Cost Effectiveness of Splenic Artery Embolization versus Splenectomy after Trauma in the Netherlands

Purpose: To demonstrate that splenic artery embolization (SAE) is more cost-effective than splenectomy from a societal perspective in the Netherlands. Materials and Methods: Patient-level data obtained from the SPLENIQ study were used to populate a health economic model and were supplemented with expert opinion when necessary. Propensity score matching was used to correct for baseline differences in injury severity scores. The health economic model consisted of 3 health states (complications after intervention, SAE failure, and recovery) and a dead state. Model outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental costs of SAE over splenectomy. The Dutch health economic guidelines were followed. The model used a lifetime time horizon. Uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. Results: Patients undergoing SAE had a higher life expectancy than patients undergoing splenectomy. Incremental QALYs were 3.1 (mostly explained by difference in life expectancy), and incremental costs were €34,135 (explained by costs related to medical consumption and lost productivity in additional life years), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €11,010 per QALY. SAE was considered cost-effective in >95% of iterations using a threshold of €20,000 per QALY. Conclusions: SAE results in more QALYs than splenectomy. Intervention costs for SAE are lower than that for splenectomy, but medical consumption and productivity costs in later years are higher for SAE due to better survival. SAE was found to be cost-effective compared with splenectomy under appropriate Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds.