Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a randomized clinical trial of early versus deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous ulceration. BJS 2019; 106: 555-562.
Published: 11th February 2019
Authors: D. M. Epstein, M. S. Gohel, F. Heatley, X. Liu, A. Bradbury, R. Bulbulia et al.
Treatment of superficial venous reflux in addition to compression therapy accelerates venous leg ulcer healing and reduces ulcer recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost‐effectiveness of early versus delayed endovenous treatment of patients with venous leg ulcers.
This was a within‐trial cost‐utility analysis with a 1‐year time horizon using data from the EVRA (Early Venous Reflux Ablation) trial. The study compared early versus deferred endovenous ablation for superficial venous truncal reflux in patients with a venous leg ulcer. The outcome measure was the cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) over 1 year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted with alternative methods of handling missing data, alternative preference weights for health‐related quality of life, and per protocol.
After early intervention, the mean(s.e.m.) cost was higher (difference in cost per patient £163(318) (€184(358))) and early intervention was associated with more QALYs at 1 year (mean(s.e.m.) difference 0·041(0·017)). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £3976 (€4482) per QALY. There was an 89 per cent probability that early venous intervention is cost‐effective at a threshold of £20 000 (€22 546)/QALY. Sensitivity analyses produced similar results, confirming that early treatment of superficial reflux is highly likely to be cost‐effective.
Early treatment of superficial reflux is highly likely to be cost‐effective in patients with venous leg ulcers over 1 year. Registration number: ISRCTN02335796 (
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis of the outcomes of treatment of internal carotid artery near occlusion. BJS 2019; 106: 665-671.
Authors: A. J. A. Meershoek, E. E. Vries, D. Veen, H. M. Ruijter, G. J. Borst, A. Garcia‐Pastor et al.
Authors: S. F. Cheng, M. M. Brown, R. J. Simister, T. Richards
Baseline findings of the population‐based, randomized, multifaceted Danish cardiovascular screening trial (DANCAVAS) of men aged 65–74 years.
Authors: J. S. Lindholt, L. M. Rasmussen, R. Søgaard, J. Lambrechtsen, F. H. Steffensen, L. Frost et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of mechanochemical and endovenous thermal ablation of great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2019; 106: 548-554.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, O. Mahmoud, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, K. Noronen, P. Vikatmaa et al.
Meta‐analysis of long‐term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2019; 106: 523-533.
Authors: R. M. A. Bulder, E. Bastiaannet, J. F. Hamming, J. H. N. Lindeman
Authors: D. C. Norvell, M. L. Thompson, E. J. Boyko, G. Landry, A. J. Littman, W. G. Henderson et al.
Meta‐analysis of clinical trials examining the benefit of structured home exercise in patients with peripheral artery disease. BJS 2019; 106: 319-331.
Authors: J. Golledge, T. P. Singh, C. Alahakoon, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, J. V. Moxon et al.
Meta‐analysis of negative pressure wound therapy of closed groin incisions in arterial surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 310-318.
Authors: R. Svensson‐Björk, M. Zarrouk, G. Asciutto, J. Hasselmann, S. Acosta
Cost‐effectiveness of targeted screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in siblings. BJS 2019; 106: 206-216.
Authors: R. Hultgren, A. Linné, S. Svensjö
Notes: Cost effective
Influence of psoas muscle area on mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. BJS 2019; 106: 367-374.
Authors: M. A. Waduud, B. Wood, P. Keleabetswe, J. Manning, E. Linton, M. Drozd et al.
Systematic review of endovascular intervention and surgery for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease. BJS 2019; 106: 13-22.
Authors: X. Jia, Z. D. Sun, J. V. Patel, K. Flood, D. D. Stocken, D. J. A. Scott et al.
Sex differences in national rates of repair of emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2019; 106: 82-89.
Authors: A. Aber, T. S. Tong, J. Chilcott, P. Thokala, R. Maheswaran, S. M. Thomas et al.
Notes: Why worse for women?