Economic Evaluation of Anesthesiology-Led Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Service.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of an anesthesiology-led cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) service can be viewed to have economic and efficiency challenges. This study evaluates the cost savings of an anesthesiology-led CIED service. METHODS: A total of 830 patients presented in the pre-implementation period from 1 March 2016 to 31 December 2017, and 1981 patients presented in the post-implementation period from 1 January 2018 to 31 October 2021. Interrupted time-series analysis for single-group comparisons was used to evaluate the cost savings resulting from reduction in operating room (OR) start delays for patients with CIEDs. RESULTS: OR start-time delay was reduced by 10.6 min (95%CI: -20.5 to -0.83), comparing pre- to post-implementation. For an OR cost of USD 45/min, we estimated the direct cost to the department to be USD 1.68/min. The intervention translated into a total cost reduction during the intervention period of USD 250,000 (USD 18,000 to USD 470,000) per year for the institution and USD 9800 (USD 730 to USD 17,000) per year for the department. The yearly cost of employing a full-time team of CIED specialists would have been USD 135,456. The service triggered electrophysiology consultation on 13 device malfunctions. CONCLUSIONS: An anesthesiology-led CIED service resulted in substantial cost savings, increased OR efficiency and patient safety.

Outcomes of Complex Endovascular Treatment of Post-Dissection Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Reports of endovascular treatment of chronic post-dissection aneurysms are limited to high volumes centres, posing questions about generalisability. METHODS: All endovascular repairs of intact pararenal and thoraco-abdominal aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2021 were studied, and peri-operative and long term outcomes were compared between repairs of degenerative and post-dissection aneurysms. Peri-operative outcomes were compared using mixed effects logistic regression, and long term outcomes using Medicare linkage. RESULTS: There were 123 patients who completed treatment for post-dissection aneurysms and 3 635 for degenerative aneurysms, with 36% of post-dissection repairs and 6.7% of degenerative repairs performed in a staged fashion (p < .001). The majority (84%) of post-dissection aneurysms were extensive thoraco-abdominal aneurysms (TAAAs: Crawford Type 1, 2, 3, 5), compared with 22% of degenerative aneurysms (p < .001). Physician modified endografts were the primary repair type for post-dissection (73%), while commercially available fenestrated grafts were the dominant repair for degenerative (48%). The first stage of staged procedures was associated with a 2.8% peri-operative mortality rate, 5.1% spinal cord ischaemia, and 8.9% thoraco-abdominal life altering events (the composite of peri-operative death, stroke, permanent spinal cord ischaemia, and dialysis). Th final stage procedure and fluoroscopy times were similar, but technical success was lower in post-dissection repairs (75% vs. 83%, p = .018), both due to issues with the main endograft or bridging vessels (11% vs. 6.6%, p = .055), and types 1and 3 endoleak at completion (17% vs. 10%, p = .035). In addition, high volume surgeons had two fold higher odds of technical success than their low volume counterparts. Adjusted peri-operative outcomes were similar between pathology types, including when comparisons were restricted to extensive TAAAs. Crude and adjusted three year survival were similar, but three year re-interventions were significantly higher following post-dissection repairs (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Complex endovascular repair of chronic post-dissection aneurysms is feasible but is associated with high rates of re-interventions and non-trivial rates of lack of technical success. More data are needed to evaluate the long term durability of these procedures, and the utility of centralising these complex procedures.

Use of linked registry claims data for long term surveillance of devices after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: observational surveillance study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long term outcomes (reintervention and late rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm) of aortic endografts in real world practice using linked registry claims data. DESIGN: Observational surveillance study. SETTING: 282 centers in the Vascular Quality Initiative Registry linked to United States Medicare claims (2003-18). PARTICIPANTS: 20 489 patients treated with four device types used for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR): 40.6% (n=8310) received the Excluder (Gore), 32.2% (n=6606) the Endurant (Medtronic), 16.0% (n=3281) the Zenith (Cook Medical), and 11.2% (n=2292) the AFX (Endologix). Given modifications to AFX in late 2014, patients who received the AFX device were categorized into two groups: the early AFX group (n=942) and late AFX group (n=1350) and compared with patients who received the other devices, using propensity matched Cox models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reintervention and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm post-EVAR; all patients (100%) had complete follow-up via the registry or claims based outcome assessment, or both. RESULTS: Median age was 76 years (interquartile range (IQR) 70-82 years), 80.0% (16 386/20 489) of patients were men, and median follow-up was 2.3 years (IQR 0.9-4.1 years). Crude five year reintervention rates were significantly higher for patients who received the early AFX device compared with the other devices: 14.9% (95% confidence interval 13.7% to 16.2%) for Excluder, 19.5% (18.1% to 21.1%) for Endurant, 16.7% (15.0% to 18.6%) for Zenith, and early 27.0% (23.7% to 30.6%) for the early AFX. The risk of reintervention for patients who received the early AFX device was higher compared with the other devices in propensity matched Cox models (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.02) and analyses using a surgeon level instrumental variable of >33% AFX grafts used in their practice (1.75, 1.19 to 2.59). The linked registry claims surveillance data identified the increased risk of reintervention with the early AFX device as early as mid-2013, well before the first regulatory warnings were issued in the US in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The linked registry claims surveillance data identified a device specific risk in long term reintervention after EVAR of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Device manufacturers and regulators can leverage linked data sources to actively monitor long term outcomes in real world practice after cardiovascular interventions.

