Zhang Xiaoxi, Tang Haishuang, Huang Qinghai, Hong Bo, Xu Yi, Liu Jianmin
Department of Neurosurgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Neurosurgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
World Neurosurg. 2018 Jul;115:393-399. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.028. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
Comparison of feasibility and safety between endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has been incrementally reported. However, economic comparison has been rarely reported. This meta-analysis aims at qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the difference of hospital costs and length of stay between endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment in UIA.
MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, EMBASE, and Web of Science database were searched for cohort studies describing economic hospital cost or length of stay in patients with UIA. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and rated quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Ravmen 5.2 was used to perform forest plot analysis.
Nine studies describing 24,856 UIAs treated with neurosurgical clipping and 31,309 UIAs treated with endovascular coiling were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the total hospital costs (THCs) were similar between coiling and clipping in UIA patients (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.33, 95% confidence interval: -0.68 to 0.02, I = 99%, P = 0.07). Subgroup analysis showed that THCs of coiling were significantly lower than clipping in the United States but opposite in South Korea. One-year medical costs of coiling were similar in both groups (SMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.00, I = 0%, P = 0.07). In addition, the length of stay of coiling were significantly shorter than that of clipping (SMD: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81, I = 95%, P < 0.001).
Generally, no significant difference in THCs and 1-year medical costs between coiling versus clipping in UIAs was observed. However, the length of stay of endovascular coiling was much shorter than neurosurgical clipping and decreased over time.
关于血管内栓塞术与神经外科夹闭术治疗未破裂颅内动脉瘤(UIA)的可行性和安全性比较已有越来越多的报道。然而,经济方面的比较却鲜有报道。本荟萃分析旨在定性和定量分析UIA血管内治疗与神经外科治疗在医院费用和住院时间上的差异。
检索MEDLINE、Cochrane数据库、EMBASE和Web of Science数据库,查找描述UIA患者医院经济成本或住院时间的队列研究。两位作者独立评估研究的纳入资格,并使用纽卡斯尔渥太华量表对质量进行评分。使用Ravmen 5.2进行森林图分析。
纳入了9项研究,共涉及24856例接受神经外科夹闭术治疗的UIA患者和31309例接受血管内栓塞术治疗的UIA患者。荟萃分析显示,UIA患者栓塞术和夹闭术的总住院费用(THC)相似(标准化均差[SMD]:-0.33,95%置信区间:-0.68至0.02,I² = 99%,P = 0.07)。亚组分析表明,在美国,栓塞术的THC显著低于夹闭术,但在韩国则相反。两组的栓塞术一年医疗费用相似(SMD:-0.04,95%CI:-0.08至0.00,I² = 0%,P = 0.07)。此外,栓塞术的住院时间明显短于夹闭术(SMD:0.69,95%CI:0.56 - 0.81,I² = 95%,P < 0.001)。
总体而言,未观察到UIA栓塞术与夹闭术在THC和一年医疗费用上有显著差异。然而,血管内栓塞术的住院时间比神经外科夹闭术短得多,且随着时间推移而缩短。