Search

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) added to standard of care (SOC) in large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes, adopting the French societal perspective given the lack of published studies with such perspective., Methods: We developed an hybrid model (decision tree until one year post-stroke followed by a Markov model from one year onward). The time horizon was 20 years. We calculated transition probabilities across the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) based on a published meta-analysis. The main outcome measure was quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Resources and input costs were derived from a literature search. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/QALY. We used 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate the model uncertainty., Results: In the base-case, adding SRT to SOC resulted in increased effectiveness of 0.73 QALY while total costs were reduced by 3,874€ (ICER of -5,400€/QALY). In the scenario analysis adopting the French healthcare system perspective, the ICER was 4,901€/QALY. Parameters the most influential were the relative risks of SRT over SOC for 90-days mortality and for 90-days mRS 0-2, and the time horizon. PSA showed the 95% confidence interval of the ICER was -21,324 to 4,591€/QALY, with SRT having 85.5% chance to be dominant and 100% to be cost-effective at a threshold of 50,000€/QALY., Conclusion: SRT was dominant from a French societal perspective, from 9 years post-stroke onwards. Cost-effectiveness of SRT added to SOC becomes undisputable with evidences from payer and societal viewpoints., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies have analyzed the cost of treatment of chronic angina pectoris, especially in European countries., Aim: To determine, using a modeling approach, the cost of care in 2012 for 1year of treatment of patients with stable angina, according to four therapeutic options: optimal medical therapy (OMT); percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent (PCI-BMS); PCI with drug-eluting stent (PCI-DES); and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)., Methods: Six different clinical scenarios that could occur over 1year were defined: clinical success; recurrence of symptoms without hospitalization; myocardial infarction (MI); subsequent revascularization; death from non-cardiac cause; and cardiac death. The probability of a patient being in one of the six clinical scenarios, according to the therapeutic options used, was determined from a literature search. A direct medical cost for each of the therapeutic options was calculated from the perspective of French statutory health insurance., Results: The annual costs per patient for each strategy, according to their efficacy results, were, in our models, €1567 with OMT, €5908 with PCI-BMS, €6623 with PCI-DES and €16,612 with CABG. These costs were significantly different (P<0.05). A part of these costs was related to management of complications (recurrence of symptoms, MI and death) during the year (between 3% and 38% depending on the therapeutic options studied); this part of the expenditure was lowest with the CABG therapeutic option., Conclusion: OMT appears to be the least costly option, and, if reasonable from a clinical point of view, might achieve appreciable savings in health expenditure., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare 30 day outcomes and costs of fenestrated and branched stent grafts (f/b EVAR) and open surgery (OSR) for the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA)., Methods: The multicenter prospective registry WINDOW was set up to evaluate f/b EVAR in high risk patients with para/juxtarenal AAA, and infradiaphragmatic and supradiaphragmatic TAAA. A control group of patients treated by OSR was extracted from the national hospital discharge database. The primary endpoint was 30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included severe complications, length of stay, and costs. Mortality was assessed by survival analysis and uni/multivariate Cox regression analyses using pre- and post-operative characteristics. Bootstrap methods were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of f/b EVAR versus OSR., Results: Two hundred and sixty eight cases and 1,678 controls were included. There was no difference in 30 day mortality (6.7% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.40), but costs were higher with f/b EVAR (€38,212 vs. €16,497, p < .001). After group stratification, mortality was similar with both treatments for para/juxtarenal AAA (4.3% vs. 5.8%, p = .26) and supradiaphragmatic TAAA (11.9% vs. 19.7%, p = .70), and higher with f/b EVAR for infradiaphragmatic TAAA (11.9% vs. 4.0%, p = .010). Costs were higher with f/b EVAR for para/juxtarenal AAA (€34,425 vs. €14,907, p < .0001) and infradiaphragmatic TAAA (€37,927 vs. €17,530, p < .0001), but not different for supradiaphragmatic TAAA (€54,710 vs. €44,163, p = .18)., Conclusion: f/b EVAR does not appear justified for patients with para/juxtarenal AAA and infradiaphragmatic TAAA fit for OSR but may be an attractive option for patients with para/juxtarenal AAA not eligible for surgery and patients with supradiaphragmatic TAAA., Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01168037; identifier: NCT01168037 (WINDOW registry)., (Copyright © 2015 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since the prospective payment system, health institutions have only specific payments for the emergency care in the emergency room. The direct urgent admissions in coronary care units for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) do not collect this complementary refund. For the patient's stay, hospital is remunerated with fixed national prices which are similar even in case of emergent or planed coronary revascularization when realized., Aims: To analyze and compare the financial impact between emergent and planed coronary stenting in the setting of ACS., Patients and Methods: This retrospective study was based on patients suffering from ACS who experienced emergent coronary stenting during the year 2005. On 154 patients, 127 were age-, sex- and diagnosis-related group (called "groupe homogène de malades" in the French Health Care system)-matched with 127 suffering from same ACS but with planed "ad hoc" coronary stenting. The overall charges (medical and paramedical team, pharmacy, biology, implantable coronary devices, radiology) were compared between the two groups., Results: Mean stay duration was 6.7 days and did not differ between the two groups. Mean financial retributions were significantly higher in the emergent group (7338 euro [6831-7846] IC95 vs 6509 euro [5994-7023]; p=0,02) but with a much more raised consumption (6810 euro [6283-7336] vs 5223 euro [4632-5814]; p=0,001). This overcost was due especially to drugs and biological expenses. The hospitalization payments did not cover the overall expenses for 25% of the patients' stays (N=64) among whom 39 have had emergent coronary stenting (30.7%, p=0.04). Among the different GHM, the most important difference was observed in non-STEMI without complication with a negative receipts/costs ratio for 37.8% of the stay with coronary stenting in emergency., Conclusion: The application of the recent guidelines for coronary revascularization in the management of ACS represents a financial venture for hospital institutions. The engaged charges for emergent coronary stenting are covered with difficulties contrary to planed revascularization.

Background: One of the major complications of angioplasty is the early occurrence of restenosis requiring a repeat procedure. When bare-metal stents are used, clinical restenosis results in a repeat procedure in 10% to 15% of cases. Based on the results of an international, randomized clinical trial, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents reduces this risk., Objectives: The aims of this study were to calculate the theoretical break-even price for sirolimus-eluting stents in France, the Netherlands, and the United States, and to determine the additional health care cost per patient., Methods: The break-even price was calculated by adding the savings resulting from a 15% decrease in the rate of clinical restenosis to the price of bare-metal stents. Costs were computed from the viewpoint of the health care system, exclusive of other societal costs., Results: The break-even prices were 1291 Euro to 1489 Euro in France, 2028 Euro in the Netherlands, and 2708 Euroin the United States (1.00 Euro = 1.00 US dollar in purchasing power parity). These results indicate that the commercial price of sirolimuseluting stents will increase hospital spending for patients undergoing angioplasty by 17% to 55% per patient., Conclusion: This additional cost to the health care system should be discussed in view of possible productivity savings and improved quality of life for patients.