Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Transcatheter Arterial Embolization Techniques for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical emergency associated with significant mortality. Transcatheter arterial embolization first was introduced by Rosch et al as an alternative to surgery for upper GI bleeding. The clinical success in patients with GI bleeding treated with transcatheter arterial embolization previously has been reported. However, there are no cost-effectiveness analyses reported to date. Here we report cost-effectiveness analysis of N-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate glue (NBCA) and ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) versus coil (gold standard) for treatment of GI bleeding from a healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: Fixed-effects modeling with a generalized linear mixed method was used in NBCA and coil intervention arms to determine the pooled probabilities of clinical success and mortality with complications with their confidence intervals, while the Clopper-Pearson model was used for Onyx to determine the same parameters. Models were provided by the "Meta-Analysis with R" software package. A decision tree was built for cost-effectiveness analysis, and Microsoft Excel was used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The cost-effective option was determined based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and scatter plots of incremental cost versus incremental quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Comparing scatter plots and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results, -$1024 and -$1349 per quality-adjusted life-year for Onyx and N-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate glue, respectively, Onyx was the least expensive and most effective intervention. CONCLUSION: Onyx was the dominant strategy regardless of threshold values. Our analyses provide a framework for researchers to predict the target clinical effectiveness for early-stage TAE interventions and guide resource allocation decisions.

Comparison of Cost and Efficacy of Trufill® vs Histoacryl® n-Butyl Cyanoacrylate for Translumbar Type 2 Endoleak Embolization.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare the cost and efficacy of translumbar approach type 2 endoleak repairs using either Trufill® or Histoacryl® n-BCA liquid embolic. METHOD AND MATERIALS: This was a retrospective review of patients who had translumbar approach type 2 endoleak repairs using either Trufill® or Histoacryl®. Patients were included if they underwent a technically successful type 2 endoleak repair via a translumbar approach with Trufill® or Histoacryl® n-BCA. A multivariable analysis was performed with the primary clinical outcome of percent change in aneurysm diameter per month compared. Procedure cost was calculated based on typical materials used. RESULTS: 20 Trufill® and 14 Histoacryl® patients were included. The mean procedure cost was higher for Trufill® ($5,757.30 vs. $1,586.09, p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference between Trufill® or Histoacryl® patients for age at first embolization, gender, total number of embolizations, number of feeding branches, aneurysm sac size prior to embolization, or residual endoleak at first follow-up. Trufill® patients had more coils used (12.0 vs. 4.3, p = 0.0007), less glue used (0.9 vs. 2.1 mL, p < 0.001), longer follow-up duration (33.5 vs. 13.2 months, p = 0.002), more follow-up CT angiograms (CTA) (3.7 vs. 1.9, p = 0.01), and larger excluded aneurysm sac size at most recent CTA (7.1 cm vs. 5.9 cm, p = 0.04). Percent change in sac diameter per month was not significantly different between Trufill® and Histoacryl® (0.21% vs. -0.25%/month, p = 0.06, respectively). There were no complications. CONCLUSION: Use of Histoacryl® over Trufill® n-BCA resulted in significantly less procedural cost while maintaining safety and efficacy.

Cost-effectiveness of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (histoacryl) glue injections versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding.

UNLABELLED: The management of bleeding gastric varices has not been standardized. Although transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is used in most centers, endoscopic treatment with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (cyanoacrylate) glue has recently been shown to be effective. Cost-effectiveness analyses of these methods are lacking. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with bleeding gastric varices treated either by TIPS or cyanoacrylate glue injection. Economic analysis was based on direct costs for a fixed financial year. The two groups were compared for a period of 6 months follow-up, to liver transplantation, or death for each patient. RESULTS: Between January, 1995 and December, 1999, 20 patients with bleeding gastric varices had TIPS; 23 patients had cyanoacrylate glue injection from January, 2000 to October, 2001. There were no significant differences between the two groups in patient characteristics, transfusion requirement, and gastric variceal anatomy. In the TIPS group, 15/20 patients had the procedure performed within 24 h of hemorrhage, and 90% of stent insertions were successful. Complications consisted of two cases of pulmonary edema, two cases of severe encephalopathy, and a 15% stenosis rate at 6 months. In the glue group, there were 3 +/- 1.5 endoscopies and 2 +/- 1 injections per patient, with a 96% initial hemostasis. There was one case of (glue) pulmonary embolism and one blocked front endoscope lens, which required repair. The initial rebleed rate was significantly lower in patients who had TIPS (15% vs 30%, p = 0.005). The inpatient stay was shorter in the glue group (13 +/- 1 vs 18 +/- 2 days, p = 0.05), but there was no difference in the overall mortality rate. The median cost within 6 months of initial gastric variceal bleeding was $4,138 US dollars ($3,009-$8,290 US dollars) for glue versus $11,906 US dollars ($8,200-$16,770 US dollars) for TIPS (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this comparable group of patients, cyanoacrylate glue injection was more cost effective than TIPS in the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding. A prospective, randomized trial would be required to confirm our analysis.

