Suppr超能文献

药物涂层球囊血管成形术与普通球囊血管成形术治疗动静脉瘘狭窄的成本效益比较。

Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty for Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis.

机构信息

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023 Sep;46(9):1221-1230. doi: 10.1007/s00270-023-03403-3. Epub 2023 Mar 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCB) versus plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) for treatment of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare DCB versus POBA for AVF stenosis over a 2-year time horizon from a United States payer's perspective. Probabilities related to complications, restenosis, retreatment, and all-cause mortality were obtained from published literature. Costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement rates and data from published cost analyses, inflation-adjusted to 2021. Health outcomes were measured with quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

RESULTS

Base case calculation showed better quality-of-life outcomes but increased cost with POBA compared to DCB, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,413/QALY, making POBA the more cost-effective strategy in the base case model. Sensitivity analyses showed that DCB becomes cost-effective if the 24-month mortality rate after DCB is no more than 3.4% higher than that after POBA. In secondary analyses where mortality rates were equalized, DCB was more cost-effective than POBA until its additional cost reached more than $4213 per intervention.

CONCLUSION

When modeled from a payer's perspective over 2 years, the cost utility of DCB versus POBA varies with mortality outcomes. POBA is cost-effective if 2-year all-cause mortality after DCB is greater than 3.4% higher than after POBA. If 2-year mortality after DCB is less than 3.4% higher than after POBA, DCB is cost-effective until its additional cost per procedure exceeds $4213 more than POBA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

HISTORICALLY CONTROLLED STUDY.: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

摘要

目的

比较药物涂层球囊血管成形术(DCB)与普通球囊血管成形术(POBA)治疗动静脉瘘(AVF)狭窄的成本效益。

方法

从美国支付者的角度,建立一个 Markov 模型来比较 DCB 与 POBA 治疗 AVF 狭窄在 2 年时间范围内的效果。与并发症、再狭窄、再治疗和全因死亡率相关的概率从已发表的文献中获得。使用医疗保险报销率和已发表的成本分析数据计算成本,根据 2021 年的通胀情况进行调整。使用质量调整生命年(QALY)来衡量健康结果。采用 10 万美元/QALY 的意愿支付阈值进行概率和确定性敏感性分析。

结果

基础病例计算显示,POBA 治疗的生活质量结果较好,但成本较高,增量成本效益比为 27413 美元/QALY,使 POBA 成为基础病例模型中更具成本效益的策略。敏感性分析显示,如果 DCB 治疗后的 24 个月死亡率比 POBA 治疗后高出不超过 3.4%,则 DCB 具有成本效益。在死亡率相等的二次分析中,DCB 比 POBA 更具成本效益,直到其额外成本超过每次干预 4213 美元以上。

结论

从支付者的角度来看,在 2 年内,DCB 与 POBA 的成本效益随死亡率结果而变化。如果 DCB 治疗后 2 年全因死亡率比 POBA 治疗后高出 3.4%以上,则 POBA 具有成本效益。如果 DCB 治疗后 2 年死亡率比 POBA 治疗后低 3.4%,则 DCB 具有成本效益,直到其每次手术的额外成本比 POBA 高出 4213 美元以上。

证据水平 IV:历史对照研究。:本杂志要求作者为每篇文章指定一个证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参考目录或在线作者指南 www.springer.com/00266

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