Cost-effectiveness of Carotid Surgery

Autor: Pilar Carrasco, Jose A. Gonzalez-Fajardo, Manuel Doblas, Sandra Vicente Jiménez, Juan Fontcuberta, Gil Rodriguez, Angel Flores, Antonio Orgaz, Manuel Maynar
Rok vydání: 2019
Předmět:
Male
medicine.medical_specialty
Time Factors
Cost effectiveness
Cost-Benefit Analysis
medicine.medical_treatment
Carotid endarterectomy
030204 cardiovascular system & hematology
Asymptomatic
030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
medicine
Humans
Carotid Stenosis
Prospective Studies
Hospital Costs
Prospective cohort study
Aged
Endarterectomy
Asymptomatic Diseases
Aged
80 and over

Endarterectomy
Carotid

business.industry
Endovascular Procedures
fungi
General Medicine
Middle Aged
medicine.disease
Surgery
Quality-adjusted life year
Stenosis
Models
Economic

Outcome and Process Assessment
Health Care

Treatment Outcome
Spain
Quality of Life
Female
Stents
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
medicine.symptom
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
business
Zdroj: Annals of Vascular Surgery. 57:177-186
ISSN: 0890-5096
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.09.013
Popis: Background The purpose of this study is to determinate the cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus transfemoral stenting (TFS) and transcervical stenting (TCS) in a short- and long-term basis in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Methods From January 2003 to December 2014, patients from the vascular department, with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, who were clinically and anatomically suitable for TFS, TCS, or CEA, were included. Prospective cost data for each individual procedure and complication during follow-up were obtained from the diagnosis-related group. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Analysis of data was by treatment received. All statistical tests were two-sided. The significance level was 5%. Results A total of 349 patients were enrolled: 61 for CEA (17.5%), 159 for TFS (45.5%), and 129 for TCS (37%). A total of 220 (63%) patients were symptomatic and 129 (37%) were asymptomatic. The median procedural cost and overall cost were lower on CEA (5499€ and 5595€, respectively). However, QALYs, for symptomatic patients, were better on TCS (7.3), whereas for asymptomatic patients, QALYs were better on CEA (9.6). Cost-effectiveness for symptomatic patients was better with TCS (803€/QALY), and for asymptomatic patients, it was with CEA (654€/QALY). Conclusions TFS and TCS were associated with clinical outcomes equivalent to CEA on both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Cost-effectiveness ratios for symptomatic patients were better on TCS, whereas the CEA showed the best results in asymptomatic patients.
Databáze: OpenAIRE