Carotid endarterectomy remains cost-effective for the surgical management of carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared with TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of TCAR is not well-understood. METHODS: Incorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in United States dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and myocardial infarction, as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 years and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared with CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base-case risk, 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared with CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base-case cost, $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%. CONCLUSIONS: At current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.

Cost-effectiveness of transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have demonstrated that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR, and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR with CEA for carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a 5-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness. RESULTS: For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs, whereas TCAR cost $19154 for 2.92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR, and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost-effective in 49% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that, although 5-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at 6 years of follow-up.

Epidemiological Analysis of 37,424 Carotid Artery Stenosis Intervention Procedures During 11 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil: Stenting has Been More Common Than Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil. METHODS: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS.

Analysis of Medicare Payments and Patient Outcomes With Pre-Operative Imaging for Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The use of radiographic evaluation of carotid disease may vary, and current guidelines do not strongly recommend the use of cross-sectional imaging (CSI) prior to surgical intervention. We sought to describe the trends in preoperative carotid imaging and evaluate the associated clinical outcomes and Medicare payments for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid disease. METHODS: We used a 20% Medicare sample from 2006 to 2014 identifying patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease. We evaluated preoperative carotid ultrasound and CSI use: CT or MRI of the neck prior to CEA. We calculated average payments of each study from the carrier file and revenue center file. Imaging payments included both the professional component (PC) and the technical component (TC). Claims with a reimbursement of $0 and studies where payment for both the TC and PC could not be identified were excluded from the overall calculation to determine average payment per study. Inpatient reimbursements according to DRG 37-39 were calculated. We compared hospital length of stay (LOS), in hospital stroke, carotid re-exploration, and mortality according to CSI use. RESULTS: A total of 58,993 CEAs were identified with pre-operative carotid imaging. The average age was 74.8 ± 7.5 years, and 56.0% were men. A total of 19,678 (33%) patients had ultrasound alone with an average of (2.4 ± 1.9) exams prior to CEA. A total of 39,315 patients underwent CSI prior to CEA with 2.5 ± 2.1 ultrasounds, 0.95 ± 0.86 neck CTs and 0.47 ± 0.7 MRIs per patient. The average payment for ultrasound was $140 ± 40, $282 ± 94 for CT and $410 ± 146 for MRI. The average inpatient reimbursements were $7,413 ± 4,215 for patients without CSI compared with $7,792 ± 3,921 for patients with CSI, P < 0.001. The average LOS during CEA admission was 2.5 ± 3.7days. Patients with CSI had a slightly lower percentage of patients being discharged by postoperative day 2 compared with ultrasound alone (88.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital stroke rate was 0.38% and carotid re-exploration rate was 1.0% and there was no statistical significant difference between groups. Median follow-up was 3.9 years, and mortality at 8 years was 50% and did not statistically differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found preoperative imaging to include CSI in nearly two-thirds of patients prior to CEA for asymptomatic disease. As imaging and inpatient payments were higher with patients with CSI further work is needed to understand when CSI is appropriate prior to surgical intervention to appropriately allocate healthcare resources.

