The British journal of surgery · 2025
A vein bypass first versus a best endovascular treatment first revascularization strategy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who require an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularization procedure to restore limb perfusion: the BASIL-2 within-trial health economic analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Abdali Zainab, Kigozi Jesse, Moakes Catherine A, Bate Gareth R, Hall Jack, Kelly Lisa, Meecham Lewis, Bradbury Andrew W, Popplewell Matthew A, BASIL-2 Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) places a considerable socioeconomic burden health and social care systems worldwide. The objective of this health economic analysis was to investigate the cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility (CUA) of a vein bypass (VB) first versus a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularization strategy in patients with CLTI who require an infra-popliteal revascularization procedure to restore limb perfusion.
METHODS: CEA and CUA analyses were conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Patient-level resource use and health outcomes data collected from the BASIL-2 trial over 2-7 years of follow-up were utilized to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per amputation-free life year (AFLY) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). EQ-5D-5L was used to generate participant QALYs at 2 and 3 years.
RESULTS: At two years, the mean(s.d.) discounted hospital cost was £15 742.59(16 182.60) and £13 273.66(15 446.92) in the VB-first and BET-first revascularization strategy groups respectively. The lower costs (-£2524.23, 95% c.i., -£5844.93 to £1131.52) in the BET-first group were mainly due to the reduced number of days in hospital and lower procedural costs. BET-first was also more effective leading to additional AFLYs (0.429, 95% c.i., 0.03 to 0.88) at 7 years and discounted QALYs (0.016, 95% c.i., -0.08 to 0.12) at 2 years.
CONCLUSION: A best endovascular first revascularization strategy dominated a vein bypass first strategy in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The findings were robust across different scenarios and prespecified subgroups.
METHODS: CEA and CUA analyses were conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Patient-level resource use and health outcomes data collected from the BASIL-2 trial over 2-7 years of follow-up were utilized to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per amputation-free life year (AFLY) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). EQ-5D-5L was used to generate participant QALYs at 2 and 3 years.
RESULTS: At two years, the mean(s.d.) discounted hospital cost was £15 742.59(16 182.60) and £13 273.66(15 446.92) in the VB-first and BET-first revascularization strategy groups respectively. The lower costs (-£2524.23, 95% c.i., -£5844.93 to £1131.52) in the BET-first group were mainly due to the reduced number of days in hospital and lower procedural costs. BET-first was also more effective leading to additional AFLYs (0.429, 95% c.i., 0.03 to 0.88) at 7 years and discounted QALYs (0.016, 95% c.i., -0.08 to 0.12) at 2 years.
CONCLUSION: A best endovascular first revascularization strategy dominated a vein bypass first strategy in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The findings were robust across different scenarios and prespecified subgroups.