Comparison of tissue adhesive and suturing in the repair of lacerations in the emergency department.

The objective of this study was to compare the applications of Histoacryl Blue (HAB) and suturing regarding cosmetic outcome, cost and patient and physician satisfaction in the emergency department (ED). A total of 92 consecutive adult patients with lacerations equal to or shorter than 5 cm were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to either HAB or suturing. Ten-day and three-month cosmetic outcomes were evaluated via visual analogue scale (VAS) by a blinded surgeon. Cosmetic outcome, cost and patient and physician satisfaction of both groups were compared. Only 52 patients completed the follow-up at three months. Twenty-eight had been repaired with sutures and 24 with HAB. The differences regarding ten-day and three-month cosmetic outcome scales between the patients repaired with HAB and sutures were not statistically significant. Application of HAB resulted in greater satisfaction of the patient and the physician (p=0.007 and p=0.0001, respectively). Costs of HAB were significantly lower than sutures (p=0.0001). It is concluded that HAB is a cheaper method of laceration repair and results in greater satisfaction of both patients and physicians, while cosmetic outcomes were comparable. These results suggest that HAB is a viable alternative to suturing for selected lacerations in the ED.

The tissue adhesive indermil and its use in surgery.

Indermil, in relation to the tissue adhesives described remains the state of the art with regard to function and clinical outcome. The advantage of an inventory sterile tissue adhesive that is to say one that is in the clinic or operating theatre ready for immediate use on demand is the requirement of modern surgical practice. Cost factors are also an important consideration in today's environment. A research study by the Department of Health Economics at the University of York found the cost of the Indermil tissue adhesive system equivalent to absorbable sutures and produced projected savings per patient in relation to conventional sutures with respect to theatre time and return patients' visits (6). In parallel a survey of patients showed 90% would prefer wound closure by an adhesive in relation to traditional sutures. There are few areas of surgical practice which cannot find some application for tissue adhesives. The growing international interest in adhesives and their application would confirm their importance and potential in surgery.

Economic comparison of a tissue adhesive and suturing in the repair of pediatric facial lacerations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, from the societal perspective, the most cost efficient of the three methods commonly used to repair pediatric facial lacerations: nondissolving sutures, dissolving sutures, or a tissue adhesive (Histoacryl blue). DESIGN: Cost-minimization analysis and willingness-to-pay survey. SETTING: Tertiary-care pediatric emergency department. METHODS: All differential costs relevant to equipment utilization, pharmaceutical use, health care worker time, and parental loss of income for follow-up visits were calculated for each method. On the basis of previous research, our model assumes equal cosmetic outcome for the three methods. In addition, a convenience sample of 30 parents were surveyed in the emergency department to rank their preferences and willingness to pay for the three methods of wound closure. RESULTS: The reduction in cost (in Canadian dollars) per patient of switching from the standard nondissolving sutures was $49.60 for switching to tissue adhesive and $37.90 for dissolving sutures. Sensitivity analyses performed on key variables did not significantly alter our conclusions. Of those parents surveyed; 90% (95% confidence interval, 74% to 98%) chose tissue adhesive and 10% (95% confidence interval, 2% to 26%) chose dissolving sutures as their first choice for wound closure. Nondissolving sutures were ranked third by 29 of 30 parents. Parents were willing to pay a median (25th to 75th percentile) of $40 ($25 to $100) for tissue adhesive and $25 ($10 to $56) for dissolving sutures if only nondissolving sutures provided by the health care system (p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue adhesive is the preferred method of closure of pediatric facial lacerations because it results in the most efficient use of resources and is preferred by the majority of parents.