ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Cost-effectiveness of endovascular versus open surgery for chronic limb-threatening ischemia.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia (CLTI) may be performed with an endovascular (Endo) or open surgical (Bypass) approach. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Endo versus Bypass surgery for CLTI using data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. Methods: We developed an individual-level continuous time Markov model that included health states representing the occurrence of adjudicated clinical events from BEST-CLI. Rates of clinical outcomes and health utilities were derived directly from trial data. Costs came from Medicare insurance claims data and physician fee schedule. We calculated the incremental cost per life years gained, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) and cost per major events of amputation, revascularization, and myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke avoided over a 5- and 10-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. Results: In base case analyses conducted over a 5-year time horizon, the mean per person direct medical costs were $227,341 (95% Credible Interval [CrI]: $173,075, $291,443) for Bypass and $243,614 (95% CrI: $190,112, $305,605) for Endo. The mean survival per person was 3.91 years (95% CrI: 3.78, 4.03) for Bypass and 3.88 years (95% CrI: 3.68, 4.06) for Endo. This resulted in Endo being dominated by Bypass surgery with respect to costs per life year gained. The mean QALYs per person were 2.48 (95% CrI: 1.11, 3.49) for Bypass and 2.54 (95% CrI: 1.39, 3.40) for Endo, resulting in an incremental costs per QALY gained of $263,973/QALY and an INMB of -$10,109 (95% CrI: -$168,908, $157,433) at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold for Endo vs. Bypass. The results over 10 years were consistent with those of the 5-year follow-up. In the Monte Carlo simulation, there was only a 55% chance that Bypass was more cost-effective than Endo. Conclusion: In the base case analysis, Bypass was the preferred strategy with respect to survival and QALYs, at conventional willingness to pay thresholds. There was substantial uncertainty around these estimates in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, justifying future research to identify subgroups for whom each of these approaches may definitively be cost-effective.
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.