Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) places a considerable socioeconomic burden health and social care systems worldwide. The objective of this health economic analysis was to investigate the cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility (CUA) of a vein bypass (VB) first versus a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularization strategy in patients with CLTI who require an infra-popliteal revascularization procedure to restore limb perfusion. METHODS: CEA and CUA analyses were conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Patient-level resource use and health outcomes data collected from the BASIL-2 trial over 2-7 years of follow-up were utilized to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per amputation-free life year (AFLY) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). EQ-5D-5L was used to generate participant QALYs at 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: At two years, the mean(s.d.) discounted hospital cost was £15 742.59(16 182.60) and £13 273.66(15 446.92) in the VB-first and BET-first revascularization strategy groups respectively. The lower costs (-£2524.23, 95% c.i., -£5844.93 to £1131.52) in the BET-first group were mainly due to the reduced number of days in hospital and lower procedural costs. BET-first was also more effective leading to additional AFLYs (0.429, 95% c.i., 0.03 to 0.88) at 7 years and discounted QALYs (0.016, 95% c.i., -0.08 to 0.12) at 2 years. CONCLUSION: A best endovascular first revascularization strategy dominated a vein bypass first strategy in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The findings were robust across different scenarios and prespecified subgroups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdali et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: