These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Carotid endarterectomy remains cost-effective for the surgical management of carotid stenosis.
    Author: Sridharan ND, Chaer RA, Smith K, Eslami MH.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2022 Apr; 75(4):1304-1310. PubMed ID: 34634417.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared with TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of TCAR is not well-understood. METHODS: Incorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in United States dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and myocardial infarction, as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 years and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared with CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base-case risk, 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared with CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base-case cost, $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%. CONCLUSIONS: At current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]