A cost–utility analysis of decompressive hemicraniectomy versus medical treatment in the management of space‐occupying brain oedema post middle cerebral artery infarction. (15th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bhattacharyya, A.; Tahir, A.; Chandrashekar, A.; Vasisht, S.; Stinson, L.; Omatseye, J.
• Is Part Of: European journal of neurology. Volume 26:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 313
• Page End: e19
• Publication Date: 2018-11-15
• Subjects: hemicraniectomy -- middle cerebral artery infarction -- cost–utility analysis; Neurology -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1111/ene.13814
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1351-5101

Abstract

Abstract : Background and purpose: Data from randomly controlled trials have indicated that a decompressive hemicraniectomy is more clinically effective than medical treatment in the management of space‐occupying brain oedema post middle cerebral artery infarction. This economic evaluation compares the impact of the two options in the UK. No recent study has conducted an economic evaluation on this topic for the UK. Method: A cost–utility analysis over a time period of 1 year was used, measuring benefits in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in pound sterling, discounted to 2015 prices. The evaluation was from the perspective of the National Health Service, the largest healthcare provider in the UK. Results: The cost–utility analysis found an incremental cost effectiveness of £116 595.10 for every QALY gained if patients were offered a decompressive hemicraniectomy compared to the best medical treatment. Discussion: This is above the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'cost‐effective' threshold of £20 000–£30 000 per QALY, but lower mortality rates associated with the surgical alternative raises ethical considerations for healthcare providers in the UK.