Improving Quality of Carotid Interventions: Identifying Hospital-Level Structural Factors that can Improve Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: "Structural factors" relating to organization of hospitals may affect procedural outcomes. This study's aim was to clarify associations between structural factors and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid endarterectomy stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review of studies published in English since 2005 was conducted. Structural factors assessed were as follows: population size served by the vascular department; number of hospital beds; availability of dedicated vascular beds; established clinical pathways; surgical intensive care unit (SICU) size; and specialty of surgeon/interventionalist. Primary outcomes were as follows: mortality; stroke; cardiac complications; length of hospital stay (LOS); and cost. RESULTS: There were 11 studies (n = 95,100 patients) included in this systematic review. For CEA, reduced mortality (P < 0.0001) and stroke rates (P = 0.001) were associated with vascular departments serving >75,000 people. Larger hospitals were associated with lower mortality, stroke rate, and cardiac events, compared with smaller hospitals (less than 130 beds). Provision of vascular beds after CEA was associated with lower mortality (P = 0.0008) and fewer cardiac events (P = 0.03). Adherence to established clinical pathways was associated with reduced stroke and cardiac event rates while reducing CEA costs. Large SICUs (≥7 beds) and dedicated intensivists were associated with decreased mortality after CEA while a large SICU was associated with reduced stroke rate (P = 0.001). Vascular surgeons performing CEA were associated with lower stroke rates and shorter LOS (P = 0.0001) than other specialists. CAS outcomes were not influenced by specialty but costless when performed by vascular surgeons (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Structural factors affect CEA outcomes, but data on CAS were limited. These findings may inform reconfiguration of vascular services, reducing risks and costs associated with carotid interventions.

A Cost Analysis of Pathology Evaluation of Carotid Plaque after Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Overtreatment and overuse of resources are leading causes of rising health care costs. Identification and elimination process of low value services is important in reducing such costs. At many institutions it is routine to send excised plaque after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for pathology evaluation. With more than 140,000 CEAs performed annually in the United States, this represents an opportunity for potential cost savings. We set out to examine the cost and clinical use of pathology evaluation of plaque after CEA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing CEA at a single institution from 2016 to 2019. Patients were excluded if they had a prolonged postoperative length of stay or if they had a preoperative stroke. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, and billing costs were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 82 total CEAs, of which 42 were excluded according to the aforementioned exclusion criteria. We reviewed 40 CEAs. Mean age of this cohort was 67.2 (±8.3) years. Most (72.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of admission, whereas 27.5% presented with a transient ischemic attack. Mean postoperative length of stay was 1.8 days. The primary insurers were 39.5% private, 39.5% Medicare, and 21.1% Medicaid. Mean total charges for the hospitalization were $83,367 (±$42,874). Of this total, professional fees were $3,512 (±$980) and facility fees were $80,395 (±$42,886). Mean pathology charges were $285 (±$88). The pathology professional fee was $61 (±$27), which represented 1.82% (±0.88) of the professional costs. Reimbursement for the facility pathology charge was $229 (±$57) and for the professional pathology charge was $25 (±$14). All plaque samples were submitted for gross examination and hematoxylin and eosin staining. The correlation rate for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis was 100%. The pathology reports simply read "atherosclerotic plaque" and "calcific plaque" in 32.5% and 45% of samples. For the remaining plaques, 12.5% and 10% of reports also noted fibrosis and degenerative changes, respectively. There were no clinical implications or decisions made based on the pathology reports. Cost of pathology evaluation was on average $285, with an average reimbursement of $235. With 140,000 CEAs done annually, this represents a potential $32.9-$39.9 million saved to the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Pathology evaluation of carotid plaque incurs significant costs to the health care system with no clear value for the postoperative care of the patient. Hospital policy regarding mandatory pathologic examination and surgeon preferences regarding plaque analysis should be more closely examined.

