Reimbursement of long-term postplacement costs after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Postplacement cost of surveillance and secondary procedures over 5 years increases the global cost of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) by nearly 50%. This study identified and assessed the reimbursement received for long-term postplacement costs after EVAR. METHODS: Between December 1995 and June 2007, 360 patients underwent EVAR at a single institution. The reimbursement collected from charges of postplacement surveillance and secondary procedures related to the aneurysmal disease was evaluated and compared against the actual costs. All amounts were converted to year 2007 dollars. To minimize costs associated with the early learning curve, the initial 50 EVAR patients between December 1995 and 1998 were excluded. Patients with <1 year follow-up were also excluded. Data are expressed as mean +/- standard error. RESULTS: The mean follow up after EVAR for 152 patients was 38.8 +/- 1.8 months. Medicare, capitated insurance, and commercial insurance provided coverage for 85 (56.0%), 49 (32.2%), and 18 (11.8%) patients, respectively. The cumulative 5-year postplacement reimbursement received per patient was $9792 meeting 81.4% of the cumulative cost of $12,027 for a net loss of $2235 per patient. Although 123 (80.9%) patients without secondary procedures generated a 5-year cumulative gain of $1830 per patient, 29 (19.1%) patients with secondary procedures averaged a 5-year cumulative loss of $9378 per patient. The average reimbursement rate over the 5-year period was 35.8% +/- 0.6%, with the lowest reimbursement rate seen in patients with Medicare at 31.6% +/- 0.7%. CONCLUSION: Current reimbursement is not sufficient to meet the costs associated with long-term surveillance and needed secondary procedures after EVAR. Inadequate reimbursement of costs associated with secondary procedures was the primary driver for the net institutional loss. Reimbursement for outpatient radiological procedures generated a modest surplus.

Follow-up costs increase the cost disparity between endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the hospital and follow-up costs of patients who have undergone endovascular (EVAR) or open (OR) elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: The records of 195 patients (EVAR, n = 55; OR, n = 140) who underwent elective aortic aneurysm repair between 1995 and 2004 were reviewed. Primary costing data were analyzed for 54 EVAR and 135 OR patients. Hospital costs were divided into preoperative, operative, and postoperative costs. Follow-up costs for EVAR patients were recorded, with a median follow-up time of 12 months. RESULTS: Mean preoperative costs were slightly higher in the EVAR group (AU $961/US $733 vs AU $869/US $663; not significant). Operative costs were significantly higher in the EVAR group (AU $16,124/US $12,297 vs AU $6077/US $4635; P < .001); this was entirely due to the increased cost of the endograft (AU $10,181/US $7,765 for EVAR vs AU $476/US $363 for OR). Postoperative costs were significantly reduced in the EVAR group (AU $4719/US $3599 vs AU $11,491/US $8,764; P < .001). Total hospital costs were significantly greater in the EVAR group (AU $21,804/US $16,631 vs AU $18,437/US $14,063; P < .001). The increase in total hospital costs was due to a significant difference in graft costs, which was not offset by reduced postoperative costs. The average follow-up cost per year after EVAR was AU $1316/US $999. At 1 year of follow-up, EVAR remained significantly more expensive than OR (AU $23,120/US $17,640 vs AU $18,510/US $14,122; P < .001); this cost discrepancy increased with a longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR results in significantly greater hospital costs compared with OR, despite reduced hospital and intensive care unit stays. The inclusion of follow-up costs further increases the cost disparity between EVAR and OR. Because EVAR requires lifelong surveillance and has a high rate of reintervention, follow-up costs must be included in any cost comparison of EVAR and OR. The economic cost, as well as the efficacy, of new technologies such as EVAR must be addressed before their widespread use is advocated.

Endografting increases total volume of AAA repairs but not at the expense of open surgery: experience in more than 1000 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the volume of open graft replacements (OGR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) versus endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) over time and after modifying selection criteria. METHODS: A review was conducted of 1021 consecutive patients who underwent AAA repair from 1989 through 2002: 496 elective OGRs for infrarenal AAAs (STANDARD), 289 elective EVARs for infrarenal AAAs, 59 complex OGRs for suprarenal AAAs, and 177 emergent OGRs for ruptured AAAs. Patients from 1995 to 2002 were divided into 2 groups based on shifting treatment strategies; 454 patients were treated by STANDARD or EVAR at the surgeon's discretion between 1995 and 2000 (post EVAR). The second group comprised 161 patients treated in 2001-2002 after the introduction of "high-risk" screening criteria (age > or = 72 years, diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, impaired pulmonary function, or ASA class IV) that dictated EVAR whenever anatomically feasible. For comparison, 170 STANDARD repairs performed in the 6 years prior to EVAR served as a control. RESULTS: While surgery for ruptured AAAs remained fairly stable over the 14-year period, the number of patients undergoing elective repair increased due to the implementation of EVAR. During the 6 years after its introduction, EVAR averaged 34.3 patients per year; after 2001, the annual frequency of EVAR increased to 41.5 (p > 0.05). In like fashion, the rate of STANDARD repairs increased to 41.3 patients per year versus 28.3 before EVAR (p = 0.032). ASA class IV patients increased by almost 9 fold in the recent period versus pre EVAR (p = 0.006). The overall mortality after elective infrarenal AAA repair decreased between the pre and post EVAR periods (6.5% versus 3.7%, p > 0.05) and fell still further to 1.2% in the most recent period (p = 0.021 versus pre EVAR). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an EVAR program increases the total volume of AAA repairs but does not reduce open surgical procedures. By allocating patients to EVAR or open repair based their risk factors, mortality was markedly reduced.

Review of efforts to decrease costly leg wound complications in the medicare population following coronary revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Current trends show that patients referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are significantly older, sicker, and at higher risk for complications than ever before. Eliminating leg wound complications would significantly benefit these patients and reduce the consumption of health care time and dollars. Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) decreases the risk of wound complications in patients following CABG and may decrease costly long-term wound-related problems. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the cases of 1909 Medicare patients who had undergone EVH or open vein harvesting (OVH) for CABG were reviewed. The risk factors of these patients were examined and compared with those of 1485 non- Medicare patients. Readmissions, home health care costs, and office lengths of service were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: The results of univariate analyses of the Medicare versus non-Medicare populations indicated significant differences for peripheral vascular disease (25.4% versus 17.2%; P <.0001), renal failure (6.0% versus 2.8%; P <.0001), hypertension (75.4% versus 71.5%; P =.011), female sex (31.1% versus 22.4%; P <.0001), mean age (69.8 years versus 57.1 years; P <.0001), and mortality risk (4.6% versus 2.2%; P <.0001). The wound rates in the Medicare group were 1.1% for EVH (n = 741) versus 2.8% for OVH (n = 1168), and this difference was significant (P =.0163) despite a higher frequency of morbid obesity in the EVH population (P <.0001). No significant differences were found in readmission frequency, home health care costs, or office length of service. CONCLUSION: EVH benefits Medicare patients. Although this study is the largest to date to use disposable instruments, there is a lack of statistical power in the analysis of cost comparisons due to the small sample size of wound complications. However, there appears to be a general trend toward a lower treatment cost per patient and less resource use with EVH.

Inpatient costs of routine endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the inpatient cost of routine (ie, without emergent conversion to open repair during the hospital stay) endovascular stent-graft placement in a consecutive series of patients undergoing elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inpatient hospital costs of 91 patients who underwent initial elective endovascular repair of AAA were analyzed retrospectively. All patients had participated in clinical trials at the authors' institution during the previous 6 years. Financial data were derived from the hospital's cost-accounting system; additional procedural data were collected from a departmental database and with chart review. Stent-graft and professional costs were excluded. RESULTS: The mean total cost for endovascular repair was $11,842 (standard deviation [SD], $5,127), mean procedure time was 149 minutes (SD, 79 minutes), and mean length of stay was 3.5 days (SD, 2.3 days). Total cost depended on stent-graft type (means, $12,428 [bifurcated] vs $9,622 [tube]; P = .0002) and strongly correlated with procedure time and length of hospital stay (r = 0.78 and 0.66, respectively; P < .0001). Ninety-six percent of total costs for all patients were attributable to the following departments: operating theater (31%), radiology (31%), nursing (22%), and anesthesia (12%). CONCLUSION: Overall costs are greater with bifurcated than with tube stent-grafts. Total procedure-related costs are divided relatively equally between the operating theater, the radiology department, and the combination of the nursing and anesthesia departments.

Endovascular-assisted versus conventional in situ saphenous vein bypass grafting: cumulative patency, limb salvage, and cost results in a 39-month multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective multicenter study, the results of a minimally invasive method of endovascular-assisted in situ bypass grafting (EISB) versus "open" conventional in situ bypass grafting (CISB) were evaluated with a comparison of primary and secondary patency, limb salvage, and cost. METHODS: Enrolled in this study were 273 patients: 117 underwent CISB (42 femoropopliteal, 75 femorocrural) and 156 underwent EISB (41 femoropopliteal, 115 femorocrural). EISB was performed with an angioscopic Side Branch Occlusion system and an angioscopically guided valvulotome. All the patients underwent follow-up examination with serial color-flow ultrasound scanning. RESULTS: Both groups had similar comorbid risk factors for diabetes mellitus, coronary artery heart disease, hypertension, and cigarette smoking. The primary patency rates (CISB, 78.2% +/- 5% [SE]; EISB, 70.5% +/- 5%; P =.156), the secondary patency rates (CISB, 84.1% +/- 4%; EISB, 82.9% +/- 5%; P =.26), and the limb salvage rates (CISB, 85.8%; EISB, 88.4%; P =.127) were statistically similar, with a follow-up period that extended to 39 months (mean, 16.6 months; range, 1 to 40 months). In veins that were less than 2.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter, the EISB grafts fared poorly, with an increased incidence of early (12-month) graft thromboses (CISB, 10 grafts, 8.5%; EISB, 24 grafts, 15.3%). However, wound complications (CISB, 23%; EISB, 4%; P =.003), mean hospital length of stay (CISB, 6.5 days +/- 4.83; EISB, 3.2 days +/- 3.19; P =.001), and mean hospital charges (CISB, $25,349 +/- $19,476; EISB, $18,096 +/- $14,573; P =.001) were all significantly reduced in the EISB group. CONCLUSION: The CISB and EISB midterm primary and secondary patency and limb salvage rates were statistically similar. In smaller veins (< 2.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter), however, EISB is not appropriate because overly aggressive instrumentation may cause intimal trauma, with resultant early graft failure. With the avoidance of a long leg incision in the EISB group, wound complications and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced, which lowered hospital charges and justified the additional cost of the endovascular instruments. When in situ bypass grafting is contemplated, EISB in appropriate patients is a safe, minimally invasive, and cost-effective alternative to CISB.

Economic evaluation of different minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Several different techniques exist within the field of minimally invasive coronary artery surgery. In this study the impact of all these techniques on the total costs and economics has been evaluated. METHODS: Since May 1997, 121 minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedures, 125 off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB), ten Port-Access coronary artery bypass (PA-CABG) and 10 endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (ENDO-CABG) procedures were performed at our institution. A relative cost analysis of the different procedures was carried out in addition to a thorough evaluation done in five patients of each group dividing the costs into staff-related costs, material-related costs and general hospital costs. The costs were set in relation to regular CABG procedures. RESULTS: Specific less invasive coronary artery surgical techniques, such as the MIDCAB or OPCAB technique already are able to reduce the total costs when compared to regular CABG procedures. Within the Port-Access group as well as the ENDO-CABG group, increased material- and general costs are present when compared to regular CABG leading to increased total hospital costs for PA-CABG and Endo-CABG in Germany. CONCLUSION: At present, MIDCAB and OPCAB procedures are able to reduce total hospital charges, when compared to regular CABG procedures. Increased costs for Port-Access, as well as Endo-CABG surgeries may be compensated in the future by decreased costs due to a shorter phase of rehabilitation and faster return to regular professional activities.

[Angioscopy of lower limb arteries. History and technique, cost and practical information]. / Angioscopie des artères des membres inférieurs. Historique et technique, coût et informations pratiques.

The historical background to angioscopy shows that the principal successes recorded by its use result from the miniaturization of fibroscopes and the progress in video imaging. The first tentative use of angioscopy was by surgeons during operations carried out at about 1970, that of percutaneous angioscopy dating from 1984. The material used for diagnostic (fibroscope, cinecamera, video system, flushing pump) and interventional (fibroscope, clamps, Dormia cage, endoprostheses ... ) angioscopy is such that the basic equipment requires an outlay of about 150 to 200,000 francs. Percutaneous angioscopy implies the insertion of a catheter allowing flushing of the arterial lumen by means of a pressurized perfusion pump which, when reversed, is transformed into an aspirating pump for removal of the clot and/or atheromatous debris. The procedure is simple and does not expose to more complications than conventional arteriography.