首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair of acute abdominal aortic aneurysms based on worldwide experience.
【24h】

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair of acute abdominal aortic aneurysms based on worldwide experience.

机译:基于全球经验的急性腹主动脉瘤的腔内与开放手术修复的成本效益分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: To present an economic evaluation of endovascular versus open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is currently being appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. To aid in this appraisal, a health economic model developed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of EVAR for elective treatment of non-ruptured AAAs versus OSR was used for an analysis in the emergency setting. The base case data on 730 patients undergoing EVAR was extracted from our recently published 22-study meta-analysis of 7040 patients presenting with acute AAA (ruptured or symptomatic) treated with either emergency EVAR or OSR. These data reflected a patient population with an average age of 70 years. The base case model, which assumed a time horizon of 30 years and applied all-cause mortality rates, was subjected to a number of 1-way sensitivity analyses. A multivariate analysis was undertaken using 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations. RESULTS: EVAR dominated OSR in the base case analysis, with a mean cumulative cost/patient of pound17,422 (Dollars 26,133) for EVAR and pound18,930 (Dollars 28,395) for OSR [- pound1508 (Dollars 2262) difference]. The mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)/patient was 3.09 for EVAR versus 2.49 for OSR (0.64 difference). EVAR was cost-effective compared with OSR at a threshold value of pound20,000 to pound30,000 (Dollars 30,000-Dollars 45,000)/QALY. In no single combination tested did open surgical repair provide the patient with more QALYs than EVAR. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were most sensitive to length of hospital and intensive care stays, use of blood products, and the cost of the evar device, which were the main cost drivers. CONCLUSION: While the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence does not set an absolute limit at which treatments would not be funded, pound30,000 (Dollars 45,000) is generally regarded as the upper limit of acceptability. At this level, there is almost a 100% probability that EVAR is a cost-effective treatment for ruptured AAA.
机译:目的:提出对破裂性腹主动脉瘤(AAA)进行血管内和开放手术修复的经济评估。方法:美国国家临床卓越研究所目前正在评估血管内动脉瘤修复术(EVAR)。为了帮助进行此评估,在紧急情况下使用了健康经济模型,以证明EVAR选择性治疗未破裂AAA相对于OSR的成本效益。 730例接受EVAR的患者的基本病例数据摘自我们最近发表的22项研究的荟萃分析,该研究对7040例接受紧急EVAR或OSR治疗的急性AAA(破裂或对症)患者进行了分析。这些数据反映了平均年龄为70岁的患者人群。基本案例模型假设时间跨度为30年,并应用了全因死亡率,因此进行了多次单向敏感性分析。使用10,000个蒙特卡洛模拟进行了多元分析。结果:在基本案例分析中,以EVAR为主的OSR,以EVAR为单位,每位患者的平均累计成本为17,422英镑(26,133美元),为OSR则为18,930英镑(28,395美元)[-£1508(美元2262))。 EVAR /患者的平均质量调整生命年(QALYs)为3.09,而OSR为2.49(差异为0.64)。与OSR相比,EVAR具有成本效益,阈值介于20,000英镑至30,000英镑(美元30,000-美元45,000)/ QALY。在没有经过测试的单一组合中,开放式手术修复没有为患者提供比EVAR更多的QALY。敏感性分析表明,结果对医院和重症监护病房的时间长短,血液制品的使用以及evar设备的成本最为敏感,而evar是成本的主要驱动力。结论:尽管英国国家临床卓越研究所没有设定不资助治疗的绝对上限,但30,000英镑(45,000美元)通常被认为是可接受的上限。在此水平上,EVAR是破裂AAA的一种经济有效的治疗方法,几乎​​有100%的可能性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号