Cost-effectiveness of transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery Vol. 74; no. 6; pp. 1910 - 1918.e3
• Main Authors: Cui, Christina, Ramakrishnan, Ganesh, Murphy, James, Malas, Mahmoud B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-12-2021
• Subjects: California; Carotid revascularization costs; Carotid Stenosis - diagnosis; Carotid Stenosis - economics; Carotid Stenosis - mortality; Carotid Stenosis - therapy; Cost effectiveness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Endarterectomy, Carotid - adverse effects; Endarterectomy, Carotid - economics; Endarterectomy, Carotid - mortality; Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects; Endovascular Procedures - economics; Endovascular Procedures - mortality; Health Care Costs; Humans; Markov Chains; Models, Economic; Myocardial Infarction - etiology; Prospective Studies; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Recurrence; Stroke - etiology; TCAR vs CEA; TCAR with flow reversal; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; California; Carotid revascularization costs; TCAR with flow reversal; Cost effectiveness; TCAR vs CEA
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.05.051

Recent studies have demonstrated that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR, and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR with CEA for carotid artery stenosis.
We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a 5-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness.
For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs, whereas TCAR cost $19154 for 2.92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR, and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost-effective in 49% of iterations.
This study found that, although 5-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at 6 years of follow-up.
[Display omitted]