Department of Surgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2010 Jan;51(1):27-32; discussion 32. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.08.004. Epub 2009 Oct 17.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) for small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).
We developed a Markov model of a hypothetical 68-year-old cohort to determine the cost-effectiveness of early EVAR for "small" AAAs (4.0 cm-5.4 cm) compared with elective repair (open or endovascular) at the traditional cut-off of 5.5 cm. Repair options for 5.5-cm AAAs include both endovascular and open procedures. Probabilities were obtained from the literature. Costs reflected direct costs in 2007 dollars. Outcomes were reported as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
The model demonstrated that early EVAR for 4.0 cm-5.4 cm AAAs led to fewer QALYs at greater costs when compared with observational management with elective repair at 5.5 cm. Sensitivity analyses suggested that early EVAR of 4.6 cm-4.9 cm AAAs can be cost-effective if the long-term mortality rate after EVAR is <or=1.91% per year or if the quality of life after EVAR is improved. Likewise, if the quality of life before repair is low, EVAR for AAAs >or=4.6 cm may be cost-effective. With a >70% probability, observational management until AAA diameter is 5.5 cm will be the cost-effective option.
This analysis demonstrated that early EVAR for AAAs <5.5 cm is not likely to be cost-effective compared with elective repair at 5.5 cm. However, EVAR for small AAAs may become cost-effective when differences in quality of life and mortality are considered.
评估血管内修复(EVAR)治疗小腹部主动脉瘤(AAA)的成本效益。
我们构建了一个假设 68 岁队列的 Markov 模型,以确定与传统 5.5cm 截止值相比,早期 EVAR 治疗“小”AAA(4.0cm-5.4cm)的成本效益。5.5cm AAA 的修复选择包括血管内和开放手术。概率来自文献。成本反映了 2007 年美元的直接成本。结果以质量调整生命年(QALY)报告。
该模型表明,与 5.5cm 时选择性修复的观察性治疗相比,早期 EVAR 治疗 4.0cm-5.4cm AAA 会导致更少的 QALY 和更高的成本。敏感性分析表明,如果 EVAR 后的长期死亡率<或=1.91%/年,或者 EVAR 后的生活质量得到改善,那么 EVAR 治疗 4.6cm-4.9cm AAA 可以具有成本效益。同样,如果修复前的生活质量较低,那么 EVAR 治疗直径>或=4.6cm 的 AAA 可能具有成本效益。有超过 70%的可能性,直径达到 5.5cm 时进行观察性治疗将是具有成本效益的选择。
这项分析表明,与 5.5cm 时的选择性修复相比,早期 EVAR 治疗<5.5cm 的 AAA 不太可能具有成本效益。然而,当考虑生活质量和死亡率的差异时,EVAR 治疗小 AAA 可能具有成本效益。