Sex-related outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the U.S. Fenestrated and Branched Aortic Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FBEVAR) has expanded the treatment of patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Previous studies have demonstrated that women are less likely to be treated with standard infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair because of anatomic ineligibility and experience greater mortality after both infrarenal and thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. The purpose of the present study was to describe the sex-related outcomes after FBEVAR for treatment of TAAAs. METHODS: The data from 886 patients with extent I to IV TAAAs (excluding pararenal or juxtarenal aneurysms), enrolled in eight prospective, physician-sponsored, investigational device exemption studies from 2013 to 2019, were analyzed. All data were collected prospectively, audited and adjudicated by clinical events committees and/or data safety monitoring boards, and subject to Food and Drug Administration oversight. All the patients had been treated with Cook-manufactured patient-specific FBEVAR devices or the Cook t-Branch off-the-shelf device (Cook Medical, Brisbane, Australia). RESULTS: Of the 886 patients who underwent FBEVAR, 288 (33%) were women. The women had more extensive aneurysms and a greater prevalence of diabetes (33% vs 26%; P = .043) but a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (33% vs 52%; P < .0001) and previous infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (7.6% vs 16%; P < .001). The women had required a longer operative time from incision to surgery end (5.0 ± 1.8 hours vs 4.6 ± 1.7 hours; P < .001), experienced lower technical success (93% vs 98%; P = .002), and were less likely to be discharged to home (72% vs 83%; P = .009). Despite the smaller access vessels, the women did not have an increased incidence of access site complications. Also, the 30-day outcomes were broadly similar between the sexes. At 1 year, no differences were found between the women and men in freedom from type I or III endoleak (91.4% vs 92.0%; P = .64), freedom from reintervention (81.7% vs 85.3%; P = .10), target vessel instability (87.5% vs 89.2%; P = .31), and survival (89.6% vs 91.7%; P = .26). The women had a greater incidence of postoperative sac expansion (12% vs 6.5%; P = .006). Multivariable modeling adjusted for age, aneurysm extent, aneurysm size, urgent procedure, and renal function showed that patient sex was not an independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.37; P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing FBEVAR demonstrated metrics of increased complexity and had a lower level of technical success, especially those with extensive aneurysms. Compared with the men, the women had similar 30-day mortality and 1-year outcomes, with the exception of an increased incidence of sac expansion. These data have demonstrated that FBEVAR is safe and effective for women and men but that further efforts to improve outcome parity are indicated.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery program for lower extremity bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have gained wide acceptance across multiple surgical disciplines to improve postoperative outcomes and to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). However, there is limited information in the existing literature for vascular patients. We describe the implementation and early results of an ERP and barriers to its implementation for lower extremity bypass surgery. Our intention is to provide a framework to assist with implementation of similar ERPs. METHODS: Using the plan, do, check, adjust methodology, a multidisciplinary team was assembled. A database was used to collect information on patient-, procedure-, and ERP-specific metrics. We then retrospectively analyzed patients' demographics and outcomes. RESULTS: During 9 months, an ERP (n = 57) was successfully developed and implemented spanning preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases. ERP and non-ERP patient demographics were statistically similar. Early successes include 97% use of fascia iliaca block and multimodal analgesia administration in 81%. Barriers included only 47% of patients achieving day of surgery mobilization and 19% receiving celecoxib preoperatively. ERP patients had decreased total and postoperative LOS compared with non-ERP patients (n = 190) with a mean (standard deviation) total LOS of 8.32 (8.4) days vs 11.14 (10.1) days (P = .056) and postoperative LOS of 6.12 (6.02) days vs 7.98 (7.52) days (P = .089). There was significant decrease in observed to expected postoperative LOS (1.28 [0.66] vs 1.82 [1.38]; P = .005). Variable and total costs for ERP patients were significantly reduced ($13,208 [$9930] vs $18,777 [$19,118; P < .01] and $29,865 [$22,110] vs $40,328 [$37,820; P = .01], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of ERP for lower extremity bypass carries notable challenges but can have a significant impact on practice patterns. Further adjustment of our current protocol is anticipated, but early results are promising. Implementation of a vascular surgery ERP reduced variable and total costs and decreased total and postoperative LOS. We believe this protocol can easily be implemented at other institutions using the pathway outlined.

