regression of abdominal aortic aneurysms and its relation to successful endoluminal exclusion [J].
Lee, JT ;
Aziz, IN ;
Lee, JT ;
Haukoos, JS ;
Donayre, CE ;
Walot, I ;
Kopchok, GE ;
Lippmann, M ;
White, RA .
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2003, 38 (06) :1254-1263