Costs and Budget Impact of Collagen-Based Vascular Closure Device Versus Manual Compression Following Peripheral...

The objective of this study was to evaluate the annual costs and budget impact of using a vascular closure device to achieve hemostasis following femoral access endovascular procedures in England, compared with manual compression.

A budget impact model was developed in Microsoft® Excel, based on the estimated number of peripheral endovascular procedures eligible for day-case management performed annually by the National Health Service in England. The clinical effectiveness of vascular closure devices was captured based on the requirement for inpatient stays and the incidence of complications. Data for endovascular procedures, time to hemostasis, length of hospital stay, and complications were collected from public sources and the published literature. There were no patients involved in this study. Model outcomes are reported as estimated number of bed days and annual costs to the National Health Service for all peripheral endovascular procedures in England, and the average cost per procedure. The robustness of the model was tested in a sensitivity analysis.

The model estimated savings for the National Health Service of up to £4.5 million annually if vascular closure devices were used in every procedure instead of manual compression. The model estimated an average cost saving of £176 per procedure for vascular closure devices over manual compression, primarily due to fewer inpatient stays. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the proportion of day-case procedures for vascular closure devices and manual compression was a key driver of costs and savings.

The use of vascular closure devices for achieving hemostasis after peripheral endovascular procedures may be associated with lower resource use and cost burden, compared with manual compression, based on shorter time to hemostasis and ambulation and an increased likelihood of a day-case procedure.