Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness of Two Decision Strategies for Shunt Use During Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND: Arterial shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is essential in some patients because of insufficient cerebral perfusion during cross-clamping. However, the optimal diagnostic modality identifying these patients is still debated. None of the currently used modalities has been prove...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kolkert, Joe L. P., Groenwold, Rolf H. H., Leijdekkers, Vanessa J., ter Haar, Joep, Zeebregts, Clark J., Vahl, Anco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643400/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28623598
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4085-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Arterial shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is essential in some patients because of insufficient cerebral perfusion during cross-clamping. However, the optimal diagnostic modality identifying these patients is still debated. None of the currently used modalities has been proved superior to another. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two modalities, stump pressure measurement (SPM) versus electroencephalography (EEG) combined with transcranial Doppler (TCD) during CEA. METHODS: Two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing CEA with different intraoperative neuromonitoring strategies (SPM vs. EEG/TCD) were analyzed. Clinical data were collected from patient hospital records. Primary clinical outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Total admission costs were calculated based on volumes of healthcare resources. Analyses of effects and costs were adjusted for clinical differences between patients by means of a propensity score, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. RESULTS: A total of 503 (239 SPM; 264 EEG/TCD) patients were included, of whom 19 sustained a stroke or died during admission (3.3 vs. 4.2%, respectively, adjusted risk difference 1.3% (95% CI −2.3–4.8%)). Median total costs were €4946 (IQR 4424–6173) in the SPM group versus €7447 (IQR 6890–8675) in the EEG/TCD group. Costs for neurophysiologic assessments were the main determinant for the difference. CONCLUSIONS: Given the evidence provided by this small retrospective study, SPM would be the favored strategy for intraoperative neuromonitoring if cost-effectiveness was taken into account when deciding which strategy to adopt.