Variability in hospital costs for carotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand drivers of cost for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) and to compare variation in cost among cases performed by vascular surgery (VS) with other services (OSs). METHODS: We collected internal hospital claims data for CEA and CAS between September 2013 and August 2015 and performed a financial analysis of all hospital costs including room accommodations, medications, medical and surgical supplies, imaging, and laboratory tests. Cases were stratified by presence of symptoms and procedure type, and costs of procedures performed by VS were compared with those performed by OSs. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 144 patients (78 asymptomatic, 66 symptomatic; 44 CAS, 100 CEA) receiving unilateral revascularization. VS (24 CAS, 70 CEA) and neurosurgery and neurointerventional radiology services (20 CAS, 30 CEA) performed all procedures. Age (71 ± 9 years vs 70 ± 11 years; P = .8) and length of stay (1.7 ± 2.1 days vs 2.2 ± 2.4 days; P = .73) were similar for VS and OSs. Symptoms were present before revascularization for 46% and were more commonly treated by OSs (78% vs 29%; P < .001). Case mix index was similar after stratifying by symptoms (asymptomatic, 1.28 ± 0.35 vs 1.39 ± 0.42 [P = .5]; symptomatic, 1.66 ± 0.73 vs 1.82 ± 0.81 [P = .9]). The largest cost components were operating room (OR)-related costs, beds, and supplies, together accounting for 76% of costs. Asymptomatic patients had 37% lower average hospital costs. For asymptomatic CAS, average index hospitalization cost was 17% less for VS compared with OSs because of 78% lower intensive care unit costs, 44% lower OR-related costs, 40% lower medication costs, and 24% lower cardiac testing costs. VS had 22% higher supply costs. For asymptomatic CEA, average index hospitalization costs were 22% lower for VS, driven by lower OR-related costs (28%), medications (28%), imaging (62%), and neurointerventional monitoring (64%). Costs were 38% higher for CAS vs CEA. For symptomatic CAS, costs were similar for both groups. For symptomatic CEA, total costs were 14% lower for VS compared with OSs, driven by 25% lower OR-related costs, 62% lower neurointerventional monitoring, 20% step-down beds, and 28% lower supply costs (and counterbalanced by 117% higher intensive care unit costs). CONCLUSIONS: VS average hospital costs were lower for asymptomatic CAS and all CEAs compared with OSs. Drivers of higher cost appear to be attributed to variation in physicians' practice as well as patients' complexity, affording an opportunity to reduce cost by establishing standard practices when appropriate.

Routine Postoperative Cardiac Testing is Unnecessary after Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Routine laboratory testing to rule out myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is common in many centers. Its use in this patient population has not been thoroughly investigated. We hypothesize that routine testing for MI in post-CEA patients is of low yield and not cost-effective. METHODS: A retrospective review of 291 consecutive CEAs from February 2011 to July 2015 was performed. Two patients were excluded: one for postoperative noncardiac death and one for preoperative MI. Patient demographics, medications, medical history, type of anesthesia, and postoperative laboratory results were reviewed. All patients had troponin-I and creatine kinase-MB levels taken postoperatively. A patient was judged to have an MI if troponin-I was greater than or equal to 0.6 ng/mL or CK-MB is >6.3 ng/mL. The incidence of postoperative MI was recorded, and a cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 70.2 years (range: 42-92). Of all, 59.5% were male, and 92.4% had a history of hypertension. Preoperatively, 57.4% were on beta-blocker therapy, 86.5% on aspirin, and 52.2% on both. Most (80.6%) were on preoperative statin therapy, 26.9% had a prior history of MI (37.2% within 5 years of surgery), and 56.4% of patients had a prior coronary intervention (27.6% percutaneous, 28.7% coronary artery bypass grafting, and 11% both). All patients received general anesthesia. The mean procedure time was 121.5 min (range: 62-258). The mean postoperative length of stay was 2.6 days. Eight patients (2.7%) were judged to have acute MI, one of which was symptomatic. Three of the 8 (38%) had a prior history of MI. In asymptomatic patients, the peak level of troponin-I ranges from 0.52 to 3.64 ng/mL and that of CK-MB from 11.8 to 24 ng/mL. The symptomatic patient had chest pain and bradycardia. The patient had a peak troponin-I level of 1.59 ng/mL, with a CK-MB level of 11.5 ng/mL. All patients were treated medically. The cost per troponin-I and CK-MB is $27.78 and $31.44, respectively, in our institution. We estimate that eliminating routine postoperative troponin-I and CK-MB testing in patients who underwent CEA would have saved an estimated $51,343 over the course of treatment of the studied population. CONCLUSIONS: Routine postoperative cardiac laboratory testing in asymptomatic patients after CEA increases the hospital cost. The low overall rate of postoperative MI suggests that cardiac testing is best reserved for symptomatic patients or those with clinical suspicion for MI.

