[Cost-revenue aspects of endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies with respect to the introduction of a new thoracic side-branch prosthesis]. / Kosten-Erlös-Aspekte der endovaskulären Versorgung distaler Aortenbogenpathologien im Hinblick auf die Einführung einer neuen thorakalen Seitenarmprothese.

BACKGROUND: The standard vascular surgical procedure (SV) for the treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies involves a hybrid approach using a left carotid-subclavian bypass and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Considering the introduction of a thoracic side branch prosthesis (TBE), the aim of this study was to analyze the cost-revenue aspects of both procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cases treated by SV from 2017 to 2022. To draw conclusions regarding the use of TBE, the main diagnoses and procedures of SV were recoded based on current classifications (ICD/OPS 2023) for revenue calculations and regrouped according to aG-DRG 2023. An OPS modification and regrouping were performed for modeling TBE revenues. RESULTS: A total of 13 cases were identified (mean age 62.5 ± 13.8 years; 10 males). After regrouping, the following DRGs were obtained: F42Z in N = 5, F51A in N = 4, F08B in N = 2, and F07A and F36B each in N = 1. The total revenue after regrouping was €â€¯666,514.13, including an additional payment (ZE) of €â€¯132,729.14. With the modeled application of TBE, a total revenue of €â€¯659,212.19 was achieved. Compared to SV, this represents a revenue decrease of €â€¯16,886.71 (changed DRG), but with an increase in ZE revenue by €â€¯65,559.78 (different ZE). The use of TBE resulted in a saving of 74 occupancy days, including 13.5 days in intensive care. CONCLUSION: A cost coverage seems probable with a change in the procedure, despite the yet to be determined pricing of TBE. This is highly dependent on the coding quality and the future development of ZE, given the annually changing DRG relative weights. Precise and transparent performance and cost documentation are essential for determining the pricing.

Costs and health effects of CT perfusion-based selection for endovascular thrombectomy within 6 hours of stroke onset: a model-based health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although CT perfusion (CTP) is often incorporated in acute stroke workflows, it remains largely unclear what the associated costs and health implications are in the long run of CTP-based patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset with a large vessel occlusion. METHODS: Patients with a large vessel occlusion were included from a Dutch nationwide cohort (n=703) if CTP imaging was performed before EVT within 6 hours after stroke onset. Simulated cost and health effects during 5 and 10 years follow-up were compared between CTP based patient selection for EVT and providing EVT to all patients. Outcome measures were the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay of €80 000 per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), difference in costs from a healthcare payer perspective (ΔCosts) and quality-adjusted life years (ΔQALY) per 1000 patients for 1000 model iterations as outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with treating all patients, CTP-based selection for EVT at the optimised ischaemic core volume (ICV≥110 mL) or core-penumbra mismatch ratio (MMR≤1.4) thresholds resulted in losses of health (median ΔQALYs for ICV≥110 mL: -3.3 (IQR: -5.9 to -1.1), for MMR≤1.4: 0.0 (IQR: -1.3 to 0.0)) with median ΔCosts for ICV≥110 mL of -€348 966 (IQR: -€712 406 to -€51 158) and for MMR≤1.4 of €266 513 (IQR: €229 403 to €380 110)) per 1000 patients. Sensitivity analyses did not yield any scenarios for CTP-based selection of patients for EVT that were cost-effective for improving health, including patients aged ≥80 years CONCLUSION: In EVT-eligible patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset, excluding patients based on CTP parameters was not cost-effective and could potentially harm patients.

