The influence of socioeconomic status on outcomes of lower extremity arterial reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: Although it has been shown that patient socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with the surgical treatments chosen for severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the association between SES and outcomes of arterial reconstruction have not been well-studied. The objective of this study was to determine if SES is associated with outcomes following lower extremity arterial reconstruction. METHODS: Patients 40 years and older who had surgical revascularization for severe lower extremity PAD were identified in the Nationwide Readmissions Database, 2010 to 2014. Measures of SES including median household income (MHI) quartiles of patients' residential ZIP codes were extracted. Factors associated with repeat revascularization, subsequent major amputations, hospital mortality, and 30-day all-cause readmission were evaluated using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 131,529 patients identified, the majority (61%) were male, and the average age was 69 years. On unadjusted analyses, subsequent amputations were higher among patients in the lowest MHI quartile compared with patients in the highest MHI quartile (13% vs 10%; overall P < .001). On multivariable analyses, compared with patients in the lowest quartile, those in the highest quartile had lower amputation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.77; overall P < .001) and readmission (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; overall P = .028) rates. However, subsequent revascularization (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.15) and mortality (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.28) rates were not different across the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lower SES is associated with disproportionally worse outcomes following lower extremity arterial reconstruction for severe PAD. These data suggest that improving outcomes of lower extremity arterial reconstruction may involve addressing socioeconomic disparities.

Procedural and 12-month in-hospital costs of primary infra-popliteal bypass surgery, infrapopliteal best endovascular treatment, and major lower limb amputation for chronic limb threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a growing global problem due to the widespread use of tobacco and increasing prevalence of diabetes. Although the financial consequences are considerable, few studies have compared the relative cost-effectiveness of different CLTI management strategies. The Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 trial is randomizing patients with CLTI to primary infrapopliteal (IP) vein bypass surgery (BS) or best endovascular treatment (BET) and includes a comprehensive within-trial cost-utility analysis. The aim of this study is to compare over a 12-month time horizon, the costs of primary IP BS, IP best endovascular treatment (BET), and major limb major amputation (MLLA) to inform the BASIL-2 cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We compared procedural human resource (HR) costs and total in-hospital costs for the index admission, and over the following 12-months, in 60 consecutive patients undergoing primary IP BS (n = 20), IP BET (n = 20), or MLLA (10 transfemoral and 10 transtibial) for CLTI within the BASIL prospective cohort study. RESULTS: Procedural HR costs were greatest for BS (BS £2551; 95% confidence interval [CI], £1934-£2807 vs MLLA £1130; 95% CI, £1046-£1297 vs BET £329; 95% CI, £242-£390; P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis) due to longer procedure duration and greater staff requirement. With regard to the index admission, MLLA was the most expensive due to longer hospital stay (MLLA £13,320; 95% CI, £8986-£18,616 vs BS £8714; 95% CI, £6097-£11,973 vs BET £4813; 95% CI, £3529-£6097; P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis). The total cost of the index admission and in-hospital care over the following 12 months remained least for BET (MLLA £26,327; 95% CI, £17,653-£30,458 vs BS £20,401; 95% CI, £12,071-£23,926 vs BET £12,298; 95% CI, £6961-£15,439; P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 12-month time horizon, MLLA and IP BS are more expensive than IP BET in terms of procedural HR costs and total in-hospital costs. These economic data, together with quality of life data from BASIL-2, will inform the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for different CLTI management strategies within the BASIL-2 cost-utility analysis.

Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Patient and Institutional Costs of Failure of Angioplasty of the Superficial Femoral Artery.

BACKGROUND: Debate surrounds the optimal management of superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease. Randomized trial data rarely reflect real world findings, specifically the consequences to the patient of angioplasty failure. We observed the effect of a failed SFA angioplasty on the need for repeated clinic visits, hospital readmissions, imaging requirements, and reinterventions. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 148 patients (94 men, median age 72 years) undergoing solely SFA angioplasty over a 2-year period. Patient preangioplasty demographics and 2-year post-PTA follow-up data were collated, including hospital attendances (inpatient/outpatient), further imaging (including radiation exposure) and revascularization attempts. We defined "failed angioplasty" as presence of clinical symptoms with radiological evidence of significant restenosis after an initial successful primary SFA angioplasty. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients represented with a failed angioplasty (median time of 4 months after index PTA). In this group, failure of index angioplasty resulted in a further 185 restenosis-related clinic visits and a total of 537 bed days of inpatient stay. This group underwent a further 149 imaging events and required a further 34 endovascular revascularization procedures and 12 infrainguinal bypass procedures. These interventions and investigations corresponded to overall effective radiation dose across all patients of 190.69 mSv. Of the cohort of 99 patients who did not have a "failed angioplasty," they required 100 clinic visits, 21 further scans (total radiation dose 6.42 mSv), and 36 bed days of inpatient admission. CONCLUSIONS: Failed angioplasty results in significant additional consequences for patients and health-care systems. Further work should focus on refining decision-making, providing the right procedure to the right patient at the right time.

