Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frailty Assessment in Older Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In perioperative settings, frailty assessment has been shown to reduce mortality. This study examined the cost effectiveness of frailty assessment among patients aged 65 with coronary artery disease under consideration for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

Methods

A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 21-year time horizon. Clinical parameters were obtained from published literature. Utilities were derived from the literature and the Canadian Community Health Survey. Costs were obtained from the Ontario fee schedule and published literature. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis was conducted to estimate the value of further research.

Results

The frailty assessment initiative had a lower average cost than no frailty assessment ($19,567 compared with $20,062). QALYs with frailty assessment were 0.47 years more than with no frailty assessment. Thus, frailty assessment was dominant compared with no frailty assessment. Results were robust to changes in the input parameters. At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, there was 100% probability of frailty assessment being cost-effective, and the EVPI per patient was $0. Scenario and sensitivity analysis showed frailty screening remained cost effective when changing the cohort average age, removing health benefits for nonfrail patients, and using subjective judgement to modify effectiveness parameters.

Conclusions

Frailty assessment may be good value for money. However, limited availability of geriatric consultation services, may hinder implementation. Thus, the estimated benefits of frailty screening may not be achievable in practice.

SUBMITTER: Li Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8802557 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years did not differ between patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair (n = 150) or coronary artery bypass grafting alone (n = 151). To address health resource use implications, we compared costs and quality-adjusted survival.MethodsWe used individual patient data from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial on survival, hospitalizations, quality of life, and US hospitalization costs to estimate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years. A microsimulation model was developed to extrapolate to 10 years. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.ResultsIn-hospital costs were $59,745 for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus $51,326 for coronary artery bypass grafting alone (difference $8419; 95% uncertainty interval, 2259-18,757). Two-year costs were $81,263 versus $67,341 (difference 13,922 [2370 to 28,888]), and quality-adjusted life years were 1.35 versus 1.30 (difference 0.05; -0.04 to 0.14), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $308,343/quality-adjusted life year for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair. At 10 years, its costs remained higher ($107,733 vs $88,583, difference 19,150 [-3866 to 56,826]) and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference (-0.92 to 0.87), with 5.08 versus 5.08. The likelihood that coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair would be considered cost-effective at 10 years based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100K/quality-adjusted life year did not exceed 37%. Only when this procedure reduces the death rate by a relative 5% will the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below $100K/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsThe addition of mitral valve repair to coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation is unlikely to be cost-effective. Only if late mortality benefits can be demonstrated will it meet commonly used cost-effectiveness criteria.

Project description:ImportanceIt is uncertain whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with cognitive decline in older adults compared with a nonsurgical method of coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]).ObjectiveTo compare the change in the rate of memory decline after CABG vs PCI.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of community-dwelling participants in the Health and Retirement Study, who underwent CABG or PCI between 1998 and 2015 at age 65 years or older. Data were modeled for up to 5 years preceding and 10 years following revascularization or until death, drop out, or the 2016-2017 interview wave. The date of final follow-up was November 2017.ExposuresCABG (including on and off pump) or PCI, ascertained from Medicare fee-for-service billing records.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a summary measure of cognitive test scores and proxy cognition reports that were performed biennially in the Health and Retirement Study, referred to as memory score, normalized as a z score (ie, mean of 0, SD of 1 in a reference population of adults aged ≥72 years). Memory score was analyzed using multivariable linear mixed-effects models, with a prespecified subgroup analysis of on-pump and off-pump CABG. The minimum clinically important difference was a change of 1 SD of the population-level rate of memory decline (0.048 memory units/y).ResultsOf 1680 participants (mean age at procedure, 75 years; 41% female), 665 underwent CABG (168 off pump) and 1015 underwent PCI. In the PCI group, the mean rate of memory decline was 0.064 memory units/y (95% CI, 0.052 to 0.078) before the procedure and 0.060 memory units/y (95% CI, 0.048 to 0.071) after the procedure (within-group change, 0.004 memory units/y [95% CI, -0.010 to 0.018]). In the CABG group, the mean rate of memory decline was 0.049 memory units/y (95% CI, 0.033 to 0.065) before the procedure and 0.059 memory units/y (95% CI, 0.047 to 0.072) after the procedure (within-group change, -0.011 memory units/y [95% CI, -0.029 to 0.008]). The between-group difference-in-differences estimate for memory decline for PCI vs CABG was 0.015 memory units/y (95% CI, -0.008 to 0.038; P = .21). There was statistically significant increase in the rate of memory decline after off-pump CABG compared with after PCI (difference-in-differences: mean increase in the rate of decline of 0.046 memory units/y [95% CI, 0.008 to 0.084] after off-pump CABG), but not after on-pump CABG compared with PCI (difference-in-differences: mean slowing of decline of 0.003 memory units/y [95% CI, -0.024 to 0.031] after on-pump CABG).Conclusions and relevanceAmong older adults undergoing coronary revascularization with CABG or PCI, the type of revascularization procedure was not significantly associated with differences in the change of rate of memory decline.