Intravascular brachytherapy for peripheral vascular disease.

GMS health technology assessment Pub Date : 2008-09-03
Vitali Gorenoi, Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, Matthias P Schönermark, Anja Hagen
{"title":"Intravascular brachytherapy for peripheral vascular disease.","authors":"Vitali Gorenoi,&nbsp;Charalabos-Markos Dintsios,&nbsp;Matthias P Schönermark,&nbsp;Anja Hagen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Scientific background: </strong>Percutaneous transluminal angioplasties (PTA) through balloon dilatation with or without stenting, i.e. vessel expansion through balloons with or without of implantation of small tubes, called stents, are used in the treatment of peripheral artery occlusive disease (PAOD). The intravascular vessel irradiation, called intravascular brachytherapy, promises a reduction in the rate of repeated stenosis (rate of restenosis) after PTA.</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>The evaluation addresses questions on medical efficacy, cost-effectiveness as well as ethic, social and legal implications in the use of brachytherapy in PAOD patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2007 in the most important medical electronic databases for publications beginning from 2002. The medical evaluation included randomized controlled trials (RCT). The information synthesis was performed using meta-analysis. Health economic modeling was performed with clinical assumptions derived from the meta-analysis and economical assumptions derived from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (G-DRG-2007).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MEDICAL EVALUATION : Twelve publications about seven RCT on brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy were included in the medical evaluation. Two RCT showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six and/or twelve months for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after successful balloon dilatation, the relative risk in the meta-analysis was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46 to 0.84). At five years, time to recurrence of restenosis was significantly delayed after brachytherapy. One RCT showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six months for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after PTA with optional stenting, the relative risk in the meta-analysis was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.95). One RCT observed a significantly higher rate of late thrombotic occlusions after brachytherapy in the subgroup of stented patients. A single RCT for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after stenting did not show significant results for the rate of restenosis at six months. Both, early and late thrombotic occlusions appeared more frequently in the brachytherapy group. HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION : Additional costs of brachytherapy were estimated to be 1,655 or 1,767 Euro according to the used G-DRG. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per avoided restenosis was calculated to be 8,484 Euro or 9,058 Euro for brachytherapy use after successful balloon dilatation, 19,027 Euro or 20,314 Euro for brachytherapy after PTA with optional stenting and -39,646 Euro or -48,330 Euro for brachytherapy after stenting.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Partially poor performing and reporting quality of the RCT exacerbate the interpretation and the transferability of the study results. The used methodical approach enables the highest evidence level for the determined results and presents a good approximation of the current brachytherapy related costs for the German health care system.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Brachytherapy after successful balloon dilatation in PAOD can be recommended from a medical point of view for the reduction of the rate of restenosis at one year. However from a health economic view the answer is not yet clear. Based on the current data the use of brachytherapy after stenting in PAOD cannot be recommended neither from a medical nor from a health economic point of view. The informed consent of the patients is an important ethical aspect in the use of brachytherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":89142,"journal":{"name":"GMS health technology assessment","volume":"4 ","pages":"Doc08"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/35/c6/HTA-04-08.PMC3011304.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientific background: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasties (PTA) through balloon dilatation with or without stenting, i.e. vessel expansion through balloons with or without of implantation of small tubes, called stents, are used in the treatment of peripheral artery occlusive disease (PAOD). The intravascular vessel irradiation, called intravascular brachytherapy, promises a reduction in the rate of repeated stenosis (rate of restenosis) after PTA.

Research questions: The evaluation addresses questions on medical efficacy, cost-effectiveness as well as ethic, social and legal implications in the use of brachytherapy in PAOD patients.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2007 in the most important medical electronic databases for publications beginning from 2002. The medical evaluation included randomized controlled trials (RCT). The information synthesis was performed using meta-analysis. Health economic modeling was performed with clinical assumptions derived from the meta-analysis and economical assumptions derived from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (G-DRG-2007).

