Costs in follow-up of endovascularly repaired abdominal aortic aneurysms. Magnetic resonance imaging with MR angiography versus EUROSTAR protocols.

AIM

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) necessitates a long-term follow-up. These patients are often old and renal insufficiency is not unusual. Cost-effectiveness needs to be addressed in evaluating methods of follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare costs of 5 years follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging with contrast enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography (MRI/MRA) with follow-up using CT with DSA, or CTA. We also assessed the impact of contrast media induced (CMI) nephropathy on follow-up costs.

METHODS

We have implemented Swedish costs of CT with DSA, and CTA on the reported follow-up examinations from the EUROSTAR progress report 2000. The costs of follow-up with CT with DSA, or CTA were compared to a follow-up protocol with MRI/MRA. A cost analysis including a risk analysis of CMI nephropathy was made between MRI/MRA and CT with DSA, or CTA.

RESULTS

Excluding the risk of CMI nephropathy, the 5 years follow-up cost in Euro ( ) with MRI/MRA ( 5715) is substantially higher than CT with DSA ( 3 095) or CTA ( 3573). The cost analysis favours MRI/MRA if the risk of CMI nephropathy from CT with DSA, or CTA is more than 5%.

CONCLUSION

MRI/MRA can be cost-effective for follow-up of endovascularly repaired AAA depending on the risk of CMI nephropathy for CT with DSA, and CTA. MRI/MRA should be the method of choice for patients with pre-existing renal insufficiency.