Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Surg Res ; 240: 124-129, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30928769

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess cost differences between patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) and open surgical femoral exposure in elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An IRB-approved single center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2009 to 2016 was performed. One hundred patients were selected with 50 patients who underwent PEVAR and 50 patients who underwent open surgical femoral exposure. Patient demographics, procedural variables, and hospital outcomes were collected and compared. Primary outcomes assessed used in cost calculations included operating time (OR time), hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit stay (ICU LOS). Extrapolated cost differences were based on known, published cost multipliers for the primary outcomes observed. RESULTS: Patients undergoing PEVAR had significant reduction in mean OR time (113.9 min versus 144.9 min, P < 0.001), mean ICU LOS (19.7 h versus 28.9 h, P = 0.094), and overall LOS (28.3 h versus 33.1 h, P = 0.020). There was no statistically significant difference in access related complications, although there was a trend toward less complication rates with PEVAR (0% versus 5%, P = 0.056). Calculated cost of procedures based on mean ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and OR time, showed significant reduction in mean hospital costs with PEVAR ($16,628.5 versus $21,705.8, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated an overall 23% cost reduction with PEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Prior reports comparing PEVAR versus EVAR with open femoral exposures have shown improvement in overall patient time to ambulation and other hospital metrics such as LOS with PEVAR. There is, however, a paucity of overall cost comparison data regarding PEVAR. In this study, adoption of PEVAR was seen to significantly reduce OR times (19%) and overall hospital LOS (50%). The outcomes observed ultimately translated into significant reduction in hospital costs.


Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/economia , Procedimentos Endovasculares/economia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/economia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/métodos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/métodos , Feminino , Artéria Femoral/cirurgia , Custos Hospitalares/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/economia , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Duração da Cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/economia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Dispositivos de Oclusão Vascular/economia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA