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.

Cost-effectiveness of trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation vs arterial embolisation for intractable epistaxis: Long-term analyses.

OBJECTIVES: Trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolisation both provide excellent success rates for intractable epistaxis. Recent economic models suggest that TESPAL could be a cost-saving strategy. Our main aim was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses on TESPAL compared with embolisation to treat patients with epistaxis. DESIGN: We performed retrospective, monocentric, comparative analyses on patients referred to our centre and treated with embolisation or TESPAL. SETTING: This economic evaluation was carried out from a payer's perspective (ie French National Health Insurance) within a time horizon of 12 months. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven TESPAL procedures and thirty-nine embolisation procedures to treat intractable epistaxis were used in the analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is presented as the cost per 1% of non-recurrence. Effectiveness was defined as avoiding recurrence of epistaxis during the 1-year follow-up. Cost estimates were performed from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: Hospitalisation costs were higher for embolisation compared with TESPAL (5972 vs 3769 euros). On average, hospitalisation costs decreased by 41% when a patient was treated by TESPAL compared with an embolisation strategy (P = 0.06). The presence of comorbidities increased hospitalisation costs by 79% (P = 0.04). TESPAL enabled 1867€ to be gained in intractable epistaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes from our decision model confirm that TESPAL is more cost-effective for patients with intractable epistaxis.

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation versus nasal packing as first-line treatment for posterior epistaxis.

BACKGROUND: The advent of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) for the control of posterior epistaxis provides an effective, low-morbidity treatment option. In the current practice algorithm, ESPAL is pursued after failure of posterior packing. Given the morbidity and limited effectiveness of posterior packing, we sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of first-line ESPAL compared to the current practice model. METHODS: A standard decision analysis model was constructed comparing first-line ESPAL and current practice algorithms. A literature search was performed to determine event probabilities and published Medicare data largely provided cost parameters. The primary outcomes were cost of treatment and resolution of epistaxis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed for key parameters. RESULTS: Costs for the first-line ESPAL arm and the current practice arm were $6450 and $8246, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables including duration of packing. The baseline difference of $1796 in favor of the first-line ESPAL arm was increased to $6263 when the duration of nasal packing was increased from 3 to 5 days. Current practice was favored (cost savings of $437 per patient) if posterior packing duration was decreased from 3 to 2 days. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ESPAL is cost-saving as first-line therapy for posterior epistaxis. Given the improved effectiveness and patient comfort of ESPAL compared to posterior packing, ESPAL should be offered as an initial treatment option for medically stable patients with posterior epistaxis.

Economic analysis of the treatment of posterior epistaxis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the economic impact of controlling posterior epistaxis by transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular embolization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing treatment of posterior epistaxis by either TESPAL or embolization. International Classification of Diseases 9 code 784.7 (epistaxis) was the initial screen followed by common procedural terminology codes for TESPAL and angiography with embolization. The total charges and direct costs for TESPAL and endovascular embolization were determined. An unpaired Student's t-test was used to evaluate statistical significance. RESULTS: Analysis revealed 25 patients that met inclusion criteria. The mean total charge was $14,088 for embolization and $7561 for TESPAL. The differences were statistically significant (p < 0.00006). Costs, defined as reimbursement by third-party payers and direct payments, varied widely and their difference did not reach statistical significance in this sample. CONCLUSION: Our data established no economic advantage for angiography and, in fact, show a trend toward this treatment being more expensive than TESPAL. TESPAL is a procedure that can be performed quickly and on an outpatient basis without the need for angiography equipment or expertise. Additionally, the procedure provides the advantage of a comprehensive endoscopic nasal evaluation for ruling out tumors or other intranasal lesions. With equal efficacy, at least equal costs and equal risk, and additional diagnostic advantages, TESPAL is a more rational treatment for posterior epistaxis.