Editor's Choice – Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence

ADDSThis is the first Scandinavian study considering cost effectiveness of superficial venous incompetence treatment.The results suggest that both radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and high ligation/stripping (HL/S) improves quality of life significantly.RFA appears to be the most cost effective treatment compared with HL/S and no treatment/conservative treatment, which is the least cost effective option.The costs for treatment with HL/S and RFA are well below the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) thresholds suggested by healthcare authorities in Sweden and in the United Kingdom.Objective: Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment.There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment.The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation/stripping (HL/S), and no treatment/conservative treatment with one year follow up.Methods: Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (C in CEAP 2 -6) were included.Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S.Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L).Results: In total, 78 limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively.No treatment/conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit.In RFA, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year.In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year.Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004)and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028)were significantly improved over time.The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S.The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S.The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment/conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S.With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S.The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health. Conclusion:RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment/conservative treatment at one year follow up.