Published in

Oxford University Press, Neurosurgery, Supplement_1(70), p. 159-160, 2024

DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002809_696

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

696 Optimal Management Strategy for Carotid Cavernous Aneurysm From Cost-effectiveness Perspective

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Most cavernous carotid aneurysms (CCAs) are asymptomatic benign lesions; therefore, they are frequently detected during routine clinical diagnostic processes. Most providers recommend routine surveillance instead of immediate management for CCAs given a natural history with a low risk of life-threatening complications. However, the cost-effectiveness of such care and the optimal follow-up interval remains unknown. METHODS: A decision analysis study was performed utilizing a Markov model with Monte Carlo simulations to simulate patients undergoing treatment or routine surveillance at different time intervals (half, 1-,2-,3-, 5-and 7-year intervals) for different size of CCAs (=<12 mm, 13- 24 mm, >=25 mm ). Input data for the model was extracted from the current literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the Model. RESULTS: On base case analysis, following-up every 2 years with noninvasive imaging is the most cost-effective strategy for CCAs =< 12 mm, while annual follow up is cost-effective for large/giant (13-24 mm, >=25 mm) CCAs. The conclusions remain robust in probabilistic sensitivity and deterministic sensitivity analyses. As the risk of thrombo-embolic event gets higher and annual growth risk and annual rupture risk of CCAs increases, immediate treatment for large/giant (13- 24 mm, >=25 mm ) CCAs and annual follow up even prompt treatment for CCAs =< 12 mm is optimal. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective management strategy for CCAs=< 12 mm and large/giant CCAs are following up every 2 years and following up every year, respectively. More frequent follow-up strategies or prompt preventive treatment for CCAs =< 12 mm and immediate treatment for large/giant CCAs would be more appropriate in patients with higher risk factors for cerebral ischemia, aneurysm growth and aneurysm rupture.