Systematic Review of Utilities in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Splenic artery angioembolization for high-grade splenic injury: Are we wasting money?

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management (NOM) is accepted treatment of splenic injury, but this may fail leading to splenectomy. Splenic artery embolization (SAE) may improve rate of salvage. The purpose is to determine the cost-utility of the addition of SAE for high-grade splenic injuries.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was developed to compared NOM to SAE in patients with blunt splenic injury. Sensitivity analysis was completed to account for uncertainty. Utility outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

For patients with grade III, IV and V injury NOM is the dominant strategy. The probability of NOM being the more cost-effective strategy is 87.5% in patients with grade V splenic injury. SAE is not the favored strategy unless the probability of failure of NOM is greater than 70.0%.

CONCLUSION

For grade III-V injuries, NOM without SAE yields more quality-adjusted life years. NOM without SAE is the most cost-effective strategy for high-grade splenic injuries.

Life is about so much more: Patients' experiences of health, well-being, and recovery after operation of abdominal aortic aneurysm with open and endovascular treatment-A prospective study

Different surgical treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysm can lead to different perceptions of health and well-being. The aim of this study was to describe patients' well-being, sense of coherence (SOC), and experiences of surgery after open and endovascular treatment one month and one and 2 years after the procedure. Seventy six patients participated (40 open repair; 36 endovascular aneurysm repair). The study was conducted using the SOC questionnaire, and specific questions about patients' experiences of the surgical treatment and well-being. After 2 years, no patient regretted the operation or considered it to be the most difficult experience they had ever had. Twenty percent of the patients were worried about complications one month after the operation. Both groups experienced difficulty in returning to normal activity after surgery at one month. At one and 2 years after the surgery, patients in both groups stated that it was other things in life that affected their well-being. The endovascular aneurysm repair group reported a significant decrease in SOC from baseline until one year (P = .012) and 2 years (P = .033). The open repair group reported a significant decrease after one year (0.033). The operation did not affect patients' way of thinking about the disease. Patients in both groups stated that it was other circumstances in life that affected their well-being one and 2 years after the treatment, which could indicate that long-term follow-up would not be necessary from a patient perspective. The operation affects patients' well-being a short time after the operation.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair, open repair, and conservative management of splenic artery aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Open repair (OPEN) and conservative management (CONS) have been the treatments of choice for splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs) for many years. Endovascular repair (EV) has been increasingly used with good short-term results. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of OPEN, EV, and CONS for the treatment of SAAs.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed using TreeAge Pro 2013 software (TreeAge Inc, Williamstown, Mass) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different treatments for SAAs. A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 55-year-old female patients with SAAs was assessed in the reference-case analysis. Perioperative mortality, disease-specific mortality rates, complications, rupture risks, and reinterventions were retrieved from a recent and extensive meta-analysis. Costs were analyzed with the 2014 Medicare database. The willingness to pay was set to $60,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Outcomes evaluated were QALYs, costs from the health care perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed and different clinical scenarios evaluated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to include the uncertainty around the variables. A flowchart for clinical decision-making was developed.

RESULTS

For a 55-year-old female patient with a SAA, EV has the highest QALYs (11.32; 95% credibility interval [CI], 9.52-13.17), followed by OPEN (10.48; 95% CI, 8.75-12.25) and CONS (10.39; 95% CI, 8.96-11.87). The difference in effect for 55-year-old female patients between EV and OPEN is 0.84 QALY (95% CI, 0.42-1.34), comparable with 10 months in perfect health. EV is more effective and less costly than OPEN and more effective and more expensive compared with CONS, with an ICER of $17,154/QALY. Moreover, OPEN, with an ICER of $223,166/QALY, is not cost-effective compared with CONS. In elderly individuals (age >78 years), the ICER of EV vs CONS is $60,503/QALY and increases further with age, making EV no longer cost-effective. Very elderly patients (age >93 years) have higher QALYs and lower costs when treated with CONS. The EV group has the highest number of expected reinterventions, followed by CONS and OPEN, and the number of expected reinterventions decreases with age.

CONCLUSIONS

EV is the most cost-effective treatment for most patient groups with SAAs, independent of the sex and risk profile of the patient. EV is superior to OPEN, being both cost-saving and more effective in all age groups. Elderly patients should be considered for CONS, based on the high costs in relation to the very small gain in health when treated with EV. The very elderly should be treated with CONS.

Should endovascular repair be reimbursed for low risk abdominal aortic aneurysm patients? Evidence from ontario, Canada

Background. This paper presents unpublished clinical and economic data associated with open surgical repair (OSR) in low risk (LR) patients and how it compares with EVAR and OSR in high risk (HR) patients with an AAA > 5.5 cm. Design. Data from a 1-year prospective observational study was used to compare EVAR in HR patients versus OSR in HR and LR patients. Results. Between 2003 and 2005, 140 patients were treated with EVAR and 195 with OSR (HR: 52; LR: 143). The 1-year mortality rate with EVAR was statistically lower than HR OSR patients and comparable to LR OSR patients. One-year health-related quality of life was lower in the EVAR patients compared to OSR patients. EVAR was cost-effective compared to OSR HR but not when compared to OSR LR patients. Conclusions. Despite a similar clinical effectiveness, these results suggest that, at the current price, EVAR is more expensive than open repair for low risk patients.