Cost‐effectiveness of trans‐nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation vs. arterial embolisation for intractable epistaxis: long‐term analyses

Summary

Objectives

Trans‐nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolisation both provide excellent success rates for intractable epistaxis. Recent economic models suggest that TESPAL could be a cost‐saving strategy. Our main aim was to perform cost‐effectiveness analyses on TESPAL compared to embolisation to treat patients with epistaxis.

Design

We performed a retrospective, monocentric, comparative analyses on patients referred to our center and treated with embolisation or TESPAL.

Setting

This economic evaluation was carried out from a payer's perspective (i.e., French National Health Insurance) within a time horizon of 12 months.

Participants

Thirty‐seven TESPAL procedures and thirty‐nine embolisation procedures to treat intractable epistaxis were used in the analyses.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome is presented as the cost per 1% of non‐recurrence. Effectiveness was defined as avoiding recurrence of epistaxis during the 1‐year follow‐up. Cost estimates were performed from the payer's perspective.

Results

Hospitalisation costs were higher for embolisation compared to TESPAL (5,972 vs. 3,769 euros). On average, hospitalization costs decreased by 41% when a patient was treated by TESPAL compared to an embolisation strategy (p= 0.06). The presence of comorbidities increased hospitalization costs by 79% (p=0.04). TESPAL enabled 1,867€ to be gained in intractable epistaxis.

Conclusions

The outcomes from our decision model confirm that TESPAL is more cost‐effective for patients with intractable epistaxis.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

http://bit.ly/2DUWLFu