Display options
Cite
Salem MM, Salih M, Nwajei F, et al. Longitudinal Cost Profiles of Pipeline Embolization Device Versus Stent-Assisted Coiling in Propensity-Matched Unruptured Small Anterior Circulation Aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2021;89(5):867-872doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyab304.
Salem, M. M., Salih, M., Nwajei, F., Williams, N., Thomas, A. J., Moore, J. M., & Ogilvy, C. S. (2021). Longitudinal Cost Profiles of Pipeline Embolization Device Versus Stent-Assisted Coiling in Propensity-Matched Unruptured Small Anterior Circulation Aneurysms. Neurosurgery, 89(5), 867-872. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyab304
Salem, Mohamed M, et al. "Longitudinal Cost Profiles of Pipeline Embolization Device Versus Stent-Assisted Coiling in Propensity-Matched Unruptured Small Anterior Circulation Aneurysms." Neurosurgery vol. 89,5 (2021): 867-872. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyab304
Salem MM, Salih M, Nwajei F, Williams N, Thomas AJ, Moore JM, Ogilvy CS. Longitudinal Cost Profiles of Pipeline Embolization Device Versus Stent-Assisted Coiling in Propensity-Matched Unruptured Small Anterior Circulation Aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2021 Oct 13;89(5):867-872. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyab304. PMID: 34383055.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Neurosurgery. 2021 Oct 13;89(5):867-872. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyab304.

Longitudinal Cost Profiles of Pipeline Embolization Device Versus Stent-Assisted Coiling in Propensity-Matched Unruptured Small Anterior Circulation Aneurysms.

Neurosurgery

Mohamed M Salem, Mira Salih, Felix Nwajei, Natalie Williams, Ajith J Thomas, Justin M Moore, Christopher S Ogilvy

Affiliations

  1. Neurosurgical Service, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

PMID: 34383055 DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyab304

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cost profiles of stent-assisted coiling (SAC) vs Pipeline embolization device (PED) in small unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms have not been studied.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 2 modalities cost profiles in a propensity-matched cohort controlling for potential technical complexity confounders including size and location.

METHODS: Patients treated with either SAC or PED at our institution were identified. Following propensity-score algorithm, 46 patients, 23 in each group were matched. The procedural and follow-up costs in each group were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS: Median maximal aneurysm size in the SAC and PED cohort were 5.3 vs 5.1 mm, respectively. Costs of access guide materials were significantly higher in the SAC group (P < .01). The average implant cost was not significantly different between the SAC and PED cohorts (${\$}$13973.2 ± ${\$}$2886.2 vs ${\$}$14,760.7 ± ${\$}$3782.1, respectively; P = .43). Similarly, total procedural costs were not different (${\$}$18341.5 ± 4104 vs ${\$}$17484.3 ± 2914.1, respectively, P = .42). Although there were significantly more total follow-ups (P = .02) and longer follow-up duration (P = .01) in SAC cohort, no significant difference in follow-up costs between the 2 groups was identified (${\$}$20557 ± ${\$}$9247 vs ${\$}$18958 ± ${\$}$9171.9, P = .56). Overall cost was similar between the SAC (${\$}$38898.9 ± ${\$}$9645.5) and PED groups (${\$}$36442.4 ± ${\$}$9076) (P = .38).

CONCLUSION: In small unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms (excluding anterior communicating artery aneurysms) matched for technical complexity confounders, SAC and PED offer an overall equivalent economic cost profile. Postprocedural noninvasive imaging was more frequent in the SAC group. However, follow-up costs and total costs were not significantly different.

© Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2021.

Keywords: Cost comparison; Intracranial aneurysms; Pipeline embolization; Stent-assisted coiling

Publication Types