Examining variation in Medicare payments and drivers of cost for carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in providing high quality and low-cost care to Americans. A pursuit exists to measure not only how well hospitals are performing but also at what cost. We examined the variation in costs associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), to determine which components contribute to the variation and what drives increased payments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing CEA between 2009 and 2012 were identified in the Medicare provider and analysis review database. Hospital quintiles of cost were generated and variation examined. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of high-payment hospitals for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing CEA. RESULTS: A total of 264,018 CEAs were performed between 2009 and 2012; 250,317 were performed in asymptomatic patients in 2302 hospitals and 13,701 in symptomatic patients in 1851 hospitals. Higher payment hospitals had a higher percentage of nonwhite patients and comorbidity burden. The largest contributors to variation in overall payments were diagnosis-related groups, postdischarge, and readmission payments. After accounting for clustering at the hospital level, independent predictors of high-payment hospitals for all patients were postoperative stroke, length of stay, and readmission ,whereas in the symptomatic group, additional drivers included yearly volume and serious complications. CONCLUSIONS: CEA Medicare payments vary nationwide with diagnosis-related group, readmission, and postdischarge payments being the largest contributors to overall payment variation. In addition, stroke, length of stay, and readmission were the only independent predictors of high payment for all patients undergoing CEA.

Do Integrated Systems of Stroke Care Improve Symptom to Surgery Times in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis? A Single Centre Decision Tree Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of an integrated system of stroke care on symptom to surgery times, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life measures in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: Patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a regional vascular centre between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, were identified from the National Vascular Registry (NVR). Risk of stroke on medical therapy for each patient was calculated using the Oxford stroke risk calculator. Symptom to surgery times were compared among patients referred from a stroke service providing an integrated stroke care and the stroke service in an adjacent NHS trust which provides standard urgent referral pathway. A decision analytic Markov process model was constructed to determine the cost-effectiveness of CEA versus medical treatment in patients who followed the standard and integrated pathways. This model examined the lifetime costs and health benefits of CEA through each pathway. RESULTS: A total of 376 patients underwent CEA, of whom 243 were managed through the integrated stroke pathway and 133 through the standard urgent referral pathway. Median symptom to surgery time was 11 (0-66) days for the former and 15 (3-90) days for the latter (p < .001). There was no significant difference in peri-operative stroke death rate between integrated (2.1%) and standard (1.5%) pathways (chi-square = 0.14, p = .73). CEA through the integrated pathway improved quality adjusted life expectancy by an additional 0.13 (0.64 QALYs [integrated pathway] to 0.51 QALYs [standard pathway]) and was associated with an incremental lifetime cost benefit of £2203.4. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated stroke system of care is cost-effective and associated with significant improvements in quality adjusted life years.

Factors that Predict Failure to Meet Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Quality Measures for Asymptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services financially penalizes providers who fail to meet expected quality of care measures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factors that predict failure to meet PQRS measures for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: PQRS measure 260 (discharge by postoperative day 2 following CEA in asymptomatic patients) and 346 (rate of postoperative stroke or death following CEA in asymptomatic patients) were evaluated using hospital records from the state of Florida from 2008 to 2012. The impact of demographics, comorbidities, hospital factors, admission variables, and individual practitioner data upon timely discharge, and postoperative stroke and death. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and significance (P < 0.05) were determined through the development of a logistic regression model. Surgeons were identified by national provider identifier number, and practitioner data obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. RESULTS: A total of 34,235 patient records and 701 providers were identified over the 5-year period. Significant negative predictors for PQRS measure 260 included weekend admission (odds ratio [OR], 2.9), Medicaid (OR, 2.4), surgeon historical postoperative stroke rate >2.0% (OR, 1.7), African-American race (OR, 2.0), and female gender (OR, 1.3). The presence of any of these factors was associated with a 13.5% rate of failure. The most significant negative predictor for PQRS measure 346 was surgeon postoperative stroke rate >2.0% (OR, 6.2 for stroke and OR, 29.0 for death). Surgeons in this underperforming group had worse outcomes compared to their peers despite having patients with fewer risk factors for poor outcomes. Surgeon specialty, board certification, and case volume do not impact either PQRS measures. CONCLUSIONS: Selected groups of patients and surgeons with a disproportionately high rate of postoperative stroke are at risk of failing to meet PQRS pay for performance quality measures. Awareness of these risk factors may help mitigate and minimize the risk of adversely impacting the value stream. Further evaluation of the causative factors that lead to surgeon underperformance could help to improve the quality of care.

