↓ Skip to main content

Avoidable costs of stenting for aortic coarctation in the United Kingdom: an economic model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Avoidable costs of stenting for aortic coarctation in the United Kingdom: an economic model
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2215-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maximilian Salcher, Alistair Mcguire, Vivek Muthurangu, Marcus Kelm, Titus Kuehne, Huseyin Naci

Abstract

Undesirable outcomes in health care are associated with patient harm and substantial excess costs. Coarctation of the aorta (CoA), one of the most common congenital heart diseases, can be repaired with stenting but requires monitoring and subsequent interventions to detect and treat disease recurrence and aortic wall injuries. Avoidable costs associated with stenting in patients with CoA are unknown. We developed an economic model to calculate potentially avoidable costs in stenting treatment of CoA in the United Kingdom over 5 years. We calculated baseline costs for the intervention and potentially avoidable complications and follow-up interventions and compared these to the costs in hypothetical scenarios with improved treatment effectiveness and complication rates. Baseline costs were £16 688 ($25 182) per patient. Avoidable costs ranged from £137 ($207) per patient in a scenario assuming a 10% reduction in aortic wall injuries and reinterventions at follow-up, to £1627 ($2455) in a Best-case scenario with 100% treatment success and no complications. Overall costs in the Best-case scenario were 90.2% of overall costs at Baseline. Reintervention rate at follow-up was identified as most influential lever for overall costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a considerable degree of uncertainty for avoidable costs with widely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Significant improvements in the treatment effectiveness and reductions in complication rates are required to realize discernible cost savings. Up to 10% of total baseline costs could be avoided in the best-case scenario. This highlights the need to pursue patient-specific treatment approaches which promise optimal outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#9,505,479
of 10,782,532 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,281
of 3,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,558
of 263,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#103
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,782,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.