Publication: Cost-utility analysis of great saphenous vein ablation with radiofrequency, foam and surgery in the emerging health-care setting of Thailand
Issued Date
2016-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14333031
02683555
02683555
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84983059067
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Phlebology. Vol.31, No.8 (2016), 573-581
Suggested Citation
Boonying Siribumrungwong, Pinit Noorit, Chumpon Wilasrusmee, Pattara Leelahavarong, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Yot Teerawattananon Cost-utility analysis of great saphenous vein ablation with radiofrequency, foam and surgery in the emerging health-care setting of Thailand. Phlebology. Vol.31, No.8 (2016), 573-581. doi:10.1177/0268355515604258 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/41205
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Cost-utility analysis of great saphenous vein ablation with radiofrequency, foam and surgery in the emerging health-care setting of Thailand
Abstract
© 2015, © The Author(s) 2015. Objectives: To conduct economic evaluations of radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and surgery for great saphenous vein ablation. Method: A cost-utility and cohort analysis from societal perspective was performed to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Transitional probabilities were from meta-analysis. Direct medical, direct non-medical, indirect costs, and utility were from standard Thai costings and cohort. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameter uncertainties. Results: Seventy-seven patients (31 radiofrequency ablation, 19 ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, and 27 surgeries) were enrolled from October 2011 to February 2013. Compared with surgery, radiofrequency ablation costed 12,935 and 20,872 Baht higher, whereas ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy costed 6159 lower and 1558 Bath higher for outpatient and inpatient, respectively. At one year, radiofrequency ablation had slightly lower quality-adjusted life-year, whereas ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy yielded additional 0.025 quality-adjusted life-year gained. Because of costing lower and greater quality-adjusted life-year than other compared alternatives, outpatient ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy was an option being dominant. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted that at the Thai ceiling threshold of 160,000 Baht/quality-adjusted life-year gained, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy had chances of 0.71 to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy seems to be cost-effective for treating great saphenous vein reflux compared to surgery in Thailand at one-year results.