Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review.

Affiliation

Nargesi S(1), Abutorabi A(2), Alipour V(3), Tajdini M(4), Salimi J(5).
Author information:
(1)Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
(2)Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. [Email]
(3)Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
(4)Department of Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
(5)Vascular Surgery Department, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening condition which, in the absence of increasing diameter or rupture, often remains asymptomatic, and a diameter greater than 5.5 cm requires elective surgical repair. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with AAA through a systematic review of published health economics studies. METHODS: Using a systematic review method, an electronic search was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies published on AAA (both in English and Persian) on PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, and the national databases of Iran from 1990 to 2020 including the keywords "cost-effectiveness", "endovascular", "open surgical", and "abdominal aortic aneurysms". The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 958 studies were found, of which 16 were eligible for further study. All studies were conducted in developed countries, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY) were used to measure the outcomes. According to the QHES checklist, most studies were of good quality. In European countries and Canada, EVAR has not been cost-effective, while most studies in the United States regard this technique as a cost-effective intervention. For example, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values ranged from $14,252.12 to $34,446.37 per QALY in the USA, while ICER was €116,600.40 per QALY in Portugal. CONCLUSION: According to the results, the EVAR technique has been more cost-effective than OSR for high-risk patients, but the need for continuous follow-up, increased costs, and re-intervention over the long term and for low-risk patients has reduced the cost-effectiveness of this method. As the health systems vary among different countries (i.e. quality of care, cost of devices, etc.), and due to the heterogeneity of studies in terms of the follow-up period, time horizon, and threshold, all of which are inherent features of economic evaluation, generalizing the results should be done with much caution, and policymaking must be based on national evidence.