World neurosurgery · 2024
Validity of the Cost-Effectiveness of Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization Following Hematoma Evacuation for Initial Chronic Subdural Hematoma.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Fujioka Mai, Ishii Yosuke, Chiba Keitaro, Murota Yasuhiro, Watanabe Toshiki, Kim Yongson, Sato Akihito, Nemoto Shigeru
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous articles about middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) highlighting its efficacy and safety for recurrent chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), the appropriateness of adjunctive MMAE after hematoma evacuation for initial CSDH remains unclear from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
METHODS: Patients with CSDH were enrolled in this study and were prospectively divided into 2 groups: the "conventional treatment" group, which was treated with hematoma evacuation alone, and the "MMAE" group, which was treated with adjunctive MMAE after hematoma evacuation. The proportion of patients requiring retreatment, length of hospital stay, economic costs, and modified Rankin Score were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: In this study, 53 cases were included, with 30 classified into the conventional treatment group and 23 classified into the MMAE group. In the conventional treatment group, the proportion of patients who required surgical retreatment was higher than that in the MMAE group (16.7% vs. 8.7%). The relative risk was 0.522 (95% confidence interval, 0.111-2.45). Although the addition of MMAE increased the cost per hospitalization by 26%, the increase in cost per patient was limited to 12%, owing to the reduction in patients who relapsed and required a second hospitalization. The increase in cost was not statistically significant. The MMAE group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Score 0-2) (56.7% vs. 87.0%, P = 0.0328).
CONCLUSIONS: By minimizing the increase in hospitalization days and procedure costs, MMAE following hematoma evacuation for initial CSDH could decrease the retreatment rate and balance the total medical costs associated with MMAE.
METHODS: Patients with CSDH were enrolled in this study and were prospectively divided into 2 groups: the "conventional treatment" group, which was treated with hematoma evacuation alone, and the "MMAE" group, which was treated with adjunctive MMAE after hematoma evacuation. The proportion of patients requiring retreatment, length of hospital stay, economic costs, and modified Rankin Score were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: In this study, 53 cases were included, with 30 classified into the conventional treatment group and 23 classified into the MMAE group. In the conventional treatment group, the proportion of patients who required surgical retreatment was higher than that in the MMAE group (16.7% vs. 8.7%). The relative risk was 0.522 (95% confidence interval, 0.111-2.45). Although the addition of MMAE increased the cost per hospitalization by 26%, the increase in cost per patient was limited to 12%, owing to the reduction in patients who relapsed and required a second hospitalization. The increase in cost was not statistically significant. The MMAE group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Score 0-2) (56.7% vs. 87.0%, P = 0.0328).
CONCLUSIONS: By minimizing the increase in hospitalization days and procedure costs, MMAE following hematoma evacuation for initial CSDH could decrease the retreatment rate and balance the total medical costs associated with MMAE.