This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 39/1/111    most recent STROKEAHA.107.482570v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wolstenholme, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wolstenholme, J. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Aneurysm, AVM, hematoma

(Stroke. 2008;39:111.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Treatment Pathways, Resource Use, and Costs of Endovascular Coiling Versus Surgical Clipping After aSAH

Jane Wolstenholme, PhD; Oliver Rivero-Arias, MSc; Alastair Gray, PhD; Andrew J. Molyneux, FRC; Richard S.C. Kerr, FRCS; Julia A. Yarnold, FCR; Mary Sneade, BA (Hons) on behalf of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group

From the Health Economics Research Centre (J.W., O.R.-A., A.G.), Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, UK; and the Neurovascular Research Unit (A.J.M., R.S.C.K., J.A.Y., M.S.), Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford and Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trusts, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, UK.

Correspondence to Jane Wolstenholme, PhD, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF UK. E-mail jane.wolstenholme{at}dphpc.ox.ac.uk

Background and Purpose— The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) reported that endovascular coiling yields better clinical outcomes than surgical clipping at 1 year. The high cost of the consumables associated with the endovascular coiling procedure (particularly the coils) led health care purchasers to conclude that coiling was a more costly procedure overall. To examine this assumption and provide evidence for future policy, accurate and comprehensive data are required on the overall resource usage and cost of each strategy.

Methods— We provide detailed results of patient treatment pathways, resource utilization, and costs up to 24 months postrandomization for endovascular and neurosurgical treatment of aSAH. We report data on costs related to initial and subsequent procedures (ward days, ITU, equipment, staff, consumables, etc), adverse events, complications, and follow up. The data are based on a subsample of all patients randomized in ISAT, containing all patients across 22 UK centers (n=1644).

Results— There was a nonsignificant difference –£1740 (–£3582 to £32) in the total 12-month cost of treatment in favor of endovascular treatment. Endovascular patients had higher costs than neurosurgical patients for the initial procedure, for the number and length of stay of subsequent procedures, and for follow-up angiograms. These were more than offset by lower costs related to length of stay for the initial procedure. In the following 12- to 24-month period, costs for subsequent procedures, angiograms, complications, and adverse events were greater for the endovascular patients, reducing the difference in total per patient cost to –£1228 (–£3199 to £786) over the first 24 months of follow-up.

Conclusions— No significant difference in costs between the endovascular and neurosurgery groups existed at 12- or 24-month follow up.

Key Words: aneurysm • costs • economics • subarachnoid hemorrhage