IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v18y1998i2p187-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision and Cost-Utility Analyses of Surgical versus Transcatheter Closure of Patent Ductus Arteriosus

Author

Listed:
  • Darryl T. Gray
  • Milton C. Weinstein

Abstract

Decision and cost-utility analyses considered the tradeoffs of treating patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) using conventional surgery versus transcatheter implantation of the Rashkind occluder. Physicians and informed lay parents assigned utility scores to procedure success/complications combinations seen in prognostically similar pediatric patients with isolated PDA treated from 1982 to 1987. Utility scores multiplied by outcome frequencies from a comparative study generated expected utility values for the two approaches. Cost-utility analyses combined these results with simulated provider cost estimates from 1989. On a 0-100 scale (worst to best observed outcome), the median expected utility for surgery was 99.96, versus 98.88 for the occluder. Results of most sensitivity analyses also slightly favored surgery. Expected utility differences based on 1987 data were minimal. With a mean overall simulated cost of $8,838 vs $12,466 for the occluder, surgery was favored in most cost-utility analyses. Use of the inherently less invasive but less successful, more risky, and more costly occluder approach conferred no apparent net advantage in this study. Analyses of comparable current data would be informative.

Suggested Citation

  • Darryl T. Gray & Milton C. Weinstein, 1998. "Decision and Cost-Utility Analyses of Surgical versus Transcatheter Closure of Patent Ductus Arteriosus," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2), pages 187-201.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:2:p:187-201
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9801800208
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9801800208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:2:p:187-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.