Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2024
Economic Analysis of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pliakos Elina, Glassmoyer Lauren, Kobayashi Taisei, Pugliese Steven, Shankar Hari, Matthai William, Khandhar Sameer, Giri Jay, Nathan Ashwin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism is associated with a significant burden of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Catheter-directed thrombolysis has emerged as a promising option for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism which aims to improve outcomes over standard anticoagulation.
METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation alone for the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICER (US dollars/deaths averted).
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, derived using systemic lysis data, the cost associated with catheter-directed thrombolysis was estimated at $22,353 with a probability of survival at 1 month of 0.984. For the anticoagulation alone strategy, the cost was $25,060, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.958. Overall, catheter-directed thrombolysis resulted in savings of $104,089 per death averted (ICER,-$104,089 per death averted). Sensitivity analysis revealed that catheter-directed thrombolysis would no longer be cost-effective when its associated mortality is greater than 0.042. In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000, catheter-directed thrombolysis had a 63% chance of being cost-effective, and in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, it was cost-effective in 63%-78% of simulations for a willingness to pay ranging from $0 to $100,000.
CONCLUSIONS: If the assumptions made in our model are shown to be accurate then CDT would be cost-effective and may lead to considerable cost savings if used where clinically appropriate.
METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation alone for the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICER (US dollars/deaths averted).
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, derived using systemic lysis data, the cost associated with catheter-directed thrombolysis was estimated at $22,353 with a probability of survival at 1 month of 0.984. For the anticoagulation alone strategy, the cost was $25,060, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.958. Overall, catheter-directed thrombolysis resulted in savings of $104,089 per death averted (ICER,-$104,089 per death averted). Sensitivity analysis revealed that catheter-directed thrombolysis would no longer be cost-effective when its associated mortality is greater than 0.042. In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000, catheter-directed thrombolysis had a 63% chance of being cost-effective, and in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, it was cost-effective in 63%-78% of simulations for a willingness to pay ranging from $0 to $100,000.
CONCLUSIONS: If the assumptions made in our model are shown to be accurate then CDT would be cost-effective and may lead to considerable cost savings if used where clinically appropriate.