Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 154–160 | Cite as

Cost analysis of procedures related to the management of renal artery stenosis from various perspectives

  • Debby van Helvoort-PostulartEmail author
  • Carmen D. Dirksen
  • Abraham A. Kroon
  • Patricia J. Nelemans
  • Peter W. de Leeuw
  • Alfons G. H. Kessels
  • Jos M. A. van Engelshoven
  • M. G. Myriam Hunink
Health Economy

Abstract

To determine the costs associated with the diagnostic work-up and percutaneous revascularization of renal artery stenosis from various perspectives. A prospective multicenter comparative study was conducted between 1998 and 2001. A total of 402 hypertensive patients with suspected renal artery stenosis were included. Costs were assessed of computed tomography angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), digital subtraction angiography (DSA), and percutaneous revascularization. From the societal perspective, DSA was the most costly (€1,721) and CTA the least costly diagnostic technique (€424). CTA was the least costly imaging procedure irrespective of the perspective used. The societal costs associated with percutaneous renal artery revascularization ranged from €2,680 to €6,172. Overall the radiology department incurred the largest proportion of the total societal costs. For the management of renal artery stenosis, performing the analysis from different perspectives leads to the same conclusion concerning the least costly diagnostic imaging and revascularization procedure.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance Computed tomography Digital subtraction angiography Cost effectiveness Renal arteries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (grant number OG 97–003).

References

  1. 1.
    Kidney DD, Deutsch L (1996) The indications and results of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting in renal artery stenosis. Semin Vasc Surg 9:188–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hessel SJ, Adams DF, Abrams HL (1981) Complications of angiography. Radiology 138:273–281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waugh JR, Sacharias N (1992) Arteriographic complications in the DSA era. Radiology 182:243–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young N, Chi KK, Ajaka J, McKay L, O’Neill D, Wong KP (2002) Complications with outpatient angiography and interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 25:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rudnick MR, Berns JS, Cohen RM, Goldfarb S (1994) Nephrotoxic risks of renal angiography: contrast media-associated nephrotoxicity and atheroembolism-a critical review. Am J Kidney Dis 24:713–727PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW (2001) Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. Am J Roentgenol 176:1385–1388Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) (2005) In which patients should serum creatinine be measured before iodinated contrast medium administration? Eur Radiol 15:749–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vasbinder GBC, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AGH, for the Renal Artery Diagnostic Imaging Study in Hypertension (RADISH) Study Group (2004) Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med 141:674–682PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Working Group on Renovascular Hypertension (1987) Detection, evaluation, and treatment of renovascular hypertension. Final report. Arch Intern Med 147:820–829Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH (2000) Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: methoden en richtlijnprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. College voor zorgverzekeringen, AmstelveenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM (1992) Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 34:1005–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FH, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L (1995) The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 14:171–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FH (1996) A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 10:460–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin LG, Rees CR, O’Bryant T (1994) Percutaneous angioplasty of the renal arteries. In: Strandness DE, van Breda A (eds) Vascular diseases: surgical and interventional therapy, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 721–741Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawrence V, Matthai W, Hartmaier S (1992) Comparative safety of high-osmolality and low-osmolality radiographic contrast agents. Invest Radiol 27:2–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leertouwer TC, Gussenhoven EJ, Bosch JL et al (2000) Stent placement for renal arterial stenosis: where do we stand? A meta-analysis. Radiology 216:78–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radermacher J, Brunkhorst R (1998) Diagnosis and treatment of renovascular stenosis-a cost-benefit analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 13:2761–2767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawrence WF, Grist TM, Brazy PC, Fryback DG (1995) Magnetic resonance agiography in progressive renal failure: a technology assessment. Am J Kidney Dis 25:701–709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blaufox MD, Middleton ML, Bongiovanni J, Davis BR (1996) Cost efficacy of the diagnosis and therapy of renovascular hypertension. J Nucl Med 37:171–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nelemans PJ, Kessels AGH, de Leeuw P, de Haan M, van Engelshoven J (1998) The cost-effectiveness of the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Eur J Radiol 27:95–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xue F, Bettmann MA, Langdon DR, Wivell WA (1999) Outcome and cost comparison of percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty, renal arterial stent placement, and renal arterial bypass grafting. Radiology 212:378–384PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debby van Helvoort-Postulart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carmen D. Dirksen
    • 1
  • Abraham A. Kroon
    • 2
    • 4
  • Patricia J. Nelemans
    • 3
  • Peter W. de Leeuw
    • 2
    • 4
  • Alfons G. H. Kessels
    • 1
  • Jos M. A. van Engelshoven
    • 4
    • 5
  • M. G. Myriam Hunink
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology AssessmentUniversity HospitalMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity Hospital MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Cardiovascular Research InstituteMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and RadiologyErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of Health Policy and ManagementHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations