导管定向溶栓治疗中危肺栓塞的经济学分析。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Elina Pliakos, Lauren Glassmoyer, Taisei Kobayashi, Steven Pugliese, Hari Shankar, William Matthai, Sameer Khandhar, Jay Giri, Ashwin Nathan
{"title":"导管定向溶栓治疗中危肺栓塞的经济学分析。","authors":"Elina Pliakos, Lauren Glassmoyer, Taisei Kobayashi, Steven Pugliese, Hari Shankar, William Matthai, Sameer Khandhar, Jay Giri, Ashwin Nathan","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulmonary embolism is associated with a significant burden of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Catheter-directed thrombolysis has emerged as a promising option for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism which aims to improve outcomes over standard anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation alone for the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICER (US dollars/deaths averted).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, derived using systemic lysis data, the cost associated with catheter-directed thrombolysis was estimated at $22,353 with a probability of survival at 1 month of 0.984. For the anticoagulation alone strategy, the cost was $25,060, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.958. Overall, catheter-directed thrombolysis resulted in savings of $104,089 per death averted (ICER,-$104,089 per death averted). Sensitivity analysis revealed that catheter-directed thrombolysis would no longer be cost-effective when its associated mortality is greater than 0.042. In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000, catheter-directed thrombolysis had a 63% chance of being cost-effective, and in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, it was cost-effective in 63%-78% of simulations for a willingness to pay ranging from $0 to $100,000.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>If the assumptions made in our model are shown to be accurate then CDT would be cost-effective and may lead to considerable cost savings if used where clinically appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Analysis of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.\",\"authors\":\"Elina Pliakos, Lauren Glassmoyer, Taisei Kobayashi, Steven Pugliese, Hari Shankar, William Matthai, Sameer Khandhar, Jay Giri, Ashwin Nathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.31280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulmonary embolism is associated with a significant burden of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Catheter-directed thrombolysis has emerged as a promising option for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism which aims to improve outcomes over standard anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation alone for the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICER (US dollars/deaths averted).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, derived using systemic lysis data, the cost associated with catheter-directed thrombolysis was estimated at $22,353 with a probability of survival at 1 month of 0.984. For the anticoagulation alone strategy, the cost was $25,060, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.958. Overall, catheter-directed thrombolysis resulted in savings of $104,089 per death averted (ICER,-$104,089 per death averted). Sensitivity analysis revealed that catheter-directed thrombolysis would no longer be cost-effective when its associated mortality is greater than 0.042. In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000, catheter-directed thrombolysis had a 63% chance of being cost-effective, and in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, it was cost-effective in 63%-78% of simulations for a willingness to pay ranging from $0 to $100,000.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>If the assumptions made in our model are shown to be accurate then CDT would be cost-effective and may lead to considerable cost savings if used where clinically appropriate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31280\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31280","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肺栓塞给发病率、死亡率和医疗费用带来沉重负担。导管引导溶栓疗法已成为中危肺栓塞患者的一种有前途的选择,其目的是改善标准抗凝疗法的疗效:我们构建了一个决策分析模型,比较了导管引导溶栓与单纯抗凝治疗中危肺栓塞的成本效益。成本效益通过计算避免的死亡人数和增量成本效益比(ICER)来确定。通过绘制不同支付意愿阈值的成本效益平面图和可接受性曲线来解决不确定性问题。主要结果是 ICER(美元/避免的死亡人数):在使用全身溶栓数据进行的基础病例分析中,导管引导溶栓的相关成本估计为 22,353 美元,1 个月生存概率为 0.984。单纯抗凝策略的成本为 25,060 美元,1 个月后的存活概率为 0.958。总体而言,导管引导溶栓每避免1例死亡可节省104,089美元(ICER,-104,089美元)。敏感性分析表明,当相关死亡率大于 0.042 时,导管引导溶栓治疗将不再具有成本效益。在概率分析中,当支付意愿为 100,000 美元时,导管引导溶栓疗法具有成本效益的几率为 63%;在成本效益可接受性曲线中,当支付意愿为 0 至 100,000 美元时,63%-78% 的模拟结果具有成本效益:如果我们模型中的假设被证明是准确的,那么 CDT 将具有成本效益,如果在临床上适当使用,可能会节省大量成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Economic Analysis of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.

Background: Pulmonary embolism is associated with a significant burden of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Catheter-directed thrombolysis has emerged as a promising option for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism which aims to improve outcomes over standard anticoagulation.

Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation alone for the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICER (US dollars/deaths averted).

Results: In the base case analysis, derived using systemic lysis data, the cost associated with catheter-directed thrombolysis was estimated at $22,353 with a probability of survival at 1 month of 0.984. For the anticoagulation alone strategy, the cost was $25,060, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.958. Overall, catheter-directed thrombolysis resulted in savings of $104,089 per death averted (ICER,-$104,089 per death averted). Sensitivity analysis revealed that catheter-directed thrombolysis would no longer be cost-effective when its associated mortality is greater than 0.042. In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000, catheter-directed thrombolysis had a 63% chance of being cost-effective, and in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, it was cost-effective in 63%-78% of simulations for a willingness to pay ranging from $0 to $100,000.

Conclusions: If the assumptions made in our model are shown to be accurate then CDT would be cost-effective and may lead to considerable cost savings if used where clinically appropriate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
419
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信