Clinical and economic implications of focal dissection treatment following percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the superficial femoral artery: an exploratory analysis based on the TOBA II Study
Aim: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for peripheral artery disease (PAD) commonly leads to dissections which are associated with higher target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates. Clinical and economic consequences of dissection management in the femoropopliteal artery following PTA,...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Becaris Publishing Limited
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Aim: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for peripheral artery disease (PAD) commonly leads
to dissections which are associated with higher target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates. Clinical and
economic consequences of dissection management in the femoropopliteal artery following PTA, and
specifically the potential economic benefit of focal dissection repair using the novel Tack Endovascular
System, remain unknown. Methods: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate 24-month clinical
events, costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain for a Tack-supported versus status-quo PTA
strategy. Patient and lesion characteristics and TLR rates were derived from the PTA cohort of the TOBA II
clinical trial, an observational cohort, and literature. Cost–effectiveness was determined from a US payer
and provider perspective separately for the non-severe (grade A or B), severe (grade C and higher) and
the entire dissection cohort. Results: TLR rates were lower for the Tack-supported strategy compared with
PTA (7.7 vs 27.4% in the non-severe, 13.9 vs 25.8% in the severe and 12.0 vs 26.3% in the entire dissection
cohort). Cost and QALY differences were +$297/ + 0.0110 in the non-severe dissection cohort and -
$1602/ + 0.0067 in the severe dissection cohort, resulting in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER)
of $25,622 in the non-severe cohort and dominance in the severe cohort and the entire cohort. Conclusion:
Compared with a ‘status-quo’ approach, proactive focal stenting may lead to fewer reinterventions and
improved quality of life. There appears to be a graded economic benefit of focal dissection treatment,
being cost-effective in non-severe dissections and even cost saving in severe dissections. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2042-6313 |