Comparison of 30-day readmission rates and risk factors between carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the rates, reasons, and risk factors of 30-day readmission, both planned and unplanned, after carotid revascularization as well as to evaluate major outcomes associated with those readmissions. METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare database, we retrospectively identified patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) between 2009 and 2015. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission. Secondary outcomes included mortality and overall cost associated with readmissions. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used and further validated using coarsened exact matching on baseline differences between CEA and CAS patients. RESULTS: A total of 95,687 patients underwent carotid revascularization, 13.5% of whom underwent CAS. Crude 30-day readmission rates were 6.5% after CEA vs 6.1% after CAS (P = .10). Stroke, bleeding, pneumonia, and respiratory failure were the most common reasons for readmission after both CEA and CAS (6.7% vs 8.3%, 6.9% vs 5.3%, 3.4% vs 2.4%, and 4.4% vs 3.9%; all P > .05). Myocardial infarction and wound complications were more likely to be an indication for readmission after CEA (4.1% vs 2.5% and 4.1% vs 1.5%, respectively; P < .05). On the other hand, readmissions due to vascular or stent-related complications were more likely after CAS compared with CEA (5.8% vs 3.8%; P = .003). On multivariate analysis, CEA was found to be associated with 41% higher odds of readmission than CAS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.54; P < .001). Age, female gender, emergency/urgent procedures, concomitant cardiac procedures, rural hospitals, and Midwest region were significantly associated with 30-day readmission. Other risk factors included major preoperative comorbidities (diabetes, congestive heart failure, renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, and history of cancer) as well as the occurrence of postoperative stroke and renal complications during the index admission and nonhome discharge. Coarsened exact matching between CEA and CAS patients also yielded higher adjusted rates of readmission after CEA (6.2% vs 4.9%; P < .001). On the other hand, patients readmitted after CAS had a longer length of hospital stay (5 days vs 4 days; P = .001), increased readmission mortality (6.2% vs 2.8%; P < .001), and higher rehospitalization costs ($8903 vs $7629; P = .01) compared with those readmitted after CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that CAS is associated with lower 30-day readmission rates compared with CEA. However, CAS readmissions are more complex and are associated with higher mortality and costs. We have also identified patients who are at high risk of readmissions, which can help focus attention on interventions that can improve the management of these patients and reduce readmission rates.

