The cost-effectiveness of exclusion arteriography in extremity trauma

Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine computed tomography angiography (CTA) for lower extremity penetrating trauma

BACKGROUND

Routine evaluation with CTA for patients with isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma and normal ankle-brachial-indices (ABI) remains controversial. While prior literature has found normal ABI's (≥0.9) and a normal clinical examination to be adequate for safe discharge, there remains concern for missed injuries which could lead to delayed surgical intervention and unnecessary morbidity. Our hypothesis was that routine CTA after isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination is not cost-effective.

METHODS

We performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a CTA routinely compared to clinical observation and ABI evaluation in hemodynamically normal patients with isolated penetrating lower extremity trauma. Our base case was a patient that sustained penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs that received a CTA in the trauma bay. Costs, probability, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were generated from published literature.

RESULTS

Clinical evaluation only (no CTA) was cost-effective with a cost of $2056.13 and 0.98 QALYs gained compared to routine CTA which had increased costs of $7449.91 and lower QALYs 0.92. Using one-way sensitivity analysis, routine CTA does not become the cost-effective strategy until the cost of a missed injury reaches $210,075.83.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with isolated, penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination do not warrant routine CTA as there is no benefit with increased costs.

Cost-effective diagnostic cardiovascular imaging: when does it provide good value for the money?

To summarize the results of all original cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in diagnostic cardiovascular imaging (CVI) and characterize those technologies by estimates of their cost-effectiveness. We systematically searched the literature for original CVI CUAs published between 2000 and 2008. Studies were classified according to several variables including anatomy of interest (e.g. cerebrovascular, aorta, peripheral) and imaging modality under study (e.g. angiography, ultrasound). The results of each study, expressed as cost of the intervention to number of quality-adjusted life years saved ratio (cost/QALY) were additionally classified as favorable or not using $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY thresholds. The distribution of results was assessed with Chi Square or Fisher exact test, as indicated. Sixty-nine percent of all cardiovascular imaging CUAs were published between 2000 and 2008. Thirty-two studies reporting 82 cost/QALY ratios were included in the final sample. The most common vascular areas studied were cerebrovascular (n = 9) and cardiac (n = 8). Sixty-six percent (21/32) of studies focused on sonography, followed by conventional angiography and CT (25%, n = 8, each). Twenty-nine (35.4%), 42 (51.2%), and 53 (64.6%) ratios were favorable at WTP $20,000/QALY, $50,000/QALY, and $100,000/QALY, respectively. Thirty (36.6%) ratios compared one imaging test versus medical or surgical interventions; 26 (31.7%) ratios compared imaging to a different imaging test and another 26 (31.7%) to no intervention. Imaging interventions were more likely (P < 0.01) to be favorable when compared to observation, medical treatment or non-intervention than when compared to a different imaging test at WTP $100,000/QALY. The diagnostic cardiovascular imaging literature has growth substantially. The studies available have, in general, favorable cost-effectiveness profiles with major determinants relating to being compared against observation, medical or no intervention instead of other imaging tests.

Vascular injuries of the upper extremity

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes the causes of injuries, presentations, surgical approaches, outcome and complications of vascular trauma of the upper limbs, in spite of limited hospital resources. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective analysis. From 01/01/2001 to 31/12/2005, 165 patients were operated for vascular injuries at King Fahd Hospital, Medina, Saudi Arabia. Of all peripheral vascular trauma patients (115), upper limb trauma was present in 58. Diagnosis was made by physical examination and hand-held Doppler alone or in combination with Doppler scan/angiography. Primary vascular repair was performed whenever possible; otherwise, the interposition vein graft was used. Fasciotomy was considered when required. Patients with unsalvageable lower extremity injury requiring primary amputation were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Fifty patients were male (86%) and eight were female (14%), aged between 2.5-55 years (mean 23 years). Mean duration of presentation was 8 h after the injury. The most common etiological factor was road traffic accidents, accounting for 50.5% in the blunt trauma group and 33% among all penetrating and stab wound injuries. Incidence of concomitant orthopedic injuries was very high in our study (51%). The brachial artery was the most affected (51%). Interposition vein grafts were used in 53% of the cases. Limb salvage rate was 100%. CONCLUSION: Patients who suffer vascular injuries of the upper extremities should be transferred to vascular surgery centers as soon as possible. Decisive management of peripheral vascular trauma will maximize patient survival and limb salvage. Priorities must be established in the management of associated injuries, and delay must be avoided when ischemic changes are present.

Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty and Resource Constraints: Examples from Trauma Imaging

The purpose of this review is to illustrate how tools and concepts from decision and cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to help make decisions in the face of uncertainty and resource constraints, select appropriate subjects for imaging, choose between competing imaging modalities, and prioritize future research. Examples from trauma imaging illustrate the use of the presented tools. The author advocates the PROACTIVE approach in deciding which imaging strategies are cost-effective (PRO for defining the problem, reframing the problem from multiple perspectives, and focusing on the objective; ACT for expanding the alternatives, considering the consequences and associated chances of each alternative, and identifying the trade-offs involved; IVE for integrating the evidence and values, optimizing the value of interest, and exploring uncertainty). Simulation models play an important role in the assessment of imaging strategies by helping to identify alternative strategies and to integrate the best-available evidence related to risks, benefits, patient values, and costs. Exploring the uncertainty in the evidence and assessing the value of obtaining more information can help prioritize future research and guide study design.