OP410 Real-World Benefit Of Endovascular Repair Of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms - Comparison Of GORE® Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment And National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2018 Guidance. (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: O'Neill, Frank; Baidoo, Bismark; Waltham, Matthew
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 36(2020)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 8
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320001087
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is routinely used for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). In 2018, draft guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) suggested EVAR was not cost-effective compared to open surgical repair. The analysis was driven by clinical inputs from randomized control trials which may not reflect current clinical practice. Data from registries may inform more robust economic modelling. The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) was initiated to collect contemporary real-world data on the performance of GORE® aortic endografts and includes long-term data on survival, re-interventions and resource use. This study compares the real-world values for mortality and resource use following elective EVAR as collected by GREAT with the 2018 NICE AAA draft guidance. Methods: A total of 1, 348 patients (88.7% men; mean age 73.1 years) undergoing elective AAA repair with the GORE® EXCLUDER device. Mortality, re-intervention and resource use was compared with the economic inputs for 2018 NICE draft guidance cost-utility analysis. Results: All patients survived EVAR compared to the 0.4 percent mortality indicated in the NICE analysis. All-cause mortality was lower through 1, 3 and 5 years with values of 6.9, 14.8 and 16.2 percent respectively compared to the NICE base case. The average length of stay was 3.7 days in GREAT compared to 8.34 days in the NICE analysis. Short- and long-term re-interventions were also lower with real-world data (3.6% versus 7.3% and 5.5% versus 8.3%). Conclusions: GREAT provides conflicting data on survival and resource use associated with EVAR compared to inputs of the 2018 NICE draft guidance These differences are likely to significantly alter incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Robust cost-effectiveness modelling in health technology assessments should consider contemporary data, as it is likely more reflective of current clinical practice and more informative for clinical and economic decision making for AAA.