We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Total Hospital Costs and Length of Stay of Endovascular Coiling Versus Neurosurgical Clipping for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
World Neurosurgery 2018 July
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of feasibility and safety between endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has been incrementally reported. However, economic comparison has been rarely reported. This meta-analysis aims at qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the difference of hospital costs and length of stay between endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment in UIA.
METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, EMBASE, and Web of Science database were searched for cohort studies describing economic hospital cost or length of stay in patients with UIA. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and rated quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Ravmen 5.2 was used to perform forest plot analysis.
RESULTS: Nine studies describing 24,856 UIAs treated with neurosurgical clipping and 31,309 UIAs treated with endovascular coiling were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the total hospital costs (THCs) were similar between coiling and clipping in UIA patients (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.33, 95% confidence interval: -0.68 to 0.02, I2 = 99%, P = 0.07). Subgroup analysis showed that THCs of coiling were significantly lower than clipping in the United States but opposite in South Korea. One-year medical costs of coiling were similar in both groups (SMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.00, I2 = 0%, P = 0.07). In addition, the length of stay of coiling were significantly shorter than that of clipping (SMD: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81, I2 = 95%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Generally, no significant difference in THCs and 1-year medical costs between coiling versus clipping in UIAs was observed. However, the length of stay of endovascular coiling was much shorter than neurosurgical clipping and decreased over time.
METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, EMBASE, and Web of Science database were searched for cohort studies describing economic hospital cost or length of stay in patients with UIA. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and rated quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Ravmen 5.2 was used to perform forest plot analysis.
RESULTS: Nine studies describing 24,856 UIAs treated with neurosurgical clipping and 31,309 UIAs treated with endovascular coiling were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the total hospital costs (THCs) were similar between coiling and clipping in UIA patients (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.33, 95% confidence interval: -0.68 to 0.02, I2 = 99%, P = 0.07). Subgroup analysis showed that THCs of coiling were significantly lower than clipping in the United States but opposite in South Korea. One-year medical costs of coiling were similar in both groups (SMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.00, I2 = 0%, P = 0.07). In addition, the length of stay of coiling were significantly shorter than that of clipping (SMD: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81, I2 = 95%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Generally, no significant difference in THCs and 1-year medical costs between coiling versus clipping in UIAs was observed. However, the length of stay of endovascular coiling was much shorter than neurosurgical clipping and decreased over time.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Combination therapy for kidney disease in people with diabetes mellitus.Nature Reviews. Nephrology 2024 April 4
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app