European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2016
Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Combination with Medical Intervention in Patients with Small Aneurysms.
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.
Zarrouk M, Lundqvist A, Holst J, Troëng T, Gottsäter A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among 65 year old men has been proven cost-effective, but nowadays is conducted partly under new conditions. The prevalence of AAA has decreased, and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the predominant surgical method for AAA repair in many centers. At the Malmö Vascular Center pharmacological secondary prevention with statins, antiplatelet therapy, and blood pressure reduction is initiated and given to all patients with AAA. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening under the above mentioned conditions.
METHODS: This was a Markov cohort simulation. A total of 4,300 65 year old men were invited to annual AAA screening; the attendance rate was 78.3% and AAA prevalence was 1.8%. A Markov model with 11 health states was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of AAA screening. Background data on rupture risks, costs, and effectiveness of surgical interventions were obtained from the participating unit, the national Swedvasc Registry, and from the scientific literature.
RESULTS: The additional costs of the screening strategy compared with no screening were €169 per person and year. The incremental health gain per subject in the screened cohort was 0.011 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs), corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €15710 per QALY. Assuming a 10% reduction of all cause mortality, the incremental cost of screening was €175 per person and year. The gain per subject in the screened cohort was 0.013 additional QALYs, corresponding to an ICER of €13922 per QALY CONCLUSIONS: AAA screening remains cost-effective according to both the Swedish recommendations and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations in the new era of lower AAA prevalence, EVAR as the predominant surgical method, and secondary prevention for all AAA patients.
METHODS: This was a Markov cohort simulation. A total of 4,300 65 year old men were invited to annual AAA screening; the attendance rate was 78.3% and AAA prevalence was 1.8%. A Markov model with 11 health states was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of AAA screening. Background data on rupture risks, costs, and effectiveness of surgical interventions were obtained from the participating unit, the national Swedvasc Registry, and from the scientific literature.
RESULTS: The additional costs of the screening strategy compared with no screening were €169 per person and year. The incremental health gain per subject in the screened cohort was 0.011 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs), corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €15710 per QALY. Assuming a 10% reduction of all cause mortality, the incremental cost of screening was €175 per person and year. The gain per subject in the screened cohort was 0.013 additional QALYs, corresponding to an ICER of €13922 per QALY CONCLUSIONS: AAA screening remains cost-effective according to both the Swedish recommendations and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations in the new era of lower AAA prevalence, EVAR as the predominant surgical method, and secondary prevention for all AAA patients.