A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty With Optional Stenting and Femoropopliteal Bypass Surgery for Medium-Length TASC II B and C Femoropopliteal Lesions.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the total midterm costs and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with optional stenting (PTA/S) as initial treatment compared with femoropopliteal bypass (FPB) surgery in patients with medium-length TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC) B and C femoropopliteal lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 3 years, all hospital health care costs for 226 consecutive patients were calculated: 170 patients with a TASC B lesion and 56 patients with a TASC C lesion. In the 135-patient PTA/S group (mean age 69.9±10.9 years; 83 men), 108 (63.5%) patients had TASC B lesions and 27 (48.2%) patients had TASC C lesions. Ninety-one patients (mean age 68.4±10.9 years; 60 men) were treated with FPB for 62 TASC B and 29 TASC C femoropopliteal lesions. The main outcome measure was the primary patency rate at 3-year follow-up. Multiple imputation and bootstrapping techniques were used to analyze the data. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the difference in total costs by the difference in 3-year primary patency rate. Costs were expressed in euros (€), and cost differences are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Mean total costs per patient were €29,058 in the PTA/S treatment group vs €42,437 in the FPB group (mean adjusted difference -€14,820, 95% CI -€29,044 to -€5976). Differences in 3-year primary patency between PTA/S and FPB were small and nonsignificant (68.9% and 70.3%, respectively). An ICER of 563,716 was found, indicating that FPB costs €563,716 more per one extra patient reaching 3-year primary patency in comparison with PTA/S treatment. CONCLUSION: FPB in medium-length femoropopliteal lesions involved higher total costs when evaluated over a 3-year follow-up period. An endovascular-first approach is recommended, as this will result in cost minimization for patients with medium-length femoropopliteal disease.

Nationally Representative Readmission Factors in Patients with Claudication and Critical Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are associated not only with increased mortality, morbidity, and costs but also, with current health-care reform, tied to significant financial and administrative penalties. Some studies show that patients undergoing vascular surgery may have higher than average readmission rates. The recently released Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) is the most comprehensive national source of readmission data, gathering discharge information from 22 geographically dispersed states, accounting for 51.2% of the total U.S. resident population and 49.3% of all U.S. hospitalizations. The aim of this study is to use the power of the NRD and obtain nationally representative readmission information for patients admitted with claudication or critical limb ischemia (CLI) who underwent revascularization procedures. METHODS: The NRD was queried for all patients admitted for claudication (International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision [ICD-9] 440.21) or CLI (ICD-9 440.22-440.24) and who underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, peripheral bypass, or aortofemoral bypass. Patient demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), mortality, readmission rates, and associated costs were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was implemented on claudication and CLI groups on all outcomes of interest. The most common readmission diagnosis codes and diagnosis groups were also identified. RESULTS: A total of 92,769 patients were admitted for peripheral vascular disease (33,055 with claudication and 59,714 with CLI). The 30-day readmission/any readmission rate was 8.97%/21.49% and 19.26%/40.36%, for claudication and CLI, respectively. Significant differences were found for claudication and CLI, respectively, on initial cost of admission ($18,548 vs. $29,148, P < 0.001), readmission costs ($14,726 vs. $17,681 P < 0.001), LOS (4 days vs. 9 days, P < 0.001), days to readmission (73 days vs. 59 days, P < 0.001), mortality during initial admission (256 vs. 1,363, P < 0.001), and mortality during any admission (538 vs. 3,838, P < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis found that claudication, CLI, angioplasty, peripheral bypass, aortofemoral bypass, female sex, age >65, Charlson Comorbidity Index, LOS, and primary expected payer status were all significant predictors of 30-day and overall readmissions at varying degrees. The 5 most common disease readmission groups found were other vascular procedures (12.6%), amputation of lower limb except toes (6.3%), sepsis (5.4%), heart failure (4.9%) and postoperative or other device infections (4.8%). Of the abovementioned groups, the 4 most common diagnoses included "other postoperative infections," sepsis, atherosclerosis of native arteries with gangrene, and "other complications due to other vascular device, implant, or graft." CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that there is a significant difference in readmission rates, cost, and morbidity between patients admitted for claudication and CLI. Furthermore, based on regression analysis, there are multiple other clear risk factors associated with worse clinical and economic outcomes. Further study is needed to predict which patients will require increased vigilance during their hospital stay to prevent readmissions and worse outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management/epidemiological, level IV.