Economic Evaluation of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke has been proven clinically effective, but evidence of the cost-effectiveness based on real-world data is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether endovascular therapy plus usual care is cost-effective in comparison to usual care alone in acute ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Empirical data on health outcomes and the use of resources following endovascular treatment were gathered parallel to the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) and its 2-year follow-up study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the extra costs per additional patient with functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and the extra cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: The mean costs per patient in the intervention group were $126 494 versus $143 331 in the control group (mean difference, -$16 839 [95% CI, -$38 113 to $5456]). Compared with patients in the control group, more patients in the intervention group achieved functional independence, 37.2% versus 23.9% (absolute difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 4.0%-22.0%]) and they generated more quality-adjusted life years, 0.99 versus 0.83 (mean difference of 0.16 [95% CI, 0.04-0.29]). Endovascular treatment dominated standard treatment with $18 233 saved per extra patient with a good outcome and $105 869 saved per additional quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment added to usual care is clinically effective, and cost saving in comparison to usual care alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Registration: URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/695; Unique identifier: NL695. URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared. RESULTS: Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Investigating the "Weekend Effect" on Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endovascular Mechanical Thrombectomy for Ischemic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: With growing evidence of its efficacy for patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) ischemic stroke, the use of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has increased. The "weekend effect," whereby patients presenting during weekends/off hours have worse clinical outcomes than those presenting during normal working hours, is a critical area of study in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Our objective was to evaluate whether a "weekend effect" exists in patients undergoing EVT. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2016-2018 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data included patients ≥18 years with documented diagnosis of ischemic stroke (ICD-10 codes I63, I64, and H34.1), procedural code for EVT, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score; the exposure variable was weekend vs. weekday treatment. The primary outcome was in-hospital death; secondary outcomes were favorable discharge, extended hospital stay (LOS), and cost. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine predictors for outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 6052 AIS patients who received EVT (mean age 68.7±14.8 years; 50.8% female; 70.8% White; median (IQR) admission NIHSS 16 (10-21). The primary outcome of in-hospital death occurred in 560 (11.1%); the secondary outcome of favorable discharge occurred in 1039 (20.6%). The mean LOS was 7.8±8.6 days. There were no significant differences in the outcomes or cost based on admission timing. In the mixed-effects models, we found no effect of weekend vs. weekday admission on in-hospital death, favorable discharge, or extended LOS. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the "weekend effect" does not impact outcomes or cost for patients who undergo EVT for LVO.

Editor's Choice - Cost Effectiveness of Primary Stenting in the Superficial Femoral Artery for Intermittent Claudication: Two Year Results of a Randomised Multicentre Trial.

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.

Endovascular aortic repair is a cost-effective option for in-hospital patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) versus open aortic repair (OAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using incremental costs per decreased in-hospital mortality rate gained through our patients' cohort. METHODS: Medical records and healthcare costs of patients with AAA hospitalized between 2010 and 2015 were extracted from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan. Multiple regression analysis was applied to adjust for confounding factors and to compare the differences in postoperative clinical outcomes between patients who received EVAR and OAR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EVAR was determined based on the healthcare cost obtained from the analyzed data. RESULTS: A total of 2803 AAA patients were identified (n = 559 with ruptured AAA and n = 2244 unruptured AAA). Patients with ruptured AAA who underwent EVAR compared with OAR patients had shorter hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays (all p < 0.05). For patients with unruptured AAA, those who received EVAR compared with OAR, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality were 0.371 and 0.447 (all p < 0.05). The total direct surgical costs and medical expenses during hospitalization in all AAA patients were higher for the EVAR group; however, ICER was <1 per capita gross domestic product. Stratification by age groups further suggested that ICER for patients with unruptured AAA who received EVAR, compared with OAR, decreased with age. CONCLUSION: Total direct medical costs were higher for AAA patients receiving EVAR regardless of rupture status; however, the cost is offset by lower odds of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality. The observed decrease in ICER with age and EVAR use warrants further analysis. Our findings further validate the use of EVAR over OAR. These results provides supporting evidence for physicians and patients with AAA to inform shared decision making regarding endovascular or OAR options.

Epidemiological Analysis of 37,424 Carotid Artery Stenosis Intervention Procedures During 11 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil: Stenting has Been More Common Than Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil. METHODS: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS.

