No risk of TUR syndrome • Reduced risk of bleeding and lower rates of transfusions • Reduced risk of operative complications • Shorter duration of cathetherisation and quicker recovery time • Reduced cost • More tissue excised • Minimally invasive but still allows for tissue retrieval • Lower rates of re-intervention • Compared to TURP, has the following potential harms: Longer duration of operation • Longer learning curve for urologists and hence higher establishment costs • Higher rates of re-intervention • Compared to open prostatectomy, HoLEP has the following potential benefits: Reduced risk of bleeding and lower rates of transfusions • Reduced risk of operative complications • Shorter duration of cathetherisation and quicker recovery time • Shorted hospital length of stay • Reduced cost • Minimally invasive but allows for tissue retrieval • Compared to open prostatectomy, HoLEP has the following potential harms: Longer duration of operation • Longer learning curve for urologists and hence higher establishment costs • Higher rates of re-intervention • The benefits of HoLEP are proposed to be particularly relevant to men who are at elevated risk of operative complications, particularly bleeding or cardiac complications. On the basis of these clinical claims, which are primarily the superior safety of HoLEP, it is expected that either a cost-effectiveness analysis or a cost-utility analysis would be undertaken (see Table 11.) 11:Classification of an intervention for determination of economic evaluation to be presented Comparative effectiveness versus comparator Superior Non-inferior Inferior Net clinical benefit CEA/CUA Superior CEA/CUA CEA/CUA Neutral benefit CEA/CUA* Net harms None^ safety Non-inferior CEA/CUA CEA/CUA* None^ comparator Net clinical benefit CEA/CUA Inferior Neutral benefit CEA/CUA* None^ None^ Comparative versus Net harms None^ Abbreviations: CEA = cost-effectiveness analysis; CUA = cost-utility analysis
• No risk of TUR syndrome • Reduced risk of bleeding and lower rates of transfusions • Reduced risk of operative complications • Shorter duration of cathetherisation and quicker recovery time • Reduced cost • More tissue excised • Minimally invasive but still allows for tissue retrieval • Lower rates of re-intervention Compared to TURP, has the following potential harms: • Longer duration of operation • Longer learning curve for urologists and hence higher establishment costs • Higher rates of re-intervention Compared to open prostatectomy, HoLEP has the following potential benefits: • Reduced risk of bleeding and lower rates of transfusions • Reduced risk of operative complications • Shorter duration of cathetherisation and quicker recovery time • Shorted hospital length of stay • Reduced cost • Minimally invasive but allows for tissue retrieval Compared to open prostatectomy, HoLEP has the following potential harms: • Longer duration of operation • Longer learning curve for urologists and hence higher establishment costs • Higher rates of re-intervention The benefits of HoLEP are proposed to be particularly relevant to men who are at elevated risk of operative complications, particularly bleeding or cardiac complications. On the basis of these clinical claims, which are primarily the superior safety of HoLEP, it is expected that either a cost-effectiveness analysis or a cost-utility analysis would be undertaken (see Table 11.) 11:Classification of an intervention for determination of economic evaluation to be presented Comparative effectiveness versus comparator Superior Non-inferior Inferior Comparative safety versus comparator Superior CEA/CUA CEA/CUA Net clinical benefit CEA/CUA Neutral benefit CEA/CUA* Net harms None^ Non-inferior CEA/CUA CEA/CUA* None^ Inferior Net clinical benefit CEA/CUA None^ None^ Neutral benefit CEA/CUA* Net harms None^ Abbreviations: CEA = cost-effectiveness analysis; CUA = cost-utility analysis
1149-DAP-FINA-AccessibleL.docx