A retrospective cost analysis of angioplasty compared to bypass surgery for lower limb arterial disease in an Australian tertiary health service.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and surgical bypass (BYP) are treatment options for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PTA and BYP have different clinical outcomes and cost implications. This paper aims to compare hospital-related costs of PTA and BYP for PAD of the lower limbs in an Australian health service. METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis using clinical and financial data from an urban, tertiary hospital was performed. Patient cohorts were matched to existing published studies and 3-year findings were calculated. Outcomes measured were mean initial admission cost; mean bed stay; mean complication rate; mean cost of re-intervention at 12 months and extrapolated mean cost at 3 years. RESULTS: The mean total admission costs for PTA compared to BYP were $8758 vs. $27,849 (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing BYP were admitted for 10.25 vs. 3.77 nights (P < 0.001). The complication rate was greater in the BYP group for infection only. Re-intervention was required by 13% of the PTA group and 16% of the BYP group, at a mean cost of $11,798 and $14,728, respectively (P = 0.453). The extrapolated total mean cost at 3 years was higher in the BYP group for patients with both intermittent claudication ($26,764 vs. $11,402) and critical limb ischaemia ($27,719 vs. $12,655). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, PTA is a favourable alternative to BYP for PAD of the lower limbs as it is less costly, does not result in a greater re-intervention rate at 1 year and has been previously demonstrated to have comparable clinical outcomes. Given the limitations of this retrospective analysis, a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis is recommended.

Investigation into drivers of cost of stenting for carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify factors associated with cost of carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: Patient and hospital characteristics affecting cost of admission for CAS were identified using the Vizient national database of hospital-reported outcomes. Patients who underwent CAS for either asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis were identified using surgical Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups and appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision codes. RESULTS: There were 166 hospitals that reported outcomes from 7369 inpatient admissions for CAS. Each institution reported a mean value for cost related to patient care per admission for CAS; the average cost across all reporting institutions was $12,834.14 (standard error of the mean [SEM], 492.88). Institutions in the lowest 25th percentile with respect to frequency of intensive care unit admission after CAS had lower cost of admission than institutions above the 75th percentile ($10,971.30 [SEM, 460.67] vs $14,992.90 [964.29]; P = .002), without any differences in incidence of stroke during admission (2.2% [SEM, 0.3] vs 2.0% [0.4]; P = .877) or 30-day readmission (1.9% [SEM, 0.4] vs 2.5 [0.6]; P = .329). Admissions for patients with symptomatic stenosis were more expensive than those with asymptomatic stenosis ($20,462.10 [SEM, 819.93] vs $11,285.20 [347.11]; P < .001). Obesity was also associated with greater costs of admission ($14,176.20 [SEM, 597.13] vs $12,287.10 [395.73]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Admission to an intensive care unit, symptomatic stenosis, and obesity were associated with increased costs in patients undergoing CAS. These data may aid in identifying opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of this procedure.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of superficial femoral artery endovascular interventions in the UK and Germany: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the lifetime costs and cost-effectiveness of 5 endovascular interventions to treat superficial femoral arterial disease. DESIGN: A model-based health economic evaluation. An existing decision analytical model was used, with updated effectiveness data taken from the literature, and updated costs based on purchasing prices. SETTING: UK and German healthcare perspectives were considered. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with intermittent claudication of the femoropopliteal arteries eligible for endovascular treatment. METHODS: UK and German healthcare perspectives were considered, as were different strategies for re-intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with bail-out bare metal stenting (assumed to represent the existing standard of care, and 4 alternatives: primary bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and biomimetic stents). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between 2 treatments, defined as the incremental costs divided by the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Use of a biomimetic stent, BioMimics 3D, was always estimated to dominate the other interventions, having lower lifetime costs and greater effectiveness, as measured by QALYs. Of the remaining interventions, DEBs were always the most effective, and PTA the least effective. There was uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results, with key drivers being the costs and effectiveness of the biomimetic stent along with the costs of DEBs. CONCLUSIONS: All 4 of the alternatives to PTA were more effective, with the biomimetic stent being the most cost-effective. As there was uncertainty in the results, and all of the interventions have different mechanisms of action, all 4 may be considered to be alternatives to PTA.

