Suppr超能文献

腹主动脉瘤传统修复术与血管腔内修复术的成本效益:一项随机试验的结果

Cost-effectiveness of conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial.

作者信息

Prinssen Monique, Buskens Erik, de Jong Sjors E, Buth Jacob, Mackaay Albert J, van Sambeek Marc R, Blankensteijn Jan D

机构信息

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2007 Nov;46(5):883-890. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.07.033.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials have shown similar mid-term outcomes for survival and quality of life after endovascular and conventional open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). With reduced hospital and intensive care stay, endovascular repair has been hypothesized to be more efficient than open repair. The Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial was undertaken to assess the balance of costs and effects of endovascular vs open aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing endovascular repair with open repair in 351 patients with an AAA and studied costs, cost-effectiveness, and clinical outcome 1 year after surgery. In addition to clinical outcome, costs and quality of life were recorded up to 1 year in 170 patients in the endovascular repair group and in 170 in the open repair group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for cost per life-year, event-free life-year, and quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Uncertainty regarding these outcomes was assessed using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Patients in the endovascular repair group experienced 0.72 QALY vs 0.73 in the open repair group (absolute difference, 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.038 to 0.058). Endovascular repair was associated with additional euro 4293 direct costs (euro 18,179 vs euro 13.886; 95% CI, euro 2,770 to euro 5,830). Most of the bootstrap estimates indicated that endovascular repair resulted in slightly longer overall and event-free survival associated with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro76,100 and euro 171,500 per year gained. Open repair appeared the dominant strategy in costs per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Presently, routine use of endovascular repair in patients also eligible for open repair does not result in a QALY gain at 1 year postoperatively, provides only a marginal overall survival benefit, and is associated with a substantial, if not prohibitive, increase in costs.

摘要

背景

两项随机试验表明,腹主动脉瘤(AAA)血管内修复术和传统开放修复术后的生存及生活质量中期结果相似。鉴于住院时间和重症监护时间缩短,有人推测血管内修复术比开放修复术更有效率。开展荷兰随机血管内动脉瘤管理(DREAM)试验以评估血管内与开放动脉瘤修复术的成本效益平衡。

方法

我们进行了一项多中心随机试验,比较351例AAA患者的血管内修复术与开放修复术,并在术后1年研究成本、成本效益和临床结局。除临床结局外,还记录了血管内修复组170例患者和开放修复组170例患者长达1年的成本和生活质量。估算了每获得一个生命年、无事件生命年和质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比。使用自举法评估这些结果的不确定性。

结果

血管内修复组患者的QALY为0.72,而开放修复组为0.73(绝对差异为0.01;95%置信区间[CI]为-0.038至0.058)。血管内修复术额外产生4293欧元的直接成本(18179欧元对13886欧元;95%CI为2770欧元至5830欧元)。大多数自举估计表明,血管内修复术导致总体和无事件生存期略有延长,相应的增量成本效益比分别为每年获得76100欧元和171500欧元。开放修复术在每QALY成本方面似乎是主导策略。

结论

目前,对于也适合开放修复术的患者常规使用血管内修复术在术后1年并未带来QALY增加,仅提供了微不足道的总体生存获益,并且即便成本增加并非高得令人却步,也大幅增加了成本。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验