Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:24:47.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness Study of the Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotriptor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Evi E. Hatziandreu ,
Karen Carlson ,
Albert G. Mulley Jr  and
Milton C. Weinstein
Evi E. Hatziandreu
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Karen Carlson
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital
Albert G. Mulley Jr
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine the relative efficacy and costs of percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy (PUL), extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and surgery for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. We developed a Markov model with 35 states, cycles of 3 months, and a time frame of 5 years. Probability estimates were derived from a meta-analysis of the published literature. For stones less than or equal to 2 cm, ESWL is preferred to PUL, since it prevents 2 additional days of morbidity and saves $440. For larger stones, PUL is preferable to ESWL, avoiding 4 more days of morbidity, and saving $722. Both ESWL and PUL were superior to surgery. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results are sensitive to ESWL efficacy rates, the stone recurrence rate, and the hospital component of the ESWL cost. Our analysis suggests that although ESWL is preferable, relatively small changes in the efficacy and cost can shift the preferred strategy; in addition, these findings underscore the need for more reliable data.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 623 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alken, P.Percutaneous ultrasonic destruction of renal calculi. Urology Clinics of North America, 1982, 9, 145–51.Google Scholar
Beck, J. R. & Pauker, S. G.The Markov process in medical prognosis. Medical Decision Making, 1983, 3, 419–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaussy, C. et al. First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Urology, 1982, 127, 417–19.Google Scholar
Labelle, R. J., Churchill, D. N., Martins, S. et al. Economic evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, and standard surgical treatment of urolithiasis – a Canadian perspective. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 1987, 10, 2, 86–95.Google Scholar
Lingeman, J. E., Saywell, R. M. Jr, Woods, J. R. et al. Cost analysis of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy relative to other surgical and nonsurgical treatment alternatives for urolithiasis. Medical Care, 1986, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute, Inc.Report on extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy operating and capital costs, Medicare payments and utilization rates, phase II. Washington, DC: Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute, Inc., 03 1987.Google Scholar
Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute, Inc.Percutaneous lithotripsy operating costs, Medicare payments and utilization rates. Washington, DC: Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute, Inc., 04 1987.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health. Consensus development conference statement on the prevention and treatment of kidney stones, March 28–30, 1988. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 1988.Google Scholar
Williams, C. M., Kaude, J. V., Newman, R. C. et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: Long-term complications. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1988, 150, 311–15.Google Scholar