RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Invasive treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) is commonly performed, despite limited evidence of its cost effectiveness. IC symptoms are mainly caused by atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA), and endovascular treatment is performed frequently. The aim of this study was to investigate its cost effectiveness vs. non-invasive treatment. METHODS: One hundred patients with IC due to lesions in the SFA were randomised to treatment with primary stenting, best medical treatment (BMT) and exercise advice (stent group), or to BMT and exercise advice alone (control group). Patients were recruited at seven hospitals in Sweden. For this analysis of cost effectiveness after 24 months, 84 patients with data on quality adjusted life years (QALY; based on the EuroQol Five Dimensions EQ-5D 3L™ questionnaire) were analysed. Patient registry and imputed cost data were used for accumulated costs regarding hospitalisation and outpatient visits. RESULTS: The mean cost per patient was 11 060 in the stent group and 4 787 in the control group, resulting in a difference of 6 273 per patient between the groups. The difference in mean QALYs between the groups was 0.26, in favour of the stent group, which resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 23 785 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The costs associated with primary stenting in the SFA for the treatment of IC were higher than for exercise advice and BMT alone. With concurrent improvement in health related quality of life, primary stenting was a cost effective treatment option according to the Swedish national guidelines (ICER < 50 000 - 70 000) and approaching the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for willingness to pay (ICER < £20 000 - £30 000). From a cost effectiveness standpoint, primary stenting of the SFA can, in many countries, be used as an adjunct to exercise training advice, but it must be considered that successful implementation of structured exercise programmes and longer follow up may alter these findings.
Assuntos
Procedimentos Endovasculares/economia , Artéria Femoral , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Claudicação Intermitente/economia , Claudicação Intermitente/terapia , Doença Arterial Periférica/economia , Doença Arterial Periférica/terapia , Stents/economia , Idoso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/instrumentação , Feminino , Humanos , Claudicação Intermitente/diagnóstico , Masculino , Doença Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Suécia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
This paper aimed to study the agreement and repeatability, both intra- and interobserver, of infrapopliteal lesion assessment with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), using the TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II criteria, with perioperative digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference. Sixty-eight patients with an MRA preceding an endovascular infrapopliteal revascularization were included. Preoperative MRAs and perioperative DSAs were evaluated in random order by three independent observers using the TASC II classification. The results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis and Krippendorff's α. No systematic difference was found between modalities: area under the VGC curve (AUCVGC) = 0.48 (p = 0.58) or intraobserver; AUCVGC for Observer 1 and 2 respectively, 0.49 (p = 0.85) and 0.53 (p = 0.52) for MRA compared with 0.54 (p = 0.30) and 0.49 (p = 0.81) for DSA. Interobserver differences were seen: AUCVGC of 0.63 (p < 0.01) for DSA and 0.80 (p < 0.01) for MRA. These results were confirmed using Krippendorff's α for the three observers showing 0.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07-0.31) for MRA and 0.39 (95% CI 0.23-0.53) for DSA. Poor interobserver agreement was also found in the choice of a target vessel on preoperative MRA: Krippendorff's α = 0.19 (95% CI 0.01â0.36). In conclusion, infrapopliteal lesions can be reliably determined on preoperative MRA, but interobserver variability regarding the choice of a target vessel is a major concern that appears to affect the overall TASC II grade.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The long-term benefit of revascularization for intermittent claudication is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with a noninvasive approach. METHODS: The IRONIC trial (Invasive Revascularization or Not in Intermittent Claudication) randomized patients with mild-to-severe intermittent claudication to either revascularization + best medical therapy + structured exercise therapy (the revascularization group) or best medical therapy + structured exercise therapy (the nonrevascularization group). The health-related quality of life short form 36 questionnaire was primary outcome and disease-specific health-related quality of life (vascular quality of life questionnaire) and treadmill walking distances were secondary end points. Health-related quality of life has previously been reported superior in the revascularization group at 1- and 2-year follow-up. In this study, the 5-year results were determined. The cost-effectiveness of the treatment options was analyzed from a payer/healthcare standpoint. RESULTS: Altogether, 158 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Regarding the primary end point, no intergroup differences were observed for the short form 36 sum or domain scores from baseline to 5 years, except for the short form 36 role emotional domain score, with greater improvement in the nonrevascularization group (n=116, P=0.007). No intergroup differences were observed in the vascular quality of life questionnaire total and domain scores (n=116, NS) or in treadmill walking distances (n=91, NS). A revascularization strategy resulted in almost twice the cost per patient compared with a noninvasive treatment approach ($13 098 versus $6965, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years of follow-up, a revascularization strategy had lost its early benefit and did not result in any long-term improvement in health-related quality of life or walking capacity compared to a noninvasive treatment strategy. Revascularization was not a cost-effective treatment option from a payer/healthcare point of view. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01219842.
Assuntos
Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapêutico , Terapia por Exercício , Tolerância ao Exercício , Claudicação Intermitente/terapia , Doença Arterial Periférica/terapia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares , Idoso , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efeitos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/economia , Terapia Combinada , Análise Custo-Benefício , Terapia por Exercício/efeitos adversos , Terapia por Exercício/economia , Feminino , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Claudicação Intermitente/diagnóstico , Claudicação Intermitente/economia , Claudicação Intermitente/fisiopatologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Doença Arterial Periférica/economia , Doença Arterial Periférica/fisiopatologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Suécia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/economia , CaminhadaRESUMO
Aims: Data on long-term healthcare costs of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is limited, and the aim of this study was to investigate healthcare costs for PAD patients at a nationwide level. Methods and results: A cohort study including all incident patients diagnosed with PAD in the Swedish National Patient Register between 2006-2014, and linked to cause of death- and prescribed drug registers. Mean per-patient annual healthcare costs (2015 Euros []) (hospitalisations and out-patient visits) were divided into cardiovascular (CV), lower limb and non-CV related cost. Results were stratified by high and low CV risk. The study included 66,189 patients, with 221,953 observation-years. Mean total healthcare costs were 6,577, of which 26% was CV-related (1,710), during the year prior to the PAD diagnosis. First year after PAD diagnosis, healthcare costs were 12,549, of which 3,824 (30%) was CV-related and 3,201 (26%) lower limb related. High-risk CV patients had a higher annual total healthcare and CV related costs compared to low risk CV patients during follow-up (7,439 and 1,442 versus 4,063 and 838). Annual lower limb procedure costs were 728 in the PAD population, with lower limb revascularisations as key cost driver (474). Conclusion: Non-CV related hospitalizations and outpatient visits were the largest cost contributors for PAD patients. There is a substantial increase in healthcare costs in the first year after being diagnosed with PAD, driven by PAD follow-up and lower limb related procedures. Among the CV-related costs, hospitalisations and outpatient visits related to PAD represented the largest costs.