• Patrick Canning, Wael Tawfick, Khaled Kamel, Niamh Hynes, and Sherif Sultan.
• School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
• Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Apr 1; 56: 163-174.

BackgroundThe objective of the study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair (rEVAR) versus open surgical repair (rOSR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA), where rEVAR is regularly performed outside of instructions for use (IFUs) (shorter and more angulated necks). Primary end point is incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rEVAR versus rOSR and aneurysm-related mortality. Secondary end points are cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), perioperative morbidity and mortality, reintervention, and all-cause mortality.MethodsAll rAAA repairs performed between 2002 and 2016 in a single center were scrutinized. Between 2002 and 2007, most rAAAs were repaired using rOSR. From 2007 to 2016, we implemented a rEVAR with an anatomically possible protocol. During this time, severe angulation was rarely seen as a contraindication to rEVAR, and rEVAR was performed on aneurysms with an infrarenal aortic neck cranial to the aneurysm with a diameter of 20-33 mm and a length of at least 5 mm. Demographics and outcomes were reported according to the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. QALY was measured based on quality of time spent without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) assessment.ResultsEight hundred aneurysm surgeries were performed; of these, 135 were emergency surgeries of which 88 were for rAAA; (42 rEVARs and 46 rOSRs). Primary technical success (rEVAR 89.1% vs. rOSR 87.8%; P = 0.1), perioperative morbidity (rEVAR 56.5% vs. rOSR 64.3%; P = 0.457), and mortality (rEVAR 26.1% vs. rOSR 28.6%; P = 0.794) were nonsignificantly favorable in rEVAR patients. Freedom from reintervention was significantly lower in rEVAR patients at 3 years (rEVAR 74% vs. rOSR 90%; P = 0.038). Three-year aneurysm-related survival (rEVAR 65% vs. rOSR 62%; P = 0.848) and all-cause survival (rEVAR 56% vs. rOSR 51%; P = 0.577) were higher in rEVAR patients. At 3 years, rEVAR patients had a higher QALY of 1.671 versus OSR of 1.549 (P = 0.502). Operating room (P = 0.001) and total accommodation costs (P = 0.139) were lower in rEVAR patients, while equipment (P < 0.001), surveillance, and reintervention (P < 0.001) costs were higher. Median cost of rEVAR at 3 years was €23,352 vs. €20,494 for OSR (P < 0.084) (power>80%). Median cost per QALY of rEVAR at 3 years was €13,974 vs. €13,230 for rOSR (P = 0.296). ICER for rEVAR versus rOSR was €23,426 (95% confidence interval [CI] < €0 to > €30,000). At 3 years, the area under the curve and 95% CI for Q-TWiST was higher in rEVAR compared with OSR (rEVAR 500.819 vs. rOSR 437.838).ConclusionsThere is no significant difference in cost or QALYs between rEVAR and rOSR even when rEVAR is performed on complex cases outside of IFU (shorter and more angulated necks). There is a significantly higher freedom from secondary intervention in rOSR patients compared with rEVAR patients at 3 years.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

49 keywords...

hide…