Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Open Versus Endovascular Revascularization for Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia

BackgroundRecent studies have shown a trend supporting endovascular revascularization (ER) in the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). However, few studies have compared the cost effectiveness of ER and open revascularization (OR) for this indication. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing open versus ER for CMI.MethodsWe built a Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for CMI patients undergoing OR versus ER. Costs were derived from the hospital perspective using the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. The model randomized 20,000 patients to either OR or ER and allowed for 1 subsequent reintervention with 3 other intervening health states: alive, alive with complications, and dead. 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.ResultsOR cost $4,532 for 1.03 QALYs while ER cost $5,092 for 1.21 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $3,037 per QALY gained in the ER arm. This ICER was less than our willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to costs, mortality, and patency rates after OR and ER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated ER would be considered cost effective 99% of iterations.ConclusionsThis study found that while 5-year costs for ER were greater than OR, ER afforded greater QALYs than OR. Although ER is associated with lower long-term patency and higher rates of reintervention, it appears to be more cost effective than OR for the treatment of CMI