Cost-effectiveness of a preoperative pelvic MRI in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 31; no. 7; pp. 1443 - 1449
• Main Authors: Wyman, Allison M., Salemi, Jason L., Mikhail, Emad, Bassaly, Renee, Greene, Kristie A., Hart, Stuart, Lai-Yuen, Susana
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.07.2020; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cost analysis; Failure; Gynecology; Health risk assessment; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; NMR; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Original Article; Pelvic organ prolapse; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Urology; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Pelvic organ prolapse; MRIs; Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-04089-3

Objective To investigate the cost-effectiveness of preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying women at high risk of surgical failure following apical repair for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods A decision tree (TreeAgePro Healthcare software) was designed to compare outcomes and costs of screening with a pelvic MRI versus no screening. For the strategy with MRI, expected surgical outcomes were based on a calculated value of the estimated levator ani subtended volume (eLASV) from previously published work. For the alternative strategy of no MRI, estimates for surgical outcomes were obtained from the published literature. Costs for surgical procedures were estimated using the 2008–2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS). A cost-effectiveness analysis from a third-party payer perspective was performed with the primary measure of effectiveness defined as avoidance of surgical failure. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how robust the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was to uncertainty in decision tree estimates and across a range of willingness-to-pay values. Results A preoperative MRI resulted in a 17% increased chance of successful initial surgery (87% vs. 70%) and a decreased risk of repeat surgery with an ICER of $2298 per avoided cost of surgical failure. When applied to annual expected women undergoing POP surgery, routine screening with preoperative pelvic MRI costs $90 million more, but could avoid 39,150 surgical failures. Conclusion The use of routine preoperative pelvic MRI appears to be cost-effective when employed to identify women at high risk of surgical failure following apical repair for pelvic organ prolapse.