Clinical results and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency and cyanoacrylate ablation compared with traditional surgical stripping for treating varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Disease of the venous system is an underappreciated public health problem. Minimally invasive treatments such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cyanoacrylate adhesive ablation (CAA) have almost entirely replaced surgical stripping (SS) of the great and small saphenous veins. The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes at 3 years after SS, RFA, and CAA by assessing the incidence of complications and reinterventions and performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: From February 2016 to February 2019, all consecutive patients with symptomatic varicose veins treated at vascular department of two hospitals using SS, RFA, or CAA were included in the present study. The clinical outcomes were measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), complications, and reintervention. A comparison with conservative treatment was also performed. A detailed resource use was recorded for each procedure. All costs were normalized to May 2020 U.S. dollars and euros. Analysis of the data was by the treatment received. All statistical tests were two-sided, and the significance level was set at 5%. Two perspectives of the analysis were considered: the social perspective and that of the Spanish Public Health System. The study period was 3 years. No discount rate was applied. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients were enrolled in the present study: SS, n = 90 (38.6%); RFA, 93 (39.9%); and CAA, n = 50 (21.5%). The number of complications was 11 (12.2%), 3 (3.3%), and 3 (6%) in the SS, RFA, and CAA groups, respectively (P = .06). No patient had required reintervention. The median loss of workdays for the SS, RFA, and CAA group was 15 days (interquartile range [IQR], 10-30 days), 0 days (IQR, 0-6 days), and 0 days (IQR, 0-1 days), respectively (P < .001). The median level of satisfaction for the SS, RFA, and CAA group was 9 (IQR, 8-10), 10 (IQR, 9-10), and 10 (IQR, 9-10), respectively (P < .001). The QALYs was 2.6 years for all three procedures. The median overall cost was €852 (US$926) for SS, €1002 (US$1089) for RFA, and €1228.3 (US$1335) for CAA. The total cost per QALY was €323/QALY (US$351/QALY) for SS, €380/QALY (US$413/QALY) for RFA, and €467/QALY (US$508/QALY) for CAA. The indirect costs were measured by the cost of the workdays lost for each patient and were €1527 (US$1660; IQR, €1018-3054); €0 (IQR, €0-611) for RFA, and €0 (IQR, €0-102) for CAA (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All three techniques were cost-effective (procedures with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <€30,000/QALY can be recommended). From the Spanish Public Health System perspective, when considering only the health care costs, the most cost-effective technique was SS. From the social perspective, including the opportunity costs of medical leave, CAA was the most cost-effective technique, saving €1600 per patient, a cost that more than compensated for the savings realized from using SS in direct health care costs.

A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) seems to be a cost-effective strategy. However, most publications are based on simulation models of theoretical cohorts, and long-term implications are not usually considered. OBJECTIVE: To assess the real cost differences of two cohorts of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with AS or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in a public health system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed from 2005 to 2009 were included in an AS program (Group 1) or treated with LRP at diagnosis (Group 2), with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Actual costs for each patient were calculated on an individual basis: Group 1: semiannual PSA measurements and repeat biopsies are scheduled every 1-3 years. Costs of outpatient clinic visits were calculated, as well as all tests required for monitoring or active treatment. Group 2: costs of the procedure, emergency visits, re-admissions and outpatient clinic visits were calculated, as well as costs of oncological salvage therapies or functional surgical procedures. RESULTS: Out of 151 men diagnosed with low-risk PC, 54 (35.8%) were included in an AS (Group 1) and 97 (64.2%) were submitted to LRP (Group 2). Mean follow-up for both groups was 6.5 years (SD 1.8) and 6.7 years (SD 1.4), respectively, p = 0.49. Group 1 had a total cost per patient of 2970.47€. Group 2 had a total cost per patient of 5694.06€. CONCLUSIONS: AS was associated with cost-saving over LRP. This cost reduction of AS in the management of low-risk PCa is based on the accounting of real costs of individual patients and confirms previously published estimation-based reports.

Economic repercussions of implementing a protocol for urgent surgical repair of thrombosed arteriovenous fistulae.

INTRODUCTION: When a patient undergoing haemodialysis suffers from arteriovenous fistula (AVF) thrombosis, (s)he needs an urgent procedure before the next dialysis session. Two different treatment options are available: placing a central venous catheter (CVC) or repairing the AVF. The objective of this study is to assess the possibility of urgent repair of thrombosed AVFs within the emergency care activity of a general surgery department and to determine the possible economic repercussions of implementing this working protocol in an area of healthcare. METHOD: We completed the prospective collection of all the urgent surgical interventions made to repair thrombosed AVFs for the period 2000-2011 at our centre. The clinical results were analysed using two variables: rate of thrombosis (episodes/patient/year) and percentage of recovery. Recovery was deemed effective if after the surgery the patient was able to undergo dialysis of his/her AVF without the need to place a CVC. The "thrombosed AVF" clinical process was defined and implemented, and its economic cost was analysed via a detailed analysis conducted by our centre's Financial Department. This analysis was also conducted for the alternative clinical process (new AVF), using the data published by the Ministry of Health (weight of the Diagnosis-Related Group: vascular accesses for haemodialysis, hospital complexity unit, public cost of outpatient procedures and percentage of economic repercussions of the implementation of this process, comparing the costs of both procedures). RESULTS: During the study period 268 episodes of thrombosis occurred, a rate of 0.1 episodes/patient/year (0.05 on autologous AVFs and 0.43 on grafts). 203 (75%) were treated urgently by the surgery department, of which 168 AVFs (82%) were recovered. The cost of urgently repairing an AVF was estimated at €999. The average cost of a scheduled AVF intervention, plus the cost of placing and maintaining a CVC, was estimated at €6,397. The saving made by urgent repair of AVFs in our area of healthcare is €107,940/year. Extrapolating this to the entire country for a population of 23,000 patients on haemodialysis, the total would be €9,930,480/year. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to perform urgent surgical recovery on the majority of AVFs for haemodialysis. Implementing multidisciplinary protocol avoids fitting these patients with catheters, reducing the cost this entails.