BACKGROUND:Postoperative surveillance with chest computed tomography (CT) is often performed in patients who have undergone resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite lack of supporting data. This study involves the creation of a decision analysis model to predict the cost effectiveness of postoperative surveillance CT. METHODS:A decision analysis model was created in which a hypothetical cohort of patients underwent annual chest CT after resection of a stage IA NSCLC. The incidence of second primary lung cancer (SPLC), sensitivity and specificity of CT, as well as survival after resection of initial primary and SPLC were derived from published literature. The cost of CT and other procedures prompted by a positive finding on CT was calculated from Medicare reimbursement schedules. Cost effectiveness was defined as a cost of less than 60,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the cohort under surveillance compared with controls under no surveillance. RESULTS:In the initial (base case) analysis, the cost of surveillance CT was 47,676 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained, implying cost effectiveness. However, factors that rendered surveillance CT cost ineffective were (1) age at entry into the surveillance program greater than 65 years, (2) cost of CT greater than 700 dollars, (3) incidence of SPLC of less than 1.6% per patient per year of follow-up, and (4) a false positive rate of surveillance CT greater than 14%. CONCLUSIONS:Surveillance with postoperative CT may be a cost-effective intervention to detect SPLC in selected patients with previously resected stage IA NSCLC.

BACKGROUNDChronic venous stasis ulcers produce substantial morbidity rates and result in a significant expense to society. Fortunately, compression stockings (CS) have been found to reduce the rate of recurrence in patients with previous ulceration. Surprisingly, Medicare and other insurers do not reimburse the expense associated with CS or with patient education (Ed), which is essential to ensure compliance.METHODSA Markov decision analysis model was used for analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a strategy of reimbursement for CS and Ed (prophylaxis) versus one that does not supply these resources in a 55-year-old patient with prior venous stasis ulceration. The mean time to ulcer recurrence (53 months with CS+Ed; 18.7 months without prophylaxis), the mean time for ulcer healing (4.6 months), the probabilities of hospitalization (12%) and amputation (0.4%) after the development of an ulcer, and quality-adjustment factors (0.80 during ulcer treatment) were derived from the literature. The cost of CS ($300/year) and Ed ($93 for initial evaluation; $58/year; $40/recurrence) and the medical cost of ulcer treatment (average cost, $1621/recurrence) were calculated from our hospital cost accounting system.RESULTSA strategy of CS and Ed was cost saving, with 0.37 quality-adjusted life years and $5904 saved, compared with a strategy that does not provide these resources. The inclusion of loss of revenue related to absence from work in the analysis increased cost savings to $17,080 during the patient's lifetime. With sensitivity analysis, CS and Ed remained cost-effective (lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life year saved, <$60,000) if amputations and the cost of ulcer treatment were eliminated or if the cost of prophylaxis was increased to 600% of the base-case. The mean time to recurrence in patients with CS and Ed needed to be reduced from 53 months to 21.1 months before this strategy was no longer cost-effective.CONCLUSIONProphylactic CS and Ed in patients with prior venous stasis ulceration are cost saving, even with the most conservative of assumptions. Insurers should routinely reimburse for these interventions.

BACKGROUND:The incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is increasing, and the prognosis of ruptured AAA remains dismal. Early diagnosis and intervention are crucial. We designed this study to determine whether selected population screening with a brief "quick-screen" ultrasound could be cost-effective.METHODS:A series of 25 patients with risk factors for AAA were evaluated in a blinded fashion by a quick-screen ultrasound and a full conventional study. Times and accuracy for the 2 approaches were compared. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of screening for AAA was then performed using a Markov model. We determined the long-term survival in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old males undergoing either AAA screening or not. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER).RESULTS:The average time for a quick screen was one-sixth that of a conventional study (4 vs 24 minutes). The accuracy of the quick screen was 100%. In our base-case analysis, screening for AAA was cost-effective with a CER of $11,215. Society usually is willing to pay for interventions with CER of less than $60,000 (eg, CER for coronary artery bypass grafting, $9500; breast cancer screening, $16,000). In sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of screening from $259 (approximate Medicare reimbursement) to $40 (the quick screen) improved the CER to $6850. Moreover, screening populations with increased prevalence of AAA (eg, male with family history [18%]) further improved the CER.CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis demonstrates that ultrasound screening for AAA should be offered to all males above the age of 60. Widespread screening for AAA should be adopted and reimbursed by Medicare and other insurers.

