Meta‐analysis of the costs of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy. BJS 2017; 104: 1284-1292.
Published: 7th August 2017
Authors: E. E. de Vries, V. G. M. Baldew, H. M. den Ruijter, G. J. de Borst
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is currently associated with an increased risk of 30‐day stroke compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas both interventions seem equally durable beyond the periprocedural period. Although the clinical outcomes continue to be scrutinized, there are few data summarizing the costs of both techniques.
A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases in August 2016 identifying articles comparing the costs or cost‐effectiveness of CAS and CEA in patients with carotid artery stenosis. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random‐effects models. The in‐hospital costs were specified to gain insight into the main heads of expenditure associated with both procedures.
The literature search identified 617 unique articles, of which five RCTs and 12 cohort studies were eligible for analysis. Costs of the index hospital admission were similar for CAS and CEA. Costs of the procedure itself were 51 per cent higher for CAS, mainly driven by the higher costs of devices and supplies, but were balanced by higher postprocedural costs of CEA. Long‐term cost analysis revealed no difference in costs or quality of life after 1 year of follow‐up.
Hospitalization and long‐term costs of CAS and CEA appear similar. Economic considerations should not influence the choice of stenting or surgery in patients with carotid artery stenosis being considered for revascularization.Full text
You may also be interested in
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
Cost‐effectiveness of population‐based vascular disease screening and intervention in men from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial.
Authors: R. Søgaard, J. S. Lindholt
Notes: Highly cost effective
Five‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 686-691.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, E. Saarinen, M. Venermo
Notes: More foam recurrences
Eight‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy with surgical stripping of the great saphenous vein. BJS 2018; 105: 692-698.
Authors: Y. L. Lam, J. A. Lawson, I. M. Toonder, N. H. Shadid, A. Sommer, M. Veenstra et al.
Notes: Surgery better
Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2018; 105: 1135-1144.
Authors: M. J. Sweeting, P. Ulug, J. Roy, R. Hultgren, R. Indrakusuma, R. Balm et al.
Notes: Not much help
Follow‐up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair can be stratified based on first postoperative imaging. BJS 2018; 105: 709-718.
Authors: H. Baderkhan, O. Haller, A. Wanhainen, M. Björck, K. Mani
Notes: Short sealing zones spell trouble
Risk of major amputation in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing early revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 699-708.
Authors: J. Golledge, J. V. Moxon, S. Rowbotham, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, R. Velu et al.
Notes: Early revascularization associated with amputation
Authors: R. E. Clough, R. Spear, K. Van Calster, A. Hertault, R. Azzaoui, J. Sobocinski et al.
Notes: Encouraging results in expert hands
Authors: N. Rudarakanchana, M. P. Jenkins
Notes: Formidable challenge
Cellular and molecular imaging of the arteries in the age of precision medicine. BJS 2018; 105: 311-312.
Authors: R. O. Forsythe, D. E. Newby
Comparative analysis of the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and Sweden. BJS 2018; 105: 520-528.
Authors: A. Karthikesalingam, M. J. Grima, P. J. Holt, A. Vidal‐Diez, M. M. Thompson, A. Wanhainen et al.
Notes: Improving in England
Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. BJS 2018; 105: 529-534.
Authors: A. J. Quyn, C. G. Fraser, J. Rodger, A. Digan, A. S. Anderson, R. J. C. Steele et al.
Notes: Maximizing screening benefits