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.

The Readmission Event after Vascular Surgery: Causes and Costs.

BACKGROUND: The study evaluates the readmission diagnoses after vascular surgical interventions and the associated hospital costs. METHODS: Patients readmitted after undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), infrarenal endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAAA), suprainguinal revascularization (SUPRA), or infrainguinal revascularization (INFRA) between January 1, 2008 and October 20, 2013 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative event variables were obtained by chart review. The diagnoses and the costs of the readmission event were obtained by chart review and from hospital financial data. Readmission indications were grouped as unrelated or planned readmissions, procedure-specific complications, wound complications, cardiac causes, and other. Univariate analyses of categorical variables were performed with χ2 or Fisher exact test where appropriate. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: A total of 1,170 patient records were identified. Thirty-day readmission occurred in 112 patients (9.6%). The readmission rate was significantly different between groups: 4.5% in CAS (n = 8/177), 8.5% in CEA (21/246), 5.8% in EVAR (18/312), 11.4% in OAAA (4/35), 15.6% in INFRA (33/212), 13.5% in SUPRA (24/178), and 40% in combined SUPRA and INFRA (4/10) (P < 0.0001). Readmissions were unrelated or planned in 19.6% of patients. Wound complications were the most common readmission diagnoses (36.6%, 41/112).There was a difference in the distribution of readmission indications among procedure groups, with wound complications being predominant in INFRA and SUPRA groups (60.6% and 58.3%, respectively), and cardiac events predominantly in EVAR patients (42%) (P < 0.001). In univariable analysis of predictors of readmission, significant preoperative factors were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal insufficiency, and lower hematocrit. Significant postoperative predictors included any postoperative complication, number of complications, increased length of stay, wound complications, postoperative infections, blood transfusion, and reoperation. The median hospital cost for readmission for wound complications was 29,723 USD (interquartile range 23,841-36,878), and for cardiac complications was 39,784 USD (26,305-46,918). The median cost of readmission for bypass graft occlusion was 33,366 USD (20,530-43,170). The median length of stay also differed depending on the readmission diagnosis and was highest for bypass graft occlusion (8.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Readmissions after vascular procedures are associated with high cost and hospital bed utilization. Wound complications continue to be the dominant readmission etiology. The characterization of these costs and risk factors in this study can allow for resource allocation to minimize preventable related readmissions. A significant proportion of readmissions after vascular interventions are planned or unrelated, which should be taken into consideration in metric benchmarking and performance comparisons.

Predictors of poor outcome after carotid intervention.

BACKGROUND: A variety of patient factors are known to adversely impact outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, their specific impact on complications and mortality and how they differ between CEA and CAS is unknown. The purpose of this study is to identify patient and hospital factors that adversely impact outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 1998 and 2012 (N = 1,756,445) were identified using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample and State Ambulatory Services Databases. A multivariate analysis was completed to evaluate the impact of demographics, patient factors, type of symptoms (transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), volume of cases (3 per year vs 1-2 interventions), and interventions upon outcomes, perioperative complications (stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding), duration of stay, inpatient mortality, and cost. Significant factors were then used as part of a multivariate regression analysis to determine odds ratios. A subgroup analysis using propensity matching evaluating 1:1 risk-matched asymptomatic and symptomatic patients was completed. Patient cohorts were matched on the basis of Charlson scores. RESULTS: Over the study period a total of 1,583,614 asymptomatic CEA, 7317 asymptomatic CAS, 162,362 symptomatic CEA, and 3149 symptomatic CAS patients were included. Symptomatic disease portends a worse outlook after either CEA or CAS. Costs of the procedure increased with complications with stroke adding the most significant cost burden. For risk-matched asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, female gender (P < .001) and performing one or two cases per year (P < .05) were associated with higher cerebrovascular accident risk. In asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, predictors of myocardial infarction included congestive heart failure (P < .001) and peripheral artery disease (P < .05) and predictors of bleeding included peripheral artery disease (P < .05) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < .01) for symptomatic patients only. For both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, predictors of mortality included female gender (P < .001) and performing one or two cases per year (P < .01). Female gender was one of the strongest overall predictors of adverse outcome after CAS (odds ratio, 21.39 for death; P < .001). Low volume (<3 cases per year per practitioner) is a predictor of adverse outcome after CAS only. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of postoperative stroke and inpatient mortality for women undergoing CAS is an unexpected finding, and may indicate that this population is vulnerable to complications after endovascular management. Low volume is a predictor of complications and subsequent mortality primarily for CAS. Patients who undergo CEA continue to have superior outcomes compared with matched cohorts who undergo CAS.

