Search

Background: Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is the gold standard for radiographic diagnosis of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI), but use of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) has increased dramatically in BCVI screening. This study explores the utility, effectiveness, and cost of noninvasive CTA and MRA screening for BCVI., Methods: Medical records of 2,025 consecutive adults evaluated for acute blunt neck trauma and BCVI were reviewed retrospectively. The incidence of BCVI, level(s) of cervical injury, involvement of foramina transversaria and internal carotid canals, presence of bony dislocation or subluxation, and subsequent treatment received were assessed. Asymptomatic patients were analyzed based on fracture and injury patterns. The cost effectiveness of CTA compared with DSA and the effects of CTA sensitivity and screening yield were determined., Results: Of reviewed patients, 196 received CTA or MRA. Thirty-eight patients (19.4%) were diagnosed with BCVI. Screening yield in patients symptomatic at presentation was 48.8%. Large-vessel internal carotid, vertebral, anterior spinal, and basilar artery occlusion were associated with a positive screen, as were concurrent stroke and spinal cord injury (p < 0.01). Of patients with injuries found with noninvasive imaging, 50.0% of BCVI involved C1-3 fracture, 34.2% involved subluxation, and 65.8% involved foramina transversaria. In both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, CTA screening was more cost effective than DSA., Conclusion: Noninvasive imaging is a safe, accurate, and cost-effective tool for BCVI screening. Symptomatic presentation was the best predictor of BCVI. Significant cost savings were realized using CTA rather than DSA, with similar effectiveness and patient outcomes., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic study, level III; economic analysis, level IV., (Copyright © 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)

Object: The object of this study was to determine whether aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), including invasive intracranial monitoring and decompressive craniectomy, is cost-effective., Methods: A decision-analytical model was created to compare costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies for treating a patient with severe TBI. The aggressive-care approach is compared with "routine care," in which Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines are not followed. A "comfort care" category, in which a single day in the ICU is followed by routine floor care, is included for comparison only. Probabilities of each treatment resulting in various Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were obtained from the literature. The GOS scores were converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on expected longevity and calculated quality of life associated with each GOS category. Estimated direct (acute and long-term medical care) and indirect (loss of productivity) costs were calculated from the perspective of society. Sensitivity analyses employed a 2D Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 trials, each with 1000 patients. The model was also used to estimate these values for patients 40, 60, and 80 years of age., Results: For the average 20-year-old, aggressive care yields 11.7 (± 1.6 [SD]) QALYs, compared with routine care (10.0 ± 1.5 QALYs). This difference is highly significant (p < 0.0001). Although the differences in effectiveness between the 2 strategies diminish with advancing age, aggressive care remains significantly better at all ages. When all costs are considered, aggressive care is also significantly less costly than routine care ($1,264,000 ± $118,000 vs $1,361,000 ± $107,000) for the average 20-year-old. Aggressive care remains significantly less costly until age 80, at which age it costs more than routine care. However, even in the 80-year-old, aggressive care is likely the more cost-effective approach. Comfort care is associated with poorer outcomes at all ages and with higher costs for all groups except 80-year-olds., Conclusions: When all the costs of severe TBI are considered, aggressive treatment is a cost-effective option, even for older patients. Comfort care for severe TBI is associated with poor outcomes and high costs, and should be reserved for situations in which aggressive approaches have failed or testing suggests such treatment is futile.