Dataset Information

Is population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm cost-effective?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is responsible for 1-2% of all male deaths over the age of 65 years. Early detection of AAA and elective surgery can reduce the mortality risk associated with AAA. However, many patients will not be diagnosed with AAA and have therefore an increased death risk due to the untreated AAA. It has been suggested that population screening for AAA in elderly males is effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses of screening elderly men for AAA.

Methods

We performed a systematic search for economic evaluations in NHSEED, EconLit, Medline, Cochrane, Embase, Cinahl and two Scandinavian HTA data bases (DACEHTA and SBU). All identified studies were read in full and each study was systematically assessed according to international guidelines for critical assessment of economic evaluations in health care.

Results

The search identified 16 cost-effectiveness studies. Most studies considered only short term cost consequences. The studies seemed to employ a number of "optimistic" assumptions in favour of AAA screening, and included only few sensitivity analyses that assessed less optimistic assumptions.

Conclusion

Further analyses of cost-effectiveness of AAA screening are recommended.

SUBMITTER: Ehlers L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2607250 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm cost-effective?

Ehlers Lars L Sørensen Jan J Jensen Lotte Groth LG Bech Merete M Kjølby Mette M

BMC cardiovascular disorders 20081118

<h4>Background</h4>Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is responsible for 1-2% of all male deaths over the age of 65 years. Early detection of AAA and elective surgery can reduce the mortality risk associated with AAA. However, many patients will not be diagnosed with AAA and have therefore an increased death risk due to the untreated AAA. It has been suggested that population screening for AAA in elderly males is effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to perform a syst ...[more]

PMID: 19017393

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study.MethodsWe developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs.FindingsAAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life.InterpretationBy UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials and observational studies have shown that perioperative morbidity and mortality are lower with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm than with open repair, but the survival benefit is not sustained. In addition, concerns have been raised about the long-term risk of aneurysm rupture or the need for reintervention after endovascular repair.MethodsWe assessed perioperative and long-term survival, reinterventions, and complications after endovascular repair as compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in propensity-score-matched cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent repair during the period from 2001 through 2008 and were followed through 2009.ResultsWe identified 39,966 matched pairs of patients who had undergone either open repair or endovascular repair. The overall perioperative mortality was 1.6% with endovascular repair versus 5.2% with open repair (P<0.001). From 2001 through 2008, perioperative mortality decreased by 0.8 percentage points among patients who underwent endovascular repair (P=0.001) and by 0.6 percentage points among patients who underwent open repair (P=0.01). The rate of conversion from endovascular to open repair decreased from 2.2% in 2001 to 0.3% in 2008 (P<0.001). The rate of survival was significantly higher after endovascular repair than after open repair through the first 3 years of follow-up, after which time the rates of survival were similar. Through 8 years of follow-up, interventions related to the management of the aneurysm or its complications were more common after endovascular repair, whereas interventions for complications related to laparotomy were more common after open repair. Aneurysm rupture occurred in 5.4% of patients after endovascular repair versus 1.4% of patients after open repair through 8 years of follow-up (P<0.001). The rate of total reinterventions at 2 years after endovascular repair decreased over time (from 10.4% among patients who underwent procedures in 2001 to 9.1% among patients who underwent procedures in 2007).ConclusionsEndovascular repair, as compared with open repair, of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a substantial early survival advantage that gradually decreased over time. The rate of late rupture was significantly higher after endovascular repair than after open repair. The outcomes of endovascular repair have been improving over time. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost effectiveness of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. DESIGN:Primary analysis: four year cost effectiveness analysis based directly on results from a randomised controlled trial in which patients were individually allocated to invitation to ultrasound screening (intervention) or to a control group not offered screening. Secondary analysis: projection of the data, based on conservative assumptions, to indicate likely cost effectiveness at 10 years. SETTING:Four centres in the United Kingdom. Screening delivered in primary care settings with follow up and surgery offered in the main hospitals Participants: Population based sample of 67 800 men aged 65-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Mortality from and costs (screening, follow up, elective and emergency surgery) related to abdominal aortic aneurysm; cost per life year gained. RESULTS:Over four years there were 47 fewer deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysms in the screening group than in the control group, but the additional costs incurred were pound 2.2m. After adjustment for censoring and discounted at 6% the mean additional cost of the screening programme was pound 63.39 ($97.77, euro;100.48) (95% confidence interval pound 53.31 to pound 73.48) per patient. The hazard ratio for abdominal aortic aneurysm was 0.58 (0.42 to 0.78). Over four years the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio for screening was pound 28 400 ( pound 15 000 to pound 146 000) per life year gained, equivalent to about pound 36 000 per quality adjusted life year. After 10 years this figure is estimated to fall to around pound 8000 per life year gained. CONCLUSIONS:Even at four years the cost effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is at the margin of acceptability according to current NHS thresholds. Over a longer period the cost effectiveness will improve substantially, the predicted ratio at 10 years falling to around a quarter of the four year figure.

Dataset Information

Is population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm cost-effective?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Is population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm cost-effective?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets