Blunt thoracic aortic trauma: A cost-utility approach for injury detection

Karen Brasel, John A. Weigelt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the influences of patient preference and treatment costs on the diagnostic approach to blunt aortic trauma. Methods: Decision and cost-utility analysis. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search of all literature dealing with the diagnosis and management of blunt aortic injury was used to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Utility assignments were made from published data and our own assignments. We obtained institution-specific cost data. Study Selection: Only randomized, prospective trials that used aortography as the gold standard test were used to assign baseline accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography. Other baseline estimates were taken from class II and class III published data. Data Synthesis: A decision tree compared 4 diagnostic approaches for blunt chest trauma after an initial normal chest radiograph: observation with follow-up chest radiography, aortography, transesophageal echocardiography, and dynamic chest computed tomography. Utility (a quality-of-life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. Chest radiography and aortography had similar utility. Aortography gained 1 quality-adjusted life year for minimal cost. Transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography lose quality-adjusted life-years at increased cost. No variable changed the relative cost-utility of the screening methods in 2-way sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Aortography gains additional quality life at minimal cost when used as a screening method for all patients with blunt chest trauma regardless of the results of the initial chest radiograph. With a normal initial chest radiograph, transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography are associated with increased cost and loss of quality- adjusted life.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)619-626
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume131
Issue number6
StatePublished - 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Thorax
Costs and Cost Analysis
Aortography
Wounds and Injuries
Transesophageal Echocardiography
Tomography
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Patient Preference
Quality of Life
Radiography
Decision Trees
Nonpenetrating Wounds
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Health Care Costs
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Observation
Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Blunt thoracic aortic trauma : A cost-utility approach for injury detection. / Brasel, Karen; Weigelt, John A.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 131, No. 6, 1996, p. 619-626.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8e0ed11231b54b19be3ae33226665d87,
title = "Blunt thoracic aortic trauma: A cost-utility approach for injury detection",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the influences of patient preference and treatment costs on the diagnostic approach to blunt aortic trauma. Methods: Decision and cost-utility analysis. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search of all literature dealing with the diagnosis and management of blunt aortic injury was used to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Utility assignments were made from published data and our own assignments. We obtained institution-specific cost data. Study Selection: Only randomized, prospective trials that used aortography as the gold standard test were used to assign baseline accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography. Other baseline estimates were taken from class II and class III published data. Data Synthesis: A decision tree compared 4 diagnostic approaches for blunt chest trauma after an initial normal chest radiograph: observation with follow-up chest radiography, aortography, transesophageal echocardiography, and dynamic chest computed tomography. Utility (a quality-of-life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. Chest radiography and aortography had similar utility. Aortography gained 1 quality-adjusted life year for minimal cost. Transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography lose quality-adjusted life-years at increased cost. No variable changed the relative cost-utility of the screening methods in 2-way sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Aortography gains additional quality life at minimal cost when used as a screening method for all patients with blunt chest trauma regardless of the results of the initial chest radiograph. With a normal initial chest radiograph, transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography are associated with increased cost and loss of quality- adjusted life.",
author = "Karen Brasel and Weigelt, {John A.}",
year = "1996",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "131",
pages = "619--626",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Blunt thoracic aortic trauma

T2 - A cost-utility approach for injury detection

AU - Brasel, Karen

AU - Weigelt, John A.

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the influences of patient preference and treatment costs on the diagnostic approach to blunt aortic trauma. Methods: Decision and cost-utility analysis. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search of all literature dealing with the diagnosis and management of blunt aortic injury was used to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Utility assignments were made from published data and our own assignments. We obtained institution-specific cost data. Study Selection: Only randomized, prospective trials that used aortography as the gold standard test were used to assign baseline accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography. Other baseline estimates were taken from class II and class III published data. Data Synthesis: A decision tree compared 4 diagnostic approaches for blunt chest trauma after an initial normal chest radiograph: observation with follow-up chest radiography, aortography, transesophageal echocardiography, and dynamic chest computed tomography. Utility (a quality-of-life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. Chest radiography and aortography had similar utility. Aortography gained 1 quality-adjusted life year for minimal cost. Transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography lose quality-adjusted life-years at increased cost. No variable changed the relative cost-utility of the screening methods in 2-way sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Aortography gains additional quality life at minimal cost when used as a screening method for all patients with blunt chest trauma regardless of the results of the initial chest radiograph. With a normal initial chest radiograph, transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography are associated with increased cost and loss of quality- adjusted life.

AB - Objective: To evaluate the influences of patient preference and treatment costs on the diagnostic approach to blunt aortic trauma. Methods: Decision and cost-utility analysis. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search of all literature dealing with the diagnosis and management of blunt aortic injury was used to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Utility assignments were made from published data and our own assignments. We obtained institution-specific cost data. Study Selection: Only randomized, prospective trials that used aortography as the gold standard test were used to assign baseline accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography. Other baseline estimates were taken from class II and class III published data. Data Synthesis: A decision tree compared 4 diagnostic approaches for blunt chest trauma after an initial normal chest radiograph: observation with follow-up chest radiography, aortography, transesophageal echocardiography, and dynamic chest computed tomography. Utility (a quality-of-life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. Chest radiography and aortography had similar utility. Aortography gained 1 quality-adjusted life year for minimal cost. Transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography lose quality-adjusted life-years at increased cost. No variable changed the relative cost-utility of the screening methods in 2-way sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Aortography gains additional quality life at minimal cost when used as a screening method for all patients with blunt chest trauma regardless of the results of the initial chest radiograph. With a normal initial chest radiograph, transesophageal echocardiography and dynamic chest computed tomography are associated with increased cost and loss of quality- adjusted life.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029884373&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029884373&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8645068

AN - SCOPUS:0029884373

VL - 131

SP - 619

EP - 626

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 6

ER -