Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine computed tomography angiography (CTA) for lower extremity penetrating trauma

Routine evaluation with CTA for patients with isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma and normal ankle-brachial-indices (ABI) remains controversial. While prior literature has found normal ABI's (≥0.9) and a normal clinical examination to be adequate for safe discharge, there remains concern for missed injuries which could lead to delayed surgical intervention and unnecessary morbidity. Our hypothesis was that routine CTA after isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination is not cost-effective. We performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a CTA routinely compared to clinical observation and ABI evaluation in hemodynamically normal patients with isolated penetrating lower extremity trauma. Our base case was a patient that sustained penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs that received a CTA in the trauma bay. Costs, probability, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were generated from published literature. Clinical evaluation only (no CTA) was cost-effective with a cost of $2056.13 and 0.98 QALYs gained compared to routine CTA which had increased costs of $7449.91 and lower QALYs 0.92. Using one-way sensitivity analysis, routine CTA does not become the cost-effective strategy until the cost of a missed injury reaches $210,075.83. Patients with isolated, penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination do not warrant routine CTA as there is no benefit with increased costs. •Despite current guidelines, CT angiography is still performed in stable lower extremity penetrating injuries.•Operative intervention for a missed lower extremity vascular injury is rare.•Routine CTA in those with normal ABIs and examination is more costly with increased morbidity and no added health benefit.