TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
AU - Burgers, LT (Laura)
AU - Vahl, AC
AU - Severens, Hans
AU - Wiersema, AM
AU - Cuypers, PWM
AU - Verhagen, Hence
AU - Redekop, Ken
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Objective/Background: The aim of this study was to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in the Netherlands, based on recently published literature. Methods: A model was developed to simulate a cohort of individuals (age 72 years, 87% men) with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter of at least 5.5 cm and considered fit for both repairs. The model consisted of two sub-models that estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of EVAR versus OSR: (1) a decision tree for the first 30 post-operative days; and (2) a Markov model for the period thereafter (31 days-30 years). Results: In the base case analysis, EVAR was slightly more effective (4.704 vs. 4.669 quality adjusted life years) and less expensive ((sic)24,483 vs. (sic)25,595) than OSR. Improved effectiveness occurs because EVAR can reduce 30 day mortality risk, as well as the risk of events following the procedure, while lower costs are primarily due to a reduction in length of hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of EVAR is highly dependent on the price of the EVAR device and the reduction in hospital stay, complications, and 30 day mortality. Conclusion: EVAR and OSR can be considered equally effective, while EVAR can be cost saving compared with OSR. EVAR can therefore be considered as a cost-effective solution for patients with AAAs. (C) 2016 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
AB - Objective/Background: The aim of this study was to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in the Netherlands, based on recently published literature. Methods: A model was developed to simulate a cohort of individuals (age 72 years, 87% men) with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter of at least 5.5 cm and considered fit for both repairs. The model consisted of two sub-models that estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of EVAR versus OSR: (1) a decision tree for the first 30 post-operative days; and (2) a Markov model for the period thereafter (31 days-30 years). Results: In the base case analysis, EVAR was slightly more effective (4.704 vs. 4.669 quality adjusted life years) and less expensive ((sic)24,483 vs. (sic)25,595) than OSR. Improved effectiveness occurs because EVAR can reduce 30 day mortality risk, as well as the risk of events following the procedure, while lower costs are primarily due to a reduction in length of hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of EVAR is highly dependent on the price of the EVAR device and the reduction in hospital stay, complications, and 30 day mortality. Conclusion: EVAR and OSR can be considered equally effective, while EVAR can be cost saving compared with OSR. EVAR can therefore be considered as a cost-effective solution for patients with AAAs. (C) 2016 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.03.001
DO - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.03.001
M3 - Article
VL - 52
SP - 29
EP - 40
JO - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
JF - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
SN - 1078-5884
IS - 1
ER -