Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: No clear consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is most cost-effective for treating cervical degenerative disk disease (CDDD). One of the most common treatment options is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) was developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of clinical adjacent segment pathology and associated additional surgeries by preserving motion. This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression techniques used to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy caused by CDDD. METHODS: The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit, NHS-EED and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if healthcare costs and utility or effectivity measurements were mentioned. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included out of the 1327 identified studies. In 9 of the 13 studies directly comparing ACDA and ACDF, ACDA was the most cost-effective technique, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranging from $2.900/QALY to $98.475/QALY. There was great heterogeneity between the costs of due to different in- and exclusion criteria of costs and charges, cost perspective, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate. CONCLUSION: The majority of studies report ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in comparison with ACDF. The lack of uniform literature impedes any solid conclusions to be drawn. There is a need for high-quality cost-effectiveness research and uniformity in the conduct, design and reporting of economic evaluations concerning the treatment of CDDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020207553 (04.10.2020).

Multidisciplinary decision-making in mitral valve disease: the mitral valve heart team.

BACKGROUND: Although decision-making using the heart-team approach is apparently intuitive and has a class I recommendation in most recent guidelines, supportive data is still lacking. The current study aims to demonstrate the individualised clinical pathway for mitral valve disease patients and to evaluate the outcome of all patients referred to the dedicated mitral valve heart team. METHODS: All patients who were evaluated for mitral valve pathology with or without concomitant cardiac disease between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 were prospectively followed and included. Patients were evaluated, and a treatment strategy was determined by the dedicated mitral valve heart team. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included; 67 patients were treated surgically (isolated and concomitant surgery), 20 by transcatheter interventions and 71 conservatively. Surgically treated patients had a higher 30-day mortality rate (4.4%), which decreased when specified to a dedicated surgeon (1.7%) and in primary, elective cases (0%). This was also observed for major adverse events within 30 days. Residual mitral regurgitation >grade 2 was more frequent in the catheter-based intervention group (23.5%) compared to the surgical group (4.8%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the implementation of a multidisciplinary heart team for mitral valve disease is a valuable approach for the selection of patients for different treatment modalities. Our research group will focus on a future comparative study using historical cohorts to prove the potential superiority of the dedicated multidisciplinary heart-team approach.