Cost‐effectiveness of revascularization in patients with intermittent claudication. BJS 2018; 105: 1742-1748.
Published: 25th October 2018
Authors: H. Djerf, M. Falkenberg, L. Jivegård, H. Lindgren, M. Svensson, J. Nordanstig et al.
Revascularization is a treatment option for patients with intermittent claudication. However, there is a lack of evidence to support its long‐term benefits and cost‐effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost‐effectiveness of revascularization and best medical therapy (BMT) with that of BMT alone.
Data were used from the IRONIC (Invasive Revascularization Or Not in Intermittent Claudication) RCT where consecutive patients with mild‐to‐severe intermittent claudication owing to aortoiliac or femoropopliteal disease were allocated to either BMT alone (including a structured, non‐supervised exercise programme) or to revascularization together with BMT. Inpatient and outpatient costs were obtained prospectively over 24 months of follow‐up. Mean improvement in quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) was calculated based on responses to the EuroQol Five Dimensions EQ‐5D‐3 L™ questionnaire. Cost‐effectiveness was assessed as the cost per QALY gained.
A total of 158 patients were randomized, 79 to each group. The mean cost per patient in the BMT group was €1901, whereas it was €8280 in the group treated with revascularization in addition to BMT, with a cost difference of €6379 (95 per cent c.i. €4229 to 8728) per patient. Revascularization in addition to BMT resulted in a mean gain in QALYs of 0·16 (95 per cent c.i. 0·06 to 0·24) per patient, giving an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of €42 881 per QALY.
The costs associated with revascularization together with BMT in patients with intermittent claudication were about four times higher than those of BMT alone. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of revascularization was within the accepted threshold for public willingness to pay according to the Swedish National Guidelines, but exceeded that of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: A. Aber, T. S. Tong, J. Chilcott, P. Thokala, R. Maheswaran, S. M. Thomas et al.
Notes: Why worse for women?
Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of osseointegration prosthesis after limb amputation. BJS 2018; 105: 1731-1741.
Authors: S. K. Kunutsor, D. Gillatt, A. W. Blom
Notes: Technology with potential
Authors: H. Shiwani, P. Baxter, E. Taylor, M. A. Bailey, D. J. A. Scott
Authors: R. Mouton, C. A. Rogers, R. A. Harris, R. J. Hinchliffe
Notes: Improves 30‐day survival
Long‐term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 1759-1767.
Authors: T. Wallace, J. El‐Sheikha, S. Nandhra, C. Leung, A. Mohamed, A. Harwood et al.
Notes: Lower recurrence at 5 years after laser
Authors: A. J. A. Meershoek, G. J. de Borst
Predicting risk of rupture and rupture‐preventing reinterventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. BJS 2018; 105: 1294-1304.
Authors: I. Grootes, J. K. Barrett, P. Ulug, F. Rohlffs, S. J. Laukontaus, R. Tulamo et al.
Notes: Potential to tailor surveillance
Open or endovascular revascularization in the treatment of acute lower limb ischaemia. BJS 2018; 105: 1598-1606.
Authors: O. Grip, A. Wanhainen, K. Michaëlsson, L. Lindhagen, M. Björck
Notes: Endovascular may save lives
Authors: A. Cervin, H. Ravn, M. Björck
Notes: Diagnosis often delayed
Effect of aspirin in vascular surgery in patients from a randomized clinical trial (POISE‐2). BJS 2018; 105: 1591-1597.
Authors: B. M. Biccard, A. Sigamani, M. T. V. Chan, D. I. Sessler, A. Kurz, J. G. Tittley et al.
Notes: No evidence to start or stop aspirin
Authors: P. A. Coughlin, J. H. F. Rudd
Population‐based study of mortality and major amputation following lower limb revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 1145-1154.
Authors: K. Heikkila, I. M. Loftus, D. C. Mitchell, A. S. Johal, S. Waton, D. A. Cromwell et al.
Notes: lower than previously estimated