Fixed and variable cost of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in the United States: A comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite multiple landmark clinical trials, little data exists on real-world cost of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to the United States healthcare system. We aim to study differences in actual hospitalization cost between patients who underwent CAS vs CEA in a nationally representative database. METHODS: We studied hospital discharge and billing records of all patients, in the Premier Perspective Database, who underwent CEA or CAS between the third quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2015. Nearest-neighbor 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, to account for differences in patient and hospital characteristics as well as clinical comorbidities of patients who underwent both procedures, for both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts using 32 variables. Pearson χ2, Student t-test, and nonparametric K-sample equality-of-medians tests were used to analyze the data, as appropriate. The primary outcome was total in-hospital cost, including fixed (administrative, capital and utilities) and variable costs (labor and supply). Cost data were presented as medians, inflation-adjusted for 2015 U.S. dollar and rounded to the nearest dollar. RESULTS: A total of 115,548 procedures were identified. The mean age was 71 and 69 years; 58% and 57% were male patients; and 81% and 77% were white among asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively. After propensity score matching, 25,812 asymptomatic (12,906 CEA and 12,906 CAS) and 3864 symptomatic (1932 CEA and 1932 CAS) patients were included. Total hospitalization cost per CAS was 40% ($11,814 vs $8378; P < .001) and 37% ($19,426 vs $14,190; P < .001) higher than CEA among asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively. Patients who underwent CAS incurred significantly higher total hospitalization cost despite stratifying by type of cost (fixed and variable), U.S. census regions and symptomatic status. Moreover, asymptomatic patients who underwent CAS performed by any surgical specialty incurred an average of $2717 to $4918 higher total hospitalization cost compared with patients who underwent CEA (all P < 001). Among symptomatic patients, those who underwent CAS performed by vascular, cardiac, and neurologic surgeons, incurred $2108 ($16,114 vs $14,006; P = .006), $7055 ($17,351 vs $10,296; P = .023) and $6479 ($27,290 vs $20,811; P = .002) higher total hospitalization cost compared with patients who underwent CEA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The total hospitalization cost incurred by patients who underwent CAS was significantly higher than for those who underwent CEA, despite matching cohort based on patient and hospital characteristics, and stratifying by symptomatic status, type of cost, hospital region, and surgeon specialty. Our findings could provide additional important information giving the ongoing controversy regarding the appropriate indication for CAS.

Meta-analysis of the costs of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is currently associated with an increased risk of 30-day stroke compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas both interventions seem equally durable beyond the periprocedural period. Although the clinical outcomes continue to be scrutinized, there are few data summarizing the costs of both techniques. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases in August 2016 identifying articles comparing the costs or cost-effectiveness of CAS and CEA in patients with carotid artery stenosis. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. The in-hospital costs were specified to gain insight into the main heads of expenditure associated with both procedures. RESULTS: The literature search identified 617 unique articles, of which five RCTs and 12 cohort studies were eligible for analysis. Costs of the index hospital admission were similar for CAS and CEA. Costs of the procedure itself were 51 per cent higher for CAS, mainly driven by the higher costs of devices and supplies, but were balanced by higher postprocedural costs of CEA. Long-term cost analysis revealed no difference in costs or quality of life after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization and long-term costs of CAS and CEA appear similar. Economic considerations should not influence the choice of stenting or surgery in patients with carotid artery stenosis being considered for revascularization.

Editor's Choice - Carotid Stenosis Treatment: Variation in International Practice Patterns.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine current practice for the treatment of carotid stenosis among 12 countries participating in the International Consortium of Vascular Registries (ICVR). METHODS: Data from the United States Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) and the Vascunet registry collaboration (including 10 registries in Europe and Australasia) were used. Variation in treatment modality of asymptomatic versus symptomatic patients was analysed between countries and among centres within each country. RESULTS: Among 58,607 procedures, octogenarians represented 18% of all patients, ranging from 8% (Hungary) to 22% (New Zealand and Australia). Women represented 36%, ranging from 29% (Switzerland) to 40% (USA). The proportion of carotid artery stenting (CAS) among asymptomatic patients ranged from 0% (Finland) to 26% (Sweden) and among symptomatic patients from 0% (Denmark) to 19% (USA). Variation among centres within countries for CAS was highest in the United States and Australia (from 0% to 80%). The overall proportion of asymptomatic patients was 48%, but varied from 0% (Denmark) to 73% (Italy). There was also substantial centre level variation within each country in the proportion of asymptomatic patients, most pronounced in Australia (0-72%), Hungary (5-55%), and the United States (0-100%). Countries with fee for service reimbursement had higher rates of treatment in asymptomatic patients than countries with population based reimbursement (OR 5.8, 95% CI 4.4-7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence about treatment options for carotid artery disease, the proportion of asymptomatic patients, treatment modality, and the proportion of women and octogenarians vary considerably among and within countries. There was a significant association of treating more asymptomatic patients in countries with fee for service reimbursement. The findings reflect the inconsistency of the existing guidelines and a need for cooperation among guideline committees all over the world.

