RESUMO
PURPOSE: Many urban trauma centers have abandoned proximity arteriography, which is defined as exclusion arteriography used to evaluate the asymptomatic patient with penetrating extremity trauma near major arteries. However, decision analysis has not been applied to study proximity arteriography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of proximity arteriography was examined by creating a decision model that compared arteriography with observation after patient examination in the trauma unit. The model used predominantly literature-derived estimates for input variables and outcomes. The authors retrospectively reviewed arteriograms for 1 year to identify major occult injuries (requiring intervention) at their institution. After a resource-based cost analysis from the taxpayers' perspective, the cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) for proximity arteriography. RESULTS: For proximity trauma, arteriography is a dominant strategy (more effective and costs less) at a prevalence of major occult injury of 5.5% or more. Observation is a dominant strategy if the prevalence is from 0% to 0.5% or 2.0%, depending on arteriography complication assumptions. In between, arteriography is cost-effective, with a ratio of $12,100 per QALY at 2.5% prevalence (base case). Besides prevalence of occult injury, the model is sensitive to outcome assumptions for occult injuries. CONCLUSION: Proximity arteriography is a cost-effective procedure if major occult injuries equal or exceed 1.0%.