Pipeline Endovascular Device vs Stent-Assisted Coiling in Small Unruptured Aneurysms: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
BACKGROUND:Both stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and flow diversion with the Pipeline Embolization device (PED; Medtronic Inc) have been shown to be safe and clinically effective for treatment of small (<10 mm) unruptured aneurysms. However, the economic impact of these different techniques has not been established. OBJECTIVE:To analyze the cost-effectiveness between stent-assisted coiling and flow diversion using PED, including procedural costs, long-term outcomes, and aneurysm recurrence. METHODS:A decision-analytical study was performed with Markov modeling methods to simulate patients undergoing SAC or PED for treatment for unruptured aneurysms of sizes 5 and 7 mm. Input probabilities were derived from prior literature, and 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS:In base case calculation and PSA, PED was the dominant strategy for both the size groups, with and without consideration of indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analyses show that the conclusion remained robust when varying the retreatment rate of SAC from 0% to 50%, and only changes when the retreatment rate of PED > 49%. PED remained the more cost-effective strategy when the morbidity and mortality of PED increased by <55% and when those of SAC decreased by <37%. SAC only became cost-effective when the total cost of PED is >$73000 more expensive than the total cost of SAC. CONCLUSION:With increasing use of PED for treatment of small unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms, our study indicates that PED is cost-effective relative to stent coiling irrespective of aneurysm size. This is due to lower aneurysm recurrence rate, as well as better health outcomes.
School of Medicine
This document is currently not available here.