Cost-effectiveness of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery , Volume 52 - Issue 1 p. 29- 40
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 (€24,483 vs. €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.
|Aneurysm, Cost-effectiveness, EVAR, Surgery|
|European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery|
|Organisation||Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM)|
Burgers, L.T, Vahl, A, Severens, J.L, Wiersema, A, Cuypers, P.M.W, Verhagen, H.J.M, & Redekop, W.K. (2016). Cost-effectiveness of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 52(1), 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.03.001