Objective: This cost-utility analysis was undertaken to compare early (≤24 hours since trauma) versus delayed surgical decompression of spinal cord to determine which approach is more cost effective in the management of patients with acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI).
Methods: This study includes the patients enrolled into the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (STASCIS) and admitted at Toronto Western Hospital. Cases were grouped into patients with motor complete SCI and individuals with motor incomplete SCI. A cost-utility analysis was performed for each group of patients by the use of data for the first 6 months after SCI. The perspective of a public health care insurer was adopted. Costs were estimated in 2014 U.S. dollars. Utilities were estimated from the STASCIS.
Results: The baseline analysis indicates early spinal decompression is more cost-effective approach compared with the delayed spinal decompression. When we considered the delayed spinal decompression as the baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis revealed a saving of US$ 58,368,024.12 per quality-adjusted life years gained for patients with complete SCI and a saving of US$ 536,217.33 per quality-adjusted life years gained in patients with incomplete SCI for the early spinal decompression. The probabilistic analysis confirmed the early-decompression strategy as more cost effective than the delayed-decompression approach, even though there is no clearly dominant strategy.
Conclusions: The results of this economic analysis suggests that early decompression of spinal cord was more cost effective than delayed surgical decompression in the management of patients with motor complete and incomplete SCI, even though no strategy was clearly dominant.
Keywords: Cost-utility analysis; Costs; Economics; Rehabilitation; Spinal cord decompression; Spinal cord injury; Spine surgery; Timing; Trauma; Utility.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.