RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction, either by surgery or bronchoscopically by endobronchial valve treatment have been shown to be a cost-effective alternative compared with conservative therapy. However, there is no comparative analysis of lung volume reduction by surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of lung volume reduction by surgery compared with bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves. METHODS: The effectiveness of lung volume reduction was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), residual volume (RV) and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), measured at baseline and at 4 to 12 weeks. Cost unit accounting derived from SwissDRG was used as a surrogate of the costs from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: In total, 67 patients (37 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 68.3 ± 7.4 years were included. Both clinical effectiveness and costs were comparable between surgical and bronchoscopic lung reduction. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for bronchoscopic compared with lung volume reduction by surgery for FEV1, RV and 6MWD were -101, 4 and 58, respectively. For RV and 6MWD, it could be shown that endobronchial valve treatment is justified as a probably cost-effective alternative to lung volume reduction by surgery. Endobronchial valve treatment resulted in an improvement of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an ICER of 7657 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: A robust statement on the superiority of one of the two procedures in terms of cost-effectiveness cannot be made from the present study. Therefore, the study is not suitable for resource allocation. Two upcoming trials comparing lung volume reduction surgery and endobronchial valve treatment may be able to answer this question.