INTRODUCTIONIntra-arterial thrombolysis is commonly used as the initial treatment of acute or subacute lower extremity ischemia.METHODSTo evaluate the efficacy and cost of thrombolysis, we retrospectively analyzed 100 consecutive cases (87 patients) in which intra-arterial lysis (urokinase) was used as the initial treatment for native arterial lower extremity occlusive disease. The mean age of patients was 67 years, 57% of the patients were male, and preexisting peripheral vascular disease was present in 74%. Presenting symptoms were limb-threatening ischemia (53%) and claudication (47%). Acute symptoms (< 2 weeks' duration) were present in 48%.RESULTSThe 30-day morbidity rate was 31%, and four patients died. Complications were significant bleeding (23%), ischemic stroke (1%), and renal failure with (2%) and without (2%) dialysis. Concomitant angioplasty was performed in 63%. Complete or significant lysis as demonstrated with angiography was achieved in 75% of iliac, 58% of femoropopliteal, and 41% of crural vessels (P <.001). Within 30 days of lysis, 9% of patients underwent major amputation and 20% surgical revascularization (in 3 patients the extent of revascularization was lessened by the lytic therapy). Amputation-free survival was 83% and 75% at 6 months and 2 years, respectively. Relief of ischemia (defined as relief of claudication or limb salvage without major surgical intervention) was achieved in only 70% and 43% of patients at 30 days and 2 years, respectively (Kaplan-Meier analysis; mean follow-up, 31 months). Patients with aortoiliac disease had significantly better outcomes than those with infrainguinal disease (P =.03). Duration or type of presenting symptoms did not predict outcome. The cost of the initial hospitalization per patient for thrombolysis was $18,490.CONCLUSIONThrombolysis can be as or more costly than surgery and is associated with a suboptimal outcome in a significant number of patients. These data lead us to caution against a uniform policy of initial thrombolysis for patients who present with lower extremity ischemia.

Background. The purpose of this study was to review the results of lower extremity revascularization in patients with end-stage renal disease and to determine in these patients the functional benefit and cost of an aggressive approach to limb preservation. Methods. During a 5-year period at our institution, 33 bypass operations were performed on 31 limbs of 23 dialysis-dependent patients. Indications for revascularization were limited (18) or extensive (12) tissue loss or ischemia without tissue loss (3). Procedures included aortobifemoral bypass (1), femoropopliteal bypass (10), and femorotibial/pedal bypass (22). A digital or transmetatarsal amputation was performed in 57% of limbs. Results. The 30-day primary patency was 100%. Cumulative primary and secondary patency rates at 2 years were 65% and 79%, respectively. Limb salvage was 67% and 59% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Patient survival was poor (47% at 2 years). Peritoneal dialysis was predictive of poor survival (P <.001). Four of 5 patients on peritoneal dialysis died within 3 months of intervention. Extensive tissue loss was predictive of a diminished rate of limb salvage (P =.027). Only 39% of limbs with extensive tissue loss were salvaged at 1 year compared with 78% and 100% of limbs with limited and no tissue loss, respectively. The average hospital cost was $44,308 per year of limb salvage. Conclusions. Although revascularization of ischemic limbs in dialysis patients can be achieved with an excellent initial graft patency and reasonable limb salvage, patient survival is poor and costs are high. A selective approach to revascularization in these complicated patients may be indicated. For patients treated with peritoneal dialysis and for those with extensive tissue loss, primary amputation may be the preferred approach. (Surgery 2000;128:472–9.)

Objective: Recently published data from the North American Carotid Endarterectomy Trial revealed a benefit for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic patients with moderate (50% to 69%) carotid stenosis. This benefit was significant but small (absolute stroke risk reduction at 5 years, 6.5%; 22.2% vs 15.7%), and thus, the authors of this study were tentative in the recommendation of operation for these patients. To better elucidate whether CEA in symptomatic patients with moderate carotid stenosis is a proper allocation of societal resources, we examined the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.Methods: A decision-analytic Markov process model was constructed to determine the cost-effectiveness of CEA versus medical treatment for a hypothetical cohort: of 66-year-old patients with moderate: carotid stenosis. This model allowed the comparison of not only the immediate hospitalization but also the lifetime costs and benefits of these two strategies. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), defined as the incremental lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life year saved. We assumed an operative stroke and death rate of 6.6% and a declining risk of ipsilateral stroke after the ischemic event with medical treatment (first year, 9.3%; second year, 4%; subsequent years, 3%). The hospitalization cost of CEA ($6420) and the annual costs of major stroke ($26,880), minor stroke ($798), and aspirin therapy ($63) were estimated from a hospital cost accounting system and the literature.Results: CEA for moderate carotid stenosis increased the survival rate by 0.13 quality-adjusted life years as compared with medical treatment at an additional lifetime cost: of $580, Thus, CEA was cost-effective with a CER of $4462. Society is usually willing to pay for interventions with CERs of less than $60,000 leg, CERs for coronary artery bypass grafting at $9100 and for dialysis at $53,000). CEA was not cost-effective if the perioperative risk was greater than 11.3%, if the ipsilateral stroke rate associated with medical treatment at 1 year was reduced to 4.3%, if the age of the patient exceeded 83 years, or if the cost of CEA exceeded $13,200.Conclusion: CEA in patients with symptomatic moderate carotid stenosis of 50% to 69% is cost-effective. Perioperative: risk of stroke or death, medical and surgical stroke risk, cost of CEA, and age are important determinants of the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.