The Cost-Effectiveness of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly.

Background: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of proximal humerus fractures in elderly individuals (age >70) carries a relatively high short-term complication and reoperation rate but is generally durable once healed. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for fractures may be associated with superior short-term quality of life but carries the lifelong liabilities of joint replacement. The tradeoff between short and long-term risks, coupled with disparities in quality of life and cost, makes this clinical decision amenable to cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was constructed with a base case of a 75 year-old patient. Reoperation rates, quality of life values, mortality rates, and costs were based upon published literature. The model was run until all patients had died to simulate the accumulated costs and benefits. Results: RTSA was associated with greater quality of life (7.11 QALYs) than ORIF (6.22 QALYs). RTSA was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,945/QALY and $27,299/ QALY from payor and hospital perspectives, respectively. RTSA was favored and cost-effective at any age above 65 and any Charlson Score. The model was sensitive to the utility of both procedures. Conclusion: RTSA resulted in a higher quality of life and was cost-effective in comparison to ORIF for elderly patients.Level of Evidence: III.

Pharmacologic Hemostatic Agents in Total Joint Arthroplasty-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total knee and hip arthroplasties can be associated with substantial blood loss, affecting morbidity and even mortality. Two pharmacological antifibrinolytics, ε-aminocaproic acid (EACA) and tranexamic acid (TXA) have been used to minimize perioperative blood loss, but both have associated morbidity. Given the added cost of these medications and the risks associated with then, a cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to ascertain the best strategy. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using the payoffs of cost (in United States dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life expectancy, in days). The medical literature was used to ascertain various complications, their probabilities, utility values, and direct medical costs associated with various health states. A time horizon of 10 years and a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 was used. RESULTS: The total cost and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life expectancy, in days) was $459.77, $951.22, and $1174.87 and 3411.19, 3248.02, and 3342.69 for TXA, no pharmacologic hemostatic agent, and EACA, respectively. Because TXA is less expensive and more effective than the competing alternatives, it was the favored strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses for probability of transfusion and myocardial infarction for all 3 strategies revealed that TXA remains the dominant strategy across all clinically plausible values. CONCLUSION: TXA, when compared with no pharmacologic hemostatic agent and with EACA, is the most cost-effective strategy to minimize intraoperative blood loss in hip and knee total joint arthroplasties. These findings are robust to sensitivity analyses using clinically plausible probabilities.

Understanding the value of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: the case of interspinous spacer devices.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Minimally invasive lumbar spinal stenosis procedures have uncertain long-term value. PURPOSE: This study sought to characterize factors affecting the long-term cost-effectiveness of such procedures using interspinous spacer devices ("spacers") relative to decompression surgery as a case study. STUDY DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database for the years 2005-2009 was used to model a group of 65-year-old patients with spinal stenosis who had no previous spine surgery and no contraindications to decompression surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained were the outcome measures. METHODS: A Markov model tracked health utility and costs over 10 years for a 65-year-old cohort under three care strategies: conservative care, spacer surgery, and decompression surgery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) reported as cost per QALY gained included direct medical costsfor surgery. Medicare claims data were used to estimate complication rates, reoperation, and related costs within 3 years. Utilities and long-term reoperation rates for decompression were derived frompublished studies. Spacer failure requiring reoperation beyond 3 years and post-spacer health utilities are uncertain and were evaluated through sensitivity analyses. In the base-case, the spacer failure rate was held constant for years 4-10 (cumulative failure: 47%). In a "worst-case" analysis, the 10-year cumulative reoperation rate was increased steeply (to 90%). Threshold analyses were performed to determine the impact of failure and post-spacer health utility on the cost-effectiveness of spacer surgery. RESULTS: The spacer strategy had an ICER of $89,500/QALY gained under base-case assumptions, and remained under $100,000 as long as the 10-year cumulative probability of reoperation did not exceed 54%. Under worst-case assumptions, the spacer ICER was $482,000/QALY and fell below $100,000 only if post-spacer utility was 0.01 greater than post-decompression utility or the cost of spacer surgery was $1,600 less than the cost of decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spacers may provide a reasonably cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Their value is expected to improve if procedure costs are lower in outpatient settings where these procedures are increasingly being performed. Decision analysis is useful for characterizing the long-term cost-effectiveness potential for minimally invasive spinal stenosis treatments and highlights the importance of complication rates and prospective health utility assessment.

Inferior vena cava filter retrieval provides no advantage in the average patient.

BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is performed to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) when anticoagulation is contraindicated or ineffective. Technical advances now allow catheter-based filter retrieval. Many believe the benefits of retrieval are self-evident, yet retrieval carries an inherent complication risk and cost. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively weigh the risks and benefits of IVC filter retrieval using formal decision analysis. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was used to simulate two clinical scenarios: to leave a previously placed IVC filter or to retrieve it. Analysis was performed during the lifetime of the individual, and outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The base case is a 60-year-old man with a filter placed within 3 months who no longer requires mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Potential events included PE, filter complications, and death from all other causes during each cycle. Tolls were used to incorporate the disutility of short-term treatment for PE and filter complications. For the base case and sensitivity analyses, we used utilities and probabilities derived from the literature. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, leaving the filter in place was preferred to filter retrieval, yielding 22.3 vs 21.9 QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that filter retrieval may be preferable if the utility of living with a filter is <0.98. For all probabilities of retrieval and PE mortality, leaving the filter in place is preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Leaving a previously placed IVC filter provides a 0.4 QALY benefit over retrieving the filter for the average patient. This decision is sensitive to the utility of living with the IVC filter.