Is carotid angioplasty and stenting more cost effective than carotid endarterectomy?
Sashi Kilaru1, Peter Korn, Karthikeshwar Kasirajan
1Division of Vascular Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Insights
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is more cost-effective than carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). CEA offers significant lifetime savings and improved quality-adjusted life years compared to CAS, primarily due to lower stroke and mortality rates.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Health Economics
- Medical Interventions
Background:
- Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is presented as a less invasive and cheaper option than carotid endarterectomy (CEA).
- A comprehensive comparison of immediate and long-term costs between CAS and CEA is lacking.
- Markov decision analysis is employed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these two carotid revascularization procedures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a precise comparative analysis of the immediate and long-term costs associated with CAS and CEA.
- To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of CAS versus CEA using a Markov decision analysis model.
Main Methods:
- A Markov decision analysis model was developed to compare CAS and CEA.
- Data on procedural morbidity/mortality and costs for CEA were obtained from a retrospective review (n=447).
- CAS data were sourced from existing literature, incorporating immediate procedural costs and long-term morbidity costs (e.g., stroke).
Main Results:
- Immediate procedural costs were $7,871 for CEA and $10,133 for CAS.
- Assumed stroke rates were 0.9% for CEA and 5% for CAS; 30-day mortality rates were 0% for CEA and 1.2% for CAS.
- CEA demonstrated cost savings ($7,017/patient) and improved quality-adjusted life years (0.16) in base case analysis; sensitivity analysis highlighted stroke and death rates as key factors.
Conclusions:
- Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is more cost-saving than carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS).
- Higher stroke rates and the costs of stents/protection devices contribute to CAS's lower economic competitiveness.
- For CAS to be economically competitive, its major stroke and mortality rates must be equivalent to or lower than those of CEA.
Objective:
Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been advocated as a minimally invasive and inexpensive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, a precise comparative analysis of the immediate and long-term costs associated with these two procedures has not been performed. To accomplish this, a Markov decision analysis model was created to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of these two interventions.
Methods:
Procedural morbidity/mortality rate for CEA and costs (not charges) were derived from a retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell (n = 447). Data for CAS were obtained from the literature. We incorporated into this model both the immediate procedural costs and the long-term cost of morbidities, such as stroke (major stroke in the first year = $52,019; in subsequent years = $27,336/y; minor stroke = $9419). We determined long-term survival rate in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetic cohort of 70-year-old patients undergoing either CEA or CAS. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio.
Results:
The immediate procedural costs of CEA and CAS were $7871 and $10,133 respectively. We assumed major plus minor stroke rates for CEA and CAS of 0.9% and 5%, respectively. We assumed a 30-day mortality rate of 0% for CEA and 1.2% for CAS. In our base case analysis, CEA was cost saving (lifetime savings = $7017/patient; increase in quality-adjusted life years saved = 0.16). Sensitivity analysis revealed major stroke and death rates as the major contributors to this differential in cost effectiveness. Procedural costs were less important, and minor stroke rates were least important. CAS became cost effective only if its major stroke and mortality rates were made equivalent to those of CEA.
Conclusion:
CEA is cost saving compared with CAS. This is related to the higher rate of stroke with CAS and the high cost of stents and protection devices. To be economically competitive, the mortality and major stroke rates of CAS must be at least equivalent if not less than those of CEA.
Related Concept Videos
01:27Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
01:27Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
01:26Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
01:26Atherosclerosis III: Management
01:26Angina IV: Management