Open AccessQuality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients
Author(s) -
Eunae Byun,
Tae-Won Kwon,
Hyangkyoung Kim,
Yong Pil Cho,
Youngjin Han,
Gi Young Ko,
Min-Jae Jeong
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0260690
Subject(s) - medicine , perioperative , abdominal aortic aneurysm , surgery , retrospective cohort study , hazard ratio , complication , endovascular aneurysm repair , aortic aneurysm , aneurysm , confidence interval
Objectives This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Design This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study. Materials and methods A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared. Results Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001) Conclusions OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.