Up to 3–7%


of the general population have intracranial


aneurysms and aren’t aware of them unless they get a CTA of the head. Sometimes they’re


completely asymptomatic and the aneurysms are often small (2–3 mm).


is important when it comes to making treatment decisions for patients who have multiple treatment options available—which is common, given that we have so many advances in the field of IR that are effective alternates or improvements on surgical procedures. Cost-effectiveness encapsulates all the possibilities to provide an overall assessment of what is the optimal treatment for these patients.


The benefits It can be very difficult to do head- to-head comparisons for some treatments. Randomized controlled trials are very expensive, and some diseases might be rare enough that it’s hard to gather enough patients. In addition, there may be ethical challenges in doing true randomized controlled trials if you know one strategy may be better than another. Cost-effectiveness modeling enables you to simulate a large cohort of patients—even multiple parallel cohorts of patients—going through the different pathways and determining their cost and outcome. I think that’s powerful.


This model cannot replace a randomized controlled trial or large, prospective study, but when gold-standard research is inaccessible, we can consider cost-effectiveness or modeling as a supplement to the topic.


Personalizing the analysis In general, when a cost-effectiveness analysis is published, it has an overarching conclusion. But I don’t think one should just look at the conclusion. Most papers also include sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity and deterministic.


Probabilistic sensitivity analysis basically tells you how confident the model or the authors are about this conclusion and how robust it is against all the input variables. If the range is small, we can


To learn more about the PAE study and application of this cost-effectiveness model, read the JVIR article, “Prostatic artery embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A cost-effectiveness analysis.”


26 IRQ | SUMMER 2023


feel confident that strategy A has a high likelihood of being the better strategy for most patients.


Then one should look at the deterministic sensitivity analysis, where we vary one variable across a wide range to see how it affects the conclusion. This is usually a key variable that can be very patient-, practice- or experience-dependent from the physician. Using this information, IRs can look at their own practice and see, in their experience, where their patients land and what the approximate value of that key variable is. This enables IRs to utilize their own demographics and see how they trend, and then determine the value of a strategy in their own practice.


Recent application We recently used the cost-effectiveness analysis model on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and published our studies in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. We compared prostate artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). TURP has long been regarded as the gold standard for benign prostate hyperplasia, but it is a surgery and there are risks. Meanwhile, PAE is an up-and-coming treatment that offers a minimally invasive option.


We compared the two strategies for treatment of BPH that does not respond adequately to medication alone and concluded that PAE is more cost-effective for this patient. Not only is it more cost-effective, but it achieved better effectiveness at a lower cost. We call this the dominant strategy, because it provides patients with better outcomes while saving money in the healthcare system. We then varied all variables for PAE, and even with extreme variable values that were outside the reality of a clinical setting, PAE was still more cost-effective.


This kind of analysis and data can be very important, both for creating a treatment plan, but also for showing the value of various procedures to patients and administrations.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40