PURPOSE: @entity14183 ( @entity14183 ) is a less-invasive method for the treatment of @entity1028 ( @entity1028 ) as compared with open surgical repair (OSR). The potential benefits of @entity14183 include increased @entity1 acceptance, less resource utilization, and cost savings. This study was designed to determine whether the @entity14183 of @entity1028 is a cost-effective alternative to OSR. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov decision analysis model to compute long-term survival rates in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of @entity1 who underwent either OSR or @entity14183 . Probability estimates of the different outcomes of the two alternative strategies were made on the basis of a review of the literature. The average costs of (1) the immediate hospitalization ( 16,016 for OSR,  20,083 for @entity14183 ), (2) the complications that resulted from each procedure, (3) the subsequent interventions, and (4) the surveillance protocol were determined on the basis of average resource utilization as reported in the literature and from our hospital's cost accounting system. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For our base-case analysis (70-year-old @entity1 with 5-cm @entity1028 ), @entity14183 was cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of  22,826-society usually is willing to pay for interventions with cost-effectiveness ratios of less than  60,000 (eg, cost-effectiveness ratios for coronary artery bypass grafting and dialysis are  9500 and  54,400, respectively). This conclusion did not vary significantly with increases in procedural costs for @entity14183 (ie, if the cost of the endograft increased from  8000 to  12,000, @entity14183 remained cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of  32,881). The cost-effectiveness of @entity14183 was critically dependent on @entity14183 producing a large reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate ( @entity64 , dialysis-dependent @entity177 , major amputation, @entity583 ) as compared with OSR (ie, a reduction in the combined mortality and long-term morbidity rate of OSR from 9.1% to 4.7% made @entity14183 no longer cost-effective). CONCLUSION: Despite the high cost of new technology and the need for close postoperative surveillance, @entity14183 is a cost-effective alternative for the repair of @entity1028 . However, the cost-effectiveness of this new technology is critically dependent on its potential to reduce morbidity and mortality rates as compared with OSR. @entity14183 may not be cost-effective in medical centers where OSR can be performed with low risk.

The cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair versus open surgical repair of XXXX : A decision analysis model.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient', 'men'] @entity64 :: ('MESH:D020521', 'Disease') :: ['stroke'] @entity177 :: ('MESH:D051437', 'Disease') :: ['renal failure'] @entity14183 :: ('MESH:D049914', 'Disease') :: ['Endovascular repair', 'EVR'] @entity583 :: ('MESH:D009203', 'Disease') :: ['myocardial infarction'] @entity1028 :: ('MESH:D017544', 'Disease') :: ['abdominal aortic aneurysms', 'AAAs']
@entity1028 :: (MESH:D017544,Disease) :: ['abdominal aortic aneurysms']