Cost-effectiveness of transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have demonstrated that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR, and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR with CEA for carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a 5-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness. RESULTS: For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs, whereas TCAR cost $19154 for 2.92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR, and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost-effective in 49% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that, although 5-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at 6 years of follow-up.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with In-Hospital Outcomes After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple studies have shown improved outcomes and higher utilization of care with the increase of insurance coverage. This study aims to assess whether Medicaid expansion (ME) has changed the utilization and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. MATERIALS: Data of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2017). METHODS: Interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was utilized to evaluate changes in annual trends of postoperative outcomes after elective AAA repair before and after 2014. We also assessed if these trend changes were significant by comparing the changes in states which adopted ME in 2014 versus nonexpansion states (NME), and conducting a difference-in-difference analysis. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and adverse events (bowel and leg ischemia, cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke and return to the OR). RESULTS: A total of 19,143 procedures were included (Endovascular: 85.8% and open: 14.2%), of which 40.9% were performed in ME States. Compared to preexpansion trends (P1), there was a 2% annual increase in elective AAA repair in ME states (P1: -1.8% versus P2: +0.2%, P< 0.01) with no significant change in NME (P1: +0.3% versus P2: +0.2%, P = 0.97). Among elective cases, annual trends in the use of EVAR increased by 2% in ME states (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.1, 4.1, P = 0.06), compared to a 3% decrease in NME States [95%CI = -5.8, -0.6, P = 0.01) (PMEversusNME < 0.01]. There was no association between ME and in-hospital mortality. Nonetheless, it was associated with a decrease in the annual trends of in-hospital complications (ME: -1.4% (-2.1,-0.8) versus NME: +0.2% (-0.2, +0.8), P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While no association between ME and increased survival was noted in states which adopted ME, there was a significant increase of elective AAA cases and EVAR utilization and a decrease in in-hospital complications in ME States.

Variations in utilization and clinical outcomes for endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and endovascular arterial embolization in a single multi-hospital network.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolization (EAE) are increasingly common treatment options for patients with refractory epistaxis. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization pattern and clinical outcomes between these interventions within our single multi-hospital network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients undergoing ESPAL and/or EAE within any of the hospitals in a single healthcare network between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. We compared differences in procedure utilization with various hospital characteristics. Secondarily, we evaluated clinical outcomes and costs associated with each procedure. RESULTS: Forty-three ESPAL and 33 EAE procedures were performed across 7 hospitals, with the majority of procedures being performed at teaching institutions (65% and 91%, p = .013). The majority of both interventions were performed in larger hospitals and EAE patients were more likely to undergo inter-hospital transfer compared to ESPAL patients (48.5% and 16.3%, p = .02). Success rates for ESPAL and EAE were comparable (95% and 93%); however, the median direct cost of treatment for EAE was significantly higher than the cost for ESPAL ($12984.89 and $5002.02, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of both ESPAL and EAE interventions were performed at teaching and larger hospitals. Transfers occurring prior to EAE may have been due to the limited availability of interventional radiology services, and likely contributed to the increased cost of treatment. ESPAL is a known cost-effective management strategy and should be considered early in treatment algorithms of refractory epistaxis.

Analyzing Cost-Effectiveness of Allocating Neurointerventionist for Drive and Retrieve System for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: There are regional disparities in implementation rates of endovascular thrombectomy due to time and resource constraints such as endovascular thrombectomy specialists. In Hokkaido, Japan, Drive and Retrieve System (DRS), where endovascular thrombectomy specialists perform early endovascular thrombectomies by traveling from the facilities where they normally work to facilities closer to the patient. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of allocating a endovascular thrombectomy specialist for DRS to treat stroke patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: he number of ischemic stroke patients expected to receive endovascular thrombectomy in Hokkaido in 2015 was estimated. It was assumed that an additional neutointerventionist was allocated for DRS. The analysis was performed from the government's perspective, which includes medical and nursing-care costs, and the personnel cost for endovascular thrombectomy specialist. The analysis was conducted comparing the current scenario, where patients received endovascular thrombectomy in facilities where endovascular thrombectomy specialists normally work, with the scenario with DRS within 60 min drive distance. Patient transport time was analyzed using geographic information system, and patient severity was estimated from the transport time. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in each medical area which was calculated from the incremental costs and the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated from patient severity using published literature. The entire process was repeated 100 times. RESULTS: DRS was most cost-effective in Kamikawachubu area, where the ICER was $14,173±16,802/QALY, significantly lower than the threshold that the Japanese guideline suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Since DRS was cost-effective in Kamikawachubu area, the area should be prioritized when a endovascular thrombectomy specialist for DRS is allocated as a policy.

