Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in a high-volume center

Objective: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is the standard treatment for anatomically suitable patients. EVAR has been associated with a lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair (OSR) at the expense of increased reinterventions and costs. We aimed to compare the outcomes of EVAR and OSR for elective AAA repair. The primary end point was cost per QALY at 3 years. Secondary end points were perioperative morbidity and mortality; freedom from reintervention; length of hospital, high-dependency unit, and intensive care unit stay; and freedom from all-cause mortality. Methods: The project was approved by the Galway Clinical Research Ethics Committee. This project followed the Declaration of Helsinki. This was an audit of interventions that had already taken place. No active clinical intervention was undertaken, and patients' anonymity was preserved; thus, individual patient consent was not obtained. Data on all elective AAA repairs at a tertiary referral vascular center were collected from 2002 to 2015. Demographics and outcomes were reported according to the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. QALY was measured on the basis of a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity assessment. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: Between 2002 and 2015, a total of 494 patients required elective AAA surgery; 401 underwent EVAR and 93 underwent OSR. Demographics and vascular-related risk factors were similar in both groups. Median (interquartile range) cost per QALY at 3 years was V5776 (V5541-V6481) for EVAR vs V7101 (V5812-V8952) for OSR (P<.001). EVAR was associated with reduced perioperative morbidity (12.2% vs 50%; P<.001). There was no significant association between procedure and perioperative mortality (EVAR, 1.7%; OSR, 4.3%; P = .130). There was no significant association found between the procedure and reintervention (P = .502). Our subgroup analysis found no association between procedure and improvement in all-cause mortality, QALYs, costs, or cost per QALY. Conclusions: EVAR is cost-effective with improved cost per QALY compared with OSR.