A comparison of open and endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia in a clinical decision model

ObjectiveOpen revascularization (OR) has been the treatment of choice for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) for many years, but endovascular revascularization (EV) has been increasingly used with good short-term results. In this study, we evaluated the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EV and OR in patients with CMI refractory to conservative management.MethodsA Markov-state transition model was developed using TreeAge Pro 2012 (TreeAge Inc, Williamstown, Mass) to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 65-year-old female patients with CMI requiring treatment with either OR or EV. Data for the model, including perioperative and long-term overall mortality risks, disease-specific mortality risks, complications, and reintervention and patency rates, were retrieved from original studies and systematic reviews about CMI. Costs were analyzed with the 2013 Medicare database. Outcomes evaluated were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs from the health care perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed and different clinical scenarios evaluated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness of the model.ResultsFor a reference-case 65-year-old female patient with CMI and an average risk for operation, EV is preferred with 10.03 QALYs (95% credibility interval [CI], 9.76-10.29) vs 9.59 after OR (95% CI, 9.29-9.87). The difference is comparable to 5 months in perfect health: 0.44 QALY (95% CI, 0.13-0.76). For 65-year-old men, this was 8.71 QALYs (95% CI, 8.48-8.94) for EV vs 8.42 (95% CI, 8.14-8.63) for OR. Sensitivity analysis showed that for younger patients, EV results in a higher increase in QALYs compared with older patients. Total expected reinterventions per patient are 1.70 for EV vs 0.30 for OR. Total expected health care costs for the reference-case patient were $39,942 (95% CI, $28,509-$53,380) for OR and $38.217 (95% CI, $29,329-$48,309) for EV. For men, this was $39,375 (95% CI, $28,092-$52,853) for OR and $35,903 (95% CI, $27,685-$45,597) for EV. For patients younger than 60 years, EV is a more expensive treatment strategy compared with OR, but with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for EV of less than $60,000/QALY. For patients 60 years and older, EV dominated OR as preferential treatment because effectiveness was higher than for OR and costs were lower.ConclusionsThe results of this decision analysis model suggest that EV is favored over OR for patients with CMI in all age groups. Although EV is associated with more expected reinterventions, EV appears to be cost-effective for all age groups