Cost-Effectiveness of Two Decision Strategies for Shunt Use During Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Arterial shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is essential in some patients because of insufficient cerebral perfusion during cross-clamping. However, the optimal diagnostic modality identifying these patients is still debated. None of the currently used modalities has been proved superior to another. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two modalities, stump pressure measurement (SPM) versus electroencephalography (EEG) combined with transcranial Doppler (TCD) during CEA. METHODS: Two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing CEA with different intraoperative neuromonitoring strategies (SPM vs. EEG/TCD) were analyzed. Clinical data were collected from patient hospital records. Primary clinical outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Total admission costs were calculated based on volumes of healthcare resources. Analyses of effects and costs were adjusted for clinical differences between patients by means of a propensity score, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. RESULTS: A total of 503 (239 SPM; 264 EEG/TCD) patients were included, of whom 19 sustained a stroke or died during admission (3.3 vs. 4.2%, respectively, adjusted risk difference 1.3% (95% CI -2.3-4.8%)). Median total costs were €4946 (IQR 4424-6173) in the SPM group versus €7447 (IQR 6890-8675) in the EEG/TCD group. Costs for neurophysiologic assessments were the main determinant for the difference. CONCLUSIONS: Given the evidence provided by this small retrospective study, SPM would be the favored strategy for intraoperative neuromonitoring if cost-effectiveness was taken into account when deciding which strategy to adopt.

Modifiable Factors Leading to Increased Length of Stay after Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a commonly performed vascular operation. Yet, postoperative length of stay (LOS) varies greatly even within institutions. In this study, the morbidity and mortality, as well as financial impact of increased LOS were reviewed to establish modifiable factors associated with prolonged hospital stay. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify all patients undergoing primary CEA at a single institution between June 1, 2011 and November 28, 2014. Preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative details, postoperative factors, long-term outcomes, and cost data were reviewed using an Institutional Review Board-approved prospectively collected database. Multivariate analysis was used to determine statistical difference between patients with LOS ≤1 day and >1 day. RESULTS: Complete 30-day variable and cost data were available for 219 patients with an average follow-up of 12 months. Seventy-nine (36%) patients had an LOS > 1 day. Variables determined to be statistically significant predictors of prolonged LOS included preoperative creatinine (P = 0.02) and severe congestive heart failure (P = 0.05) with self-pay status (P = 0.02) and preoperative beta-blocker therapy (P = 0.04) being protective. Shunt placement (P = 0.04), arterial re-exploration, and postoperative cardiac (P = 0.001) or neurological (P = 0.03) complications also resulted in prolonged hospitalization. Specific modifiable risk factors that contributed to increased LOS included operative start time after noon (P = 0.04), drain placement (P = 0.05), prolonged operative time (101 vs. 125 min, P = 0.01), return to the operating room (P = 0.01), and postoperative hypertension (P = 0.02) or hypotension (P = 0.04). Of note, there was no difference in LOS associated with technique (conventional versus eversion), patch use (P = 0.49), protamine administration (P = 0.60), electroencephalogram monitoring (P = 0.45), measurement of stump pressure (P = 0.63), Doppler (P = 0.36), or duplex (P = 0.92). Both hospital charges (P = 0.0001) and costs (P = 0.0001) were found to be significantly higher in patients with prolonged LOS, with no difference in physician charges (P = 0.10). Increased LOS after CEA was associated with an increase in 12-month mortality (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Increased LOS was associated with increased hospital charges, costs, as well as significant morbidity and midterm mortality following CEA. Furthermore, this study highlights several modifiable risk factors leading to increased LOS. Identified factors associated with increase LOS can serve as targets for improving care in vascular surgery.

Medicare Facility Diagnosis-Related Groups Have Outpaced Individual Physician Payment.

