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.

Financial impact of inaccurate Adverse Event recording post Hip Fracture surgery: Addendum to 'Adverse event recording post hip fracture surgery'.

INTRODUCTION: A study in 2011 by (Doody et al. Ir Med J 106(10):300-302, 2013) looked at comparing inpatient adverse events recorded prospectively at the point of care, with adverse events recorded by the national Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE) System. METHODS: In the study, a single-centre University Hospital in Ireland treating acute hip fractures in an orthopaedic unit recorded 39 patients over a 2-month (August-September 2011) period, with 55 adverse events recorded prospectively in contrast to the HIPE record of 13 (23.6%) adverse events. With the recent change in the Irish hospital funding model from block grant to an 'activity-based funding' on the basis of case load and case complexity, the hospital financial allocation is dependent on accurate case complexity coding. A retrospective assessment of the financial implications of the two methods of adverse incident recording was carried out. RESULTS: A total of €39,899 in 'missed funding' for 2 months was calculated when the ward-based, prospectively collected data was compared to the national HIPE data. Accurate data collection is paramount in facilitating activity-based funding, to improve patient care and ensure the appropriate allocation of resources.