Key result
Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair yielded an adjusted operative mortality odds ratio of 0.54 compared to open surgical repair, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £74,580 per QALY which is unlikely to be cost-effective at standard thresholds.
Why the study?
Does fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) improve cost-effectiveness compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Systematic Review (n=1,641)
Does fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) improve cost-effectiveness compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms?
fEVAR is currently unlikely to be cost-effective compared to open surgical repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms at standard UK thresholds, driven largely by the high cost of the device and uncertainty around operative mortality benefits.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
fEVAR unlikely cost-effective versus OSR at standard thresholds; leaves open targeted trials to resolve operative mortality uncertainty.
BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) is a new approach for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, limited to a few specialist centers, with limited evidence base. We developed a cost-effectiveness decision model of fEVAR compared to open surgical repair (OSR) to investigate the likely direction of costs and benefits and inform further research projects on this technology. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis and a four-state Markov model were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of fEVAR versus OSR. We used a recent coverage with evidence development framework to characterize the main sources of uncertainty and inform decisions about the type of further research that would be most worthwhile and feasible. RESULTS: Seven observational comparative studies were identified, of which four presented odds ratios adjusted for confounders. The odds ratios for operative mortality varied widely between studies. Assuming a central estimate of the odds ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.05-6.24), the decision model estimated that the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was £74,580/QALY with a probability of 9 and 16% of being cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, respectively. The Expected Value of Perfect Information over 10 years at a threshold of £20,000/QALY was £11.2 million. Operative mortality contributed to most of the uncertainty in the decision model. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of "maturing technologies", decision modelling indicates the likely direction of costs and benefits and guides the development of further research projects. In our analysis of fEVAR versus OSR, decision uncertainty, particularly around operative mortality, might be effectively resolved by a short-term RCT, or possibly a well-conducted comparative observational study. Decision makers may consider that a conditional coverage decision is warranted with assessments required to make this type of recommendation depending on local priorities and circumstances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciani et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review in Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) (n=1,641). Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) vs. Open surgical repair (OSR) was evaluated on Operative mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.05-6.24). Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair yielded an adjusted operative mortality odds ratio of 0.54 compared to open surgical repair, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £74,580 per QALY which is unlikely to be cost-effective at standard thresholds.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: