Predicting Distal Aortic Remodeling After Endovascular Repair for Chronic DeBakey III Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Chronic DeBakey III aortic dissection is typically managed with open aortic reconstruction. Thoracic endovascular aortic grafting (TEVAR) has been attempted in patients with chronic DeBakey III with improved outcomes over medical management, however with frequent failures. This study investigates factors associated with positive aortic remodeling from a large aortic center. METHODS: Three-dimensional reconstructions (M2S, West Lebanon, NH) of computed tomography angiography scans of 48 patients who underwent TEVAR from 2005 to 2015 were analyzed. The dissection was characterized, and measurements were obtained from preoperative and postoperative scans at four time points. Standard univariate Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze continuous and ordinal/nominal data, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: In a multivariate logistic model, having fewer than two visceral vessels off the true lumen was a negative predictor of total thrombosis (odd ratio [OR] 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: <0.01 to 0.84, p = 0.04). In a logistic model that predicted total thrombosis in zones 3 and 4, maximum diameter 2 cm above the celiac axis was a significant negative predictor (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.05). In a model that predicted failure of the maximum overall diameter of the descending aorta to regress within 1 year after TEVAR, maximum overall diameter preoperatively (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.29, p = 0.03) and tear location on the greater curve (OR 18.1, 95% CI: 1.3 to 243, p = 0.03) were significant positive predictors. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is feasible in chronic dissection but is limited by complex dissection-related anatomy. Increasing number of visceral vessels off the false lumen, maximum preoperative aortic size, and location of the primary tear on the greater curve were associated with poorer remodeling.

Cost and contribution margin of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of and payments for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a novel and expensive technology, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: Medicare claims provided hospital charges, payments, and outcomes between January and December 2012. Hospital costs and charges were estimated using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Costs and payments were examined in propensity score- matched TAVR and SAVR patients. RESULTS: Medicare spent $215,770,200 nationally on 4083 patients who underwent TAVR in 2012. Hospital costs were higher for TAVR patients (median, $50,200; interquartile range [IQR], $39,800-$64,300) than for propensity-matched SAVR patients ($45,500; IQR, $34,500-$63,300; P < .01), owing largely to higher estimated medical supply costs, including the implanted valve prosthesis. Postprocedure hospital length of stay (LOS) length was shorter for TAVR patients (median, 5 days [IQR, 4-8 days] vs 7 days [IQR, 5-9 days]; P < .01), as was total intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (median, 2 days [IQR, 0-5 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 1-6 days]; P < .01). Medicare payments were lower for TAVR hospitalizations (median, $49,500; IQR, $36,900-$64,600) than for SAVR (median, $50,400; IQR, $37,400-$65,800; P < .01). The median of the differences between payments and costs (contribution margin) was -$3380 for TAVR hospitalizations and $2390 for SAVR hospitalizations (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR accounted for $215 million in Medicare payments in its first year of clinical use. Among SAVR Medicare patients at a similar risk level, TAVR was associated with higher hospital costs despite shorter ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Overall and/or medical device cost reductions are needed for TAVR to have a net neutral financial impact on hospitals.