Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine computed tomography angiography (CTA) for lower extremity penetrating trauma.

BACKGROUND: Routine evaluation with CTA for patients with isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma and normal ankle-brachial-indices (ABI) remains controversial. While prior literature has found normal ABI's (≥0.9) and a normal clinical examination to be adequate for safe discharge, there remains concern for missed injuries which could lead to delayed surgical intervention and unnecessary morbidity. Our hypothesis was that routine CTA after isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination is not cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a CTA routinely compared to clinical observation and ABI evaluation in hemodynamically normal patients with isolated penetrating lower extremity trauma. Our base case was a patient that sustained penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs that received a CTA in the trauma bay. Costs, probability, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were generated from published literature. RESULTS: Clinical evaluation only (no CTA) was cost-effective with a cost of $2056.13 and 0.98 QALYs gained compared to routine CTA which had increased costs of $7449.91 and lower QALYs 0.92. Using one-way sensitivity analysis, routine CTA does not become the cost-effective strategy until the cost of a missed injury reaches $210,075.83. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with isolated, penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination do not warrant routine CTA as there is no benefit with increased costs.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Endovascular Aortic Repair With Open Femoral Exposure.

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