Experience matters more than specialty for carotid stenting outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of carotid stenting has led to a rapid rise in the number of vascular specialists performing this procedure. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) has shown that carotid stenting can be performed with an equivalent major event rate compared with carotid endarterectomy. However, there is still controversy about the appropriate training and experience required to safely perform this procedure. This observational study examined the performance of carotid stenting with regard to specialty and case volume. METHODS: From 2004 to 2011, inpatients diagnosed with carotid stenosis who had a carotid stenting procedure were extracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. The cohort was separated on the basis of the provider performing the procedure (surgeon vs interventionalist), hospital location, and volume. Surgeons were defined as providers who also performed either a carotid endarterectomy or femoral-popliteal bypass during the same time interval. Primary end points analyzed included stroke, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality. Length of stay and hospital costs were also analyzed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 20,663 cases of carotid stenting were found; 15,305 (74%) cases were identified to be performed by a "surgeon," whereas 5358 (26%) were done by an "interventionalist." The majority of cases were done at hospitals in urban locations (96.51%) and designated teaching institutions (61.47%). Unadjusted outcomes were similar between surgeons and interventionalists in terms of stroke (4.33% and 4.41%), myocardial infarction (2.10% and 2.13%), and mortality (0.84% and 1.03%) respectively. Qualitatively, volume per 10 cases was shown to decrease the risk of stroke. Adjusted multivariate analysis demonstrated no statistical significance between primary end point outcomes. However, length of stay (2.81 vs 3.08 days) and total charges ($48,087.61 and $51,718.77) were lower for procedures performed by surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons are performing the majority of carotid stent procedures in the United States. The volume of cases performed by a provider, rather than the provider's specialty, appears to be a stronger predictor of adverse outcomes for carotid stenting. There were, however, significant cost differences between surgeons and interventionalists, which needs to be further evaluated at an institutional level.

Do Physicians' Financial Incentives Affect Medical Treatment and Patient Health?

We investigate whether physicians' financial incentives influence health care supply, technology diffusion, and resulting patient outcomes. In 1997, Medicare consolidated the geographic regions across which it adjusts physician payments, generating area-specific price shocks. Areas with higher payment shocks experience significant increases in health care supply. On average, a 2 percent increase in payment rates leads to a 3 percent increase in care provision. Elective procedures such as cataract surgery respond much more strongly than less discretionary services. Non-radiologists expand their provision of MRIs, suggesting effects on technology adoption. We estimate economically small health impacts, albeit with limited precision.

A cost effective endovascular approach for management of post-catheterization profunda femoris artery pseudoaneurysm using thrombin.

Post-catheterization PSA is one of the most commonly encountered vascular complications of cardiac and peripheral angiographic procedures. We report the case of patient who developed deep-seated profunda femoris artery pseudoaneurysm (PSA) following cardiac catheterization. Despite, repeated ultrasound guided compressions the PSA failed to close and instead produced local site pressure ulcers. The secondary infection followed which precluded use of percutaneous thrombin injection. The PSA was finally closed via a total endovascular technique combining intravascular thrombin injection and coil embolization, thus obviating the need for expensive measures like cover stents or invasive surgical repairs.

When is carotid angioplasty and stenting the cost-effective alternative for revascularization of symptomatic carotid stenosis? A Canadian health system perspective.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid revascularization procedures can be complicated by stroke. Additional disability adds to the already high costs of the procedure. To weigh the cost and benefit, we estimated the cost-utility of carotid angioplasty and stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, with special emphasis on scenario analyses that would yield carotid angioplasty and stenting as the cost-effective alternative relative to carotid endarterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the health system payer was performed by using a Markov analytic model. Clinical estimates were based on a meta-analysis. The procedural costs were derived from a microcosting data base. The costs for hospitalization and rehabilitation of patients with stroke were based on a Canadian multicenter study. Utilities were based on a randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, carotid angioplasty and stenting were more expensive (incremental cost of $6107) and had a lower utility (-0.12 quality-adjusted life years) than carotid endarterectomy. The results are sensitive to changes in the risk of clinical events and the relative risk of death and stroke. Carotid angioplasty and stenting were more economically attractive among high-risk surgical patients. For carotid angioplasty and stenting to become the preferred option, their costs would need to fall from more than $7300 to $4350 or less and the risks of the periprocedural and annual minor strokes would have to be equivalent to that of carotid endarterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In the base case analysis, carotid angioplasty and stenting were associated with higher costs and lower utility compared with carotid endarterectomy for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting were cost-effective for patients with high surgical risk.

