ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the covered endovascular reconstruction of the aortic bifurcation versus kissing stents and open surgical repair for the treatment of aorto-iliac occlusive disease.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of the Covered Endovascular Reconstruction of the Aortic Bifurcation (CERAB) versus kissing stents (KS) and open surgical repair (OSR) for treating extensive aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD).
methodsA decision tree followed by a health state transition model was developed to simulate changes in Rutherford status and the occurrence of reinterventions, amputation, and death. A Dutch health care perspective and a five-year time horizon were used. Model inputs were estimated using non-randomised data of individuals who underwent a CERAB or a KS procedure and literature. The total number of reinterventions, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health care costs per strategy were calculated as well as the incremental costs and QALYs between strategies, and corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsOSR resulted in the lowest survival due to a higher peri-operative probability of death. OSR resulted in a lower probability of reinterventions (6%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1-15%) than CERAB (17%, 95%CI: 11-27%) and KS (29%, 95%CI: 17-46%). CERAB dominated OSR since it led to 0.032 (95%CI: -0.038-0.082) incremental QALYs and €-11,466 (95%CI: €-18,934-€-3,415) incremental costs versus OSR. CERAB led to 0.048 (95%CI: 0.011-0.109) incremental QALYs, €5,324 (95%CI: €2,938-€10,397) incremental costs, and an ICER of €110,201 per QALY versus KS.
conclusionsCERAB dominated OSR and resulted in the highest health benefits and costs but does not seem to be cost effective versus KS for treating AIOD. Performing a randomised comparison of these treatment modalities is essential to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.