Endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review of economic evaluations
Bock LA, Noben CY, van Mook WN, de Ridder IR, van Zwam WH, Schenck HE, Haeren RH, Essers BA
Journal of neurosurgical sciences. 2022
INTRODUCTION There are two treatment modalities for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping. Results of economic evaluations are needed to gain insight into the relationship between clinical effectiveness and costs of these treatment modalities. This important information can inform both clinical decision-making processes and policymakers in facilitating Value-Based Healthcare. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EBSCO, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published until October 2020 that had performed economic evaluations in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients by comparing endovascular treatment with neurosurgical clipping. The quality of reporting and methodology of these evaluations was assessed using the associated instruments (i.e. CHEERS statement and CHEC-list, respectively). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of six studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies reported both effects and costs, however five did not relate effects to costs. Only one study related effects directly to costs, thus conducted a full economic evaluation. The reporting quality scored 81% and the methodological quality scored 30%. CONCLUSIONS The quality of published cost-effectiveness studies on the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is poor. Six studies reported both outcomes and costs, however only one study performed a full economic evaluation comparing endovascular treatment to neurosurgical clipping. Although the reporting quality was sufficient, the methodological quality was poor. Further research that relates health-related quality of life measures to costs of endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping is required-specifically focusing on both reporting and methodological quality. Different subgroup analyses and modeling could also enhance the findings.