An economic evaluation for the use of decompressive craniectomy in the treatment of refractory traumatic intracranial hypertension

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The management of intracranial hypertension is a primary concern following traumatic brain injury. Data from recent randomized controlled trials have indicated that decompressive craniectomy results in some improved clinical outcomes compared to medical treatment for patients with refractory intracranial hypertension post-traumatic brain injury (TBI). This economic evaluation aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy as a last-tier intervention for refractory intracranial hypertension from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS).

Methods: A Markov model was used to present the results from an international, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomized trial. A cost-utility analysis was then carried out over a 1-year time horizon, measuring benefits in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in pound sterling.

Results: The cost-utility analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £96,155.67 per QALY. This means that for every additional QALY gained by treating patients with decompressive craniectomy, a cost of £96,155.67 is incurred to the NHS.

Conclusions: The ICER calculated is above the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold of £30,000 per QALY. This indicates that decompressive craniectomy is not a cost-effective first treatment option for refractory intracranial hypertension and maximum medical management is preferable initially.

KEYWORDS:

• Cost-utility
• traumatic intracranial hypertension
• decompressive craniectomy
• traumatic brain injury
• economic evaluation

Disclosure of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Additional information

Funding

This study did not receive specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.