Hospitalization Cost and In-hospital Outcomes Following Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection Repair.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported lower mortality and morbidity after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TbAD). However, there are few studies in the literature on the cost of both treatment options. Thus, the aim of this study is to focus on in-hospital outcomes and cost associated with TbAD repair procedures in a national database in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) between June 2009 and March 2015 was performed. ICD-9-CM codes were used to identify patients who underwent OSR or TEVAR for TbAD. Endpoints included in-hospital adverse events, in-hospital mortality and hospitalization cost. Logistic regression models and generalized linear models were used to assess the impact of treatment type on the main outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 1752 patients with TbAD, 54.3% underwent OSR and 45.7% underwent TEVAR. Patients in the TEVAR group were older [median age, 64 (IQR 54-73) vs. 59 (IQR 49-70), P < 1] and more likely to have preexisting comorbidities. IAE rates were 78.6% for the OSR group compared to 43.1% for the TEVAR group, P < 0.001. Patients in the OSR group showed significantly higher in-hospital mortality (15.3% vs. 5.9%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, OSR was associated with a 5-fold increase in IAE [aOR(95%CI): 4.8 (3.8-6.1), P < 0.001] and a 3-fold increase in in-hospital mortality [aOR(95%CI): 3.3 (2.1-5.1), P < 0.001]. In regards to charges related to the hospital stay, total cost was significantly higher among patients undergoing OSR $53,371 ($39,029-$80,471) vs. TEVAR $45,311 ($31,479-$67,960), P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that TEVAR presents an advantage in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost when compared to OSR in the treatment of TbAD. However, long-term cost-effectiveness of both procedures remains unknown. Further research is warranted to see whether the superiority of TEVAR is maintained over time.

Open vs Endovascular Treatment of Traumatic Peripheral Arterial Injury: Propensity Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Arterial injuries occur in the setting of blunt and penetrating trauma. Despite increasing use, there remains a paucity of data comparing long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair management of these injuries. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes and readmission rates of open vs endovascular repair of traumatic arterial injuries. STUDY DESIGN: The National Readmission Database (2011-2014) was queried for all adult (age ≥ 18 y) patients presenting with peripheral arterial (axillary, brachial, femoral, and popliteal) injuries. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on intervention: open vs endovascular approach. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was performed. Outcomes measures were complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and cost of readmission. RESULTS: A matched cohort of 786 patients was obtained (endovascular: 262, open: 524). Mean age was 45 ± 17 years, and 79% were males. Median LOS was 4 (range 2-6) days for the endovascular group vs 3 (range 2-5) days for the open group (p < 0.01). The endovascular group had higher rates of seroma (4% vs 2%; p = 0.04) and arterial thrombosis (13% vs 7%; p < 0.01) during index hospitalization. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had higher 30-day readmission (11% vs 7%; p = 0.03) and a higher 30-day open-reoperation rate (6% vs 2%; p < 0.01). On subanalysis of the patients who were readmitted, the median cost of each readmission was higher in the endovascular group $47,000 ($27,202-$56,763) compared with $21,000 ($11,889-$43,503) in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair for peripheral arterial injuries was associated with higher rates of in-hospital complications, readmissions, and costs. As this new technology continues to undergo refinement, a thorough re-evaluation of its indications, risks, and benefits is warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening condition which, in the absence of increasing diameter or rupture, often remains asymptomatic, and a diameter greater than 5.5 cm requires elective surgical repair. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with AAA through a systematic review of published health economics studies. METHODS: Using a systematic review method, an electronic search was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies published on AAA (both in English and Persian) on PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, and the national databases of Iran from 1990 to 2020 including the keywords "cost-effectiveness", "endovascular", "open surgical", and "abdominal aortic aneurysms". The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 958 studies were found, of which 16 were eligible for further study. All studies were conducted in developed countries, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY) were used to measure the outcomes. According to the QHES checklist, most studies were of good quality. In European countries and Canada, EVAR has not been cost-effective, while most studies in the United States regard this technique as a cost-effective intervention. For example, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values ranged from $14,252.12 to $34,446.37 per QALY in the USA, while ICER was €116,600.40 per QALY in Portugal. CONCLUSION: According to the results, the EVAR technique has been more cost-effective than OSR for high-risk patients, but the need for continuous follow-up, increased costs, and re-intervention over the long term and for low-risk patients has reduced the cost-effectiveness of this method. As the health systems vary among different countries (i.e. quality of care, cost of devices, etc.), and due to the heterogeneity of studies in terms of the follow-up period, time horizon, and threshold, all of which are inherent features of economic evaluation, generalizing the results should be done with much caution, and policymaking must be based on national evidence.