BACKGROUND: We set out to compare the rates of Medicare reimbursement to physicians versus hospitals for several major vascular procedures over a period of 5 years. METHODS: We queried the Wolters Kluwer MediRegs database to collect Medicare reimbursement data from fiscal years 2011 to 2015. We surveyed reimbursements for carotid endarterectomy, carotid angioplasty and stenting, femoropopliteal bypass, and lower extremity fem-pop revascularization with stenting. Based on data availability, we surveyed physician reimbursement data on the national level and in both medically overserved and underserved areas. Hospital reimbursement rates were examined on a national level and by hospitals' teaching and wage index statuses. RESULTS: We found that for all 4 vascular procedures, Medicare reimbursements to hospitals increased by a greater percentage than to physicians. By region, underserved areas had lower physician reimbursements than the national average, while the opposite was true for overserved areas. Additionally, for hospital Medicare reimbursements, location in a high wage index accounted for a significant increase in reimbursement over the national average, with teaching status contributing to this increase in a smaller extent. CONCLUSIONS: These data on Medicare reimbursements indicate that payments to hospitals are increasing more significantly than to physicians. This disparity in pay changes affects both independent and academic vascular surgeons. Medicare should consider pay increases to independent providers in accordance to the hospital pay increase.

A Cost Analysis of Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Medical care in the United States has evolved into a more cost-conscious value-based health care system that necessitates a comparison of costs when there are alternative interventions considered to be acceptable in the treatment of a disease. This study compares the cost differences between regional anesthesia (RA) and general anesthesia (GA) for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: Data from 346 consecutive patients who underwent CEA between January 2012 and September 2014 were retrospectively reviewed for the type of anesthesia used, outcomes data, and cost variables. Overall hospital day costs were compared between RA and GA. Medians and interquartile ranges were compared using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant using 2-sided tests. RESULTS: Median overall costs for GA were significantly higher than median costs for RA (medians [with interquartile ranges], $10,140 [$7,158-$12,658] versus $7,122 [$5,072-$8,511], P < 0.001). Median total operative time for GA was significantly longer than median time for RA (168 [144-188] versus 134 [115-147] min, P < 0.001). Median in-hospital length of stay (LOS) for GA was significantly longer compared with RA (2.0 vs 1.2 days, P < 0.001). Patients who received GA were also more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased cost, operating room expenses, postoperative resources, and overall LOS were observed for individuals who underwent RA for CEA as compared with GA. In summary, RA is more cost-effective and should be the optimal choice when clinically appropriate.

Modified Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy (mECEA): Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Several carotid endarterectomy techniques have been described, including conventional carotid endarterectomy (CCEA) performed with patch repair and eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA) performed with transection of the internal carotid artery. We describe our simplified technique of modified eversion carotid endarterectomy (mECEA) with longitudinal arteriotomy limited to the carotid bulb, without transection of the internal carotid artery and present our analysis of its safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective review of all carotid endarterectomies performed by 3 vascular surgeons over a 3-year period was completed. About 197 mECEA were performed during the study period. Follow-up data were obtained on 77.7% of patients. A comparison was made with the contemporary literature with respect to outcomes for both CCEA and ECEA. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and December 2014, a total of 197 mECEA were performed. The perioperative stroke and death rates for those undergoing mECEA was 0.5% and 0.5%, respectively. Late stroke and death rates were 3.0% and 5.1%, respectively. Perioperative rate of myocardial infarction was 1.0%. Early restenosis rates of >70% occurred in 1.4%, whereas late restenosis of >70% occurred in 2.7%. Mean operating time for those undergoing mECEA was 57.9 min. Average costs savings for mECEA compared to CCEA were $5,835. CONCLUSIONS: This simplified technique has comparable outcomes to those described in the contemporary literature for both CCEA and ECEA with respect to postoperative neurologic events as well as restenosis rates. In our institution, the short mean operative times with mECEA has led to reduced resource utilization.