Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023 Sep;46(9):1221-1230. doi: 10.1007/s00270-023-03403-3. Epub 2023 Mar 28.
To compare the cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCB) versus plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) for treatment of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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。
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。
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。
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 。