Economic analysis of a randomized trial of percutaneous angioplasty, supervised exercise or combined treatment for intermittent claudication due to femoropopliteal arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare costs and utilities of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), a supervised exercise programme (SEP) and combined treatment (PTA + SEP) in patients with intermittent claudication (IC) to establish the most cost-effective treatment. METHODS: Patients with IC due to femoropopliteal disease were randomized to receive PTA, SEP or PTA + SEP. Assessments were performed before, and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postintervention. Clinical and quality-of-life indicators were recorded. The SF-6D Health Utilities index was calculated from the Short Form 36, plotted, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were generated by calculating the area under the curve. Costs were calculated using National Health Service 2009-2010 payment-by-results tariffs and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network Investigation pricing index, and adjusted for reinterventions. Cost per QALY and incremental costs were calculated, and sensitivity analyses performed. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients (PTA, 60; SEP, 60; PTA + SEP, 58) were randomized. All treatments resulted in significant improvement in the SF-6D index (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between treatments in mean QALYs gained (PTA: 0.620, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.588 to 0.652; SEP: 0.629, 0.597 to 0.660; PTA + SEP: 0.649, 0.622 to 0.675). The adjusted mean cost per procedure was significantly higher for PTA (€7301.74) compared with SEP (€3866.49) and PTA + SEP (€6911.68) (P < 0.001). The cost per QALY was significantly higher for PTA (€11,777.00) compared with SEP (€6147.04) and PTA + SEP (€10,649.74). QALYs were lost when PTA alone was used as first-line treatment in comparison with SEP or PTA + SEP. These results were robust and valid in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Supervised exercise is the most cost-effective first-line treatment for IC, and when combined with PTA is more cost-effective than PTA alone.

Carotid endarterectomy is more cost-effective than carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness has become an important end point in comparing therapies that may be considered to have clinical equipoise. While controversial, some feel that recent multicenter randomized controlled trials have codified clinical equipoise between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of hospital cost and 30-day clinical outcomes was performed on patients undergoing CEA and CAS between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2010 at a single tertiary referral institution. Cost, not charges, of the index hospitalization was divided into supply, labor, facility, and miscellaneous categories. All costs were normalized to 2010 values. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients underwent either CEA (n = 174) or CAS (n = 132). Mean hospital cost for CAS was $9426 ± $5776 while CEA cost was $6734 ± $3935 (P < .0001). This cost differential was driven by the significantly higher direct supply costs for CAS ($5634) vs CEA ($1967) (P ≤ .0001). The higher costs for CAS were seen consistently in symptomatic, asymptomatic, elective, and urgent subgroups. Patients undergoing CAS who were enrolled in a trial or registry (53.8%) incurred significantly less cost ($7779 ± $3525) compared to those who were not ($11,279 ± $7114; P = .0004). Patients undergoing CEA trended toward a higher prevalence of being symptomatic (44.8%) compared to CAS (34.0%; P = .058). Age was not significantly different between patients undergoing CEA and CAS (70.2 vs 72.0, respectively; P = .36). Coronary artery disease was more common in patients undergoing CAS (60.3% vs 39%; P = .0001). The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, hypertension, and diabetes was not significantly different between cohorts. Thirty-day combined stroke/death/myocardial infarction rate was 2.3% (4 of 174) in the CEA group and 3.8% (5 of 132) in the CAS group, P = .5. Overall length of stay (LOS) was 2.1 days in both groups (P = .9). LOS was higher for urgent interventions (7.3-7.5 days) and symptomatic status (2.9-3.5 days) when compared to patients treated electively (1.3-1.4 days). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of carotid disease with CAS was 40% more costly than CEA and did not provide better clinical outcomes or a reduction in LOS. These trends were consistent in symptomatic, asymptomatic, urgent, and elective subgroups At present, CAS cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment for carotid disease.