Results: MEDICAL EVALUATION : Twelve publications about seven RCT on brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy were included in the medical evaluation. Two RCT showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six and/or twelve months for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after successful balloon dilatation, the relative risk in the meta-analysis was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46 to 0.84). At five years, time to recurrence of restenosis was significantly delayed after brachytherapy. One RCT showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six months for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after PTA with optional stenting, the relative risk in the meta-analysis was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.95). One RCT observed a significantly higher rate of late thrombotic occlusions after brachytherapy in the subgroup of stented patients. A single RCT for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after stenting did not show significant results for the rate of restenosis at six months. Both, early and late thrombotic occlusions appeared more frequently in the brachytherapy group. HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION : Additional costs of brachytherapy were estimated to be 1,655 or 1,767 Euro according to the used G-DRG. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per avoided restenosis was calculated to be 8,484 Euro or 9,058 Euro for brachytherapy use after successful balloon dilatation, 19,027 Euro or 20,314 Euro for brachytherapy after PTA with optional stenting and -39,646 Euro or -48,330 Euro for brachytherapy after stenting.

Discussion: Partially poor performing and reporting quality of the RCT exacerbate the interpretation and the transferability of the study results. The used methodical approach enables the highest evidence level for the determined results and presents a good approximation of the current brachytherapy related costs for the German health care system.

Conclusions: Brachytherapy after successful balloon dilatation in PAOD can be recommended from a medical point of view for the reduction of the rate of restenosis at one year. However from a health economic view the answer is not yet clear. Based on the current data the use of brachytherapy after stenting in PAOD cannot be recommended neither from a medical nor from a health economic point of view. The informed consent of the patients is an important ethical aspect in the use of brachytherapy.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
血管内近距离放射治疗周围血管疾病。
科学背景:经皮腔内血管成形术(PTA)通过球囊扩张,有或没有支架植入,即通过球囊扩张血管,有或没有植入小管,称为支架,用于治疗外周动脉闭塞性疾病(pad)。血管内照射,称为血管内近距离放射治疗,有望减少PTA后的重复狭窄率(再狭窄率)。研究问题:该评估涉及在pad患者中使用近距离放射治疗的医疗功效、成本效益以及伦理、社会和法律影响等问题。方法:于2007年8月系统检索2002年以来最重要的医学电子数据库发表的文献。医学评价包括随机对照试验(RCT)。采用meta分析进行信息综合。健康经济建模采用来自荟萃分析的临床假设和来自德国诊断相关组(G-DRG-2007)的经济假设。结果:医学评价:医学评价纳入了12篇关于近距离治疗与非近距离治疗的7项随机对照试验。两项随机对照试验显示,在球囊扩张成功后,进行近距离治疗与未进行近距离治疗相比,在6个月和/或12个月时再狭窄率显著降低,meta分析中的相对风险为0.62 (95% CI: 0.46至0.84)。近距离治疗后5年再狭窄复发时间明显延迟。一项随机对照试验显示,PTA术后近距离治疗与非近距离治疗6个月再狭窄发生率显著降低,荟萃分析的相对风险为0.76 (95% CI: 0.61至0.95)。一项随机对照试验观察到,在支架患者亚组中,近距离放疗后晚期血栓性闭塞的发生率明显较高。一项关于支架置入术后近距离治疗与不近距离治疗的随机对照试验没有显示出6个月时再狭窄率的显著结果。在近距离治疗组中,早期和晚期血栓性闭塞出现的频率更高。健康经济评价:根据使用的G-DRG,近距离放射治疗的额外费用估计为1,655或1,767欧元。经计算,成功球囊扩张后使用近距离治疗每避免再狭窄的增量成本效益比为8,484欧元或9,058欧元,PTA后使用可选支架置入近距离治疗为19,027欧元或20,314欧元,支架置入后使用近距离治疗为-39,646欧元或-48,330欧元。讨论:部分较差的RCT表现和报告质量加剧了研究结果的解释和可转移性。所使用的系统方法为确定的结果提供了最高的证据水平,并提供了德国卫生保健系统当前近距离治疗相关费用的良好近似。结论:从医学角度来看,可以推荐在pad球囊扩张成功后进行近距离放疗,以减少一年后再狭窄的发生率。然而,从健康经济的角度来看,答案尚不清楚。根据目前的数据,无论是从医学还是从健康经济的角度来看,都不能推荐在pad支架置入后使用近距离放疗。患者的知情同意是近距离放射治疗中一个重要的伦理问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Variability in the prescription of drugs with uncertain effectiveness. The case of SYSADOA in the Basque Country. Q-SEA - a tool for quality assessment of ethics analyses conducted as part of health technology assessments. Effects of continuous and intermittent renal replacement therapies among adult patients with acute kidney injury. Telemedicine: The legal framework (or the lack of it) in Europe. Complex health care interventions: Characteristics relevant for ethical analysis in health technology assessment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1