Does Endovascular Treatment with Curative Intention Have Benefits for Treating High-Grade Arteriovenous Malformation versus Radiosurgery? Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of high-grade arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remains challenging. Microsurgery provides a rapid and complete occlusion compared with other options but is associated with undesirable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the occlusion rates, incidence of unfavorable outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as a curative treatment for high-grade AVMs. METHODS: A retrospective series of 57 consecutive patients with high-grade AVM treated with embolization or SRS, with the aim of achieving complete occlusion, was analyzed. Demographic, clinical, and angioarchitectonic variables were collected. Both treatments were compared for the occlusion rate and procedure-related complications. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty patients (52.6%) were men and 27 (47.4%) were women (mean age, 39 years). AVMs were unruptured in 43 patients (75.4%), and ruptured in 14 patients (24.6%). The presence of deep venous drainage, nidus volume, perforated arterial supply, and eloquent localization was more frequent in the SRS group. Complications such as hemorrhage or worsening of previous seizures were more frequent in the embolization group. No significant differences were observed in the occlusion rates or in the time necessary to achieve occlusion between the groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for endovascular treatment versus SRS was $53.279. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques achieved similar occlusion rates, but SRS carried a lower risk of complications. Staged embolization may be associated with a greater risk of hemorrhage, whereas SRS was shown to have a better cost-effectiveness ratio. These results support SRS as a better treatment option for high-grade AVMs.

Is Endovascular Therapy for Stroke Cost-Effective Globally? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness of endovascular therapy (EVT) is a key consideration for broad use of this approach for emergent large vessel occlusion stroke. We evaluated the evidence on cost-effectiveness of EVT in comparison with best medical management from a global perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review of studies published between January 2010 and May 2020 evaluated the cost effectiveness of EVT for patients with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke. The gain in quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY resulting from EVT, were recorded. The study setting (country, economic perspective), decision model, and data sources used in economic models of EVT cost-effectiveness were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-five original studies from 12 different countries were included in our review. Five of these studies were reported from a societal perspective; 18 were reported from a healthcare system perspective. Two studies used real-world data. The time horizon varied from 1 year to a lifetime; however, 18 studies reported a time horizon of >10 years. Twenty studies reported using outcome data from randomized, controlled clinical trials for their models. Nineteen studies reported using a Markov model. Incremental QALYs ranged from 0.09-3.5. All studies but 1 reported that EVT was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from different countries and economic perspectives suggests that EVT for stroke treatment is cost-effective. Most cost-effectiveness studies are based on outcome data from randomized clinical trials. However, there is a need to study the cost-effectiveness of EVT based solely on real-world outcome data.

Editor's Choice - A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Outpatient versus Inpatient Hospitalisation for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease Endovascular Revascularisation in France: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The AMBUVASC trial evaluated the cost effectiveness of outpatient vs. inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). METHODS: AMBUVASC was a national multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial conducted in nine public and two private French centres. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined by cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was conducted from a societal perspective, excluding indirect costs, and considering a one month time horizon. RESULTS: From 16 February 2016 to 29 May 2017, 160 patients were randomised (80 per group). A modified intention to treat analysis was performed with 153 patients (outpatient hospitalisation: n = 76; inpatient hospitalisation: n = 77). The patients mainly presented intermittent claudication (outpatient arm: 97%; inpatient arm: 92%). Rates of peri-operative complications were 20% (15 events) and 18% (14 events) for the outpatient and inpatient arms respectively (p = .81). Overall costs (difference: €187.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] -275.68-651.34) and QALYs (difference: 0.00277; 95% CI -0.00237 - 0.00791) were higher for outpatients due to more re-admissions than the inpatient arm. The mean ICER was €67 741 per QALY gained for the base case analysis with missing data imputed using multiple imputation by predictive mean matching. The outpatient procedure was not cost effective for a willingness to pay of €50 000 per QALY and the probability of being cost effective was only 59% for a €100 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Outpatient hospitalisation is not cost effective compared with inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair of patients with claudication at a €50 000/QALY threshold.