Effects of statin and antiplatelet therapy noncompliance and intolerance on patient outcomes following vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have evaluated the effects of statin and antiplatelet agent (APA) medications on patients with peripheral arterial disease. Although the benefits of statin and APA use are well-described, there is a paucity of research into the specific outcomes of patients who are not compliant or those who are unable to take the medication owing to intolerance. Here we examine the outcomes of patients intolerant to statin and APA and compare them with patients who are compliant or noncompliant with these therapies. METHODS: Patients treated from 2005 to 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry were included. Patients with missing data or deaths within 30 days of procedure were removed. Patients were considered noncompliant if they were previously prescribed a medication at discharge but were not taking it at 1-year follow-up or if the patient was reported to be noncompliant in the registry. Medication intolerance was defined if listed as "no, for medical reasons," and mortality data were ascertained using the Social Security Death Index, which is regularly cross-referenced to the Vascular Quality Initiative registry. RESULTS: We identified 105,628 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Statin intolerance was noted in 2.3% at discharge and 2.1% at the 1-year follow-up, with 0.7% listed as intolerant at all stages. Factors associated with increased risk of intolerance to statins included female gender (P = .001), discharge APA intolerance (P = .004), insurance status (non-U.S. insurance) (P < .001), discharge APA noncompliance (P = .019), and discharge angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor noncompliance (P = .005). Patients who were compliant with statins showed a 91% survival at 5 years vs 87% survival in noncompliant patients and 87% in intolerant patients at 5 years (P < .001). Patients with statin intolerance have a similar survival curve as noncompliant patients across all registry cohorts. Noncompliance with statins was correlated with noncompliance with APA medications (R = 0.16, P < .001). Factors associated with increased risk of statin noncompliance included preoperative ambulatory status (requiring assistance) (P = .039), female sex (P < .001), peripheral vascular intervention (P < .001) or infrainguinal open bypass procedure surgery (P = .001), discharge status (to nursing home) (P = .006) and insurance (self-pay) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients not taking statin and APA medications have a substantially decreased 5-year survival irrespective of the reason for not taking. Importantly, patients noted to be intolerant have a similar survival curve as noncompliant patients across all registry cohorts. Intolerant patients may benefit from attempts to alter statin dose, type (hydrophilic vs lipophilic), or from newer agents such as PCSK9 inhibitors.

Statin use improves limb salvage after intervention for peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Statin use is recommended in all patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) owing to its morbidity and mortality benefits. However, the effect of statin use on limb salvage in patients with PAD after intervention is unclear. We examined the effect of statin use on limb salvage and survival among patients with PAD undergoing surgical or endovascular intervention. METHODS: A total of 488 patients with PAD were identified who underwent surgical (n = 297) or endovascular (n = 191) intervention between 2009 and 2010. Information was collected from electronic medical records and the Social Security Death Index. Predictors of ongoing statin use were identified first by univariate analysis and then via multivariable logistic regression. Survival and freedom from amputation were identified using Kaplan-Meier plots and adjusted hazard ratios by Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the 488 patients with PAD with intervention, 39% were non-whites, 44% were females, 41% received statins, 56% received antiplatelets, 26% received oral anticoagulants, 9% required a major amputation, and 11% died during follow-up of up to 88 months. Statin users were more often male (P = .03), white (P = .03), smokers (P < .01), and had higher comorbidities such as coronary artery disease (P < .01), hypertension (P < .01), and diabetes (P < .01). Antiplatelet use was not associated with limb salvage (P = .13), but did improve survival (P < .01). Dual antiplatelet therapy did not show any benefit over monotherapy for limb salvage (P = .4) or survival (P = .3). Statin use was associated with improved survival (P = .04), and improved limb salvage (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.7) after adjusting for severity of disease, traditional risk factors, and concurrent antiplatelet use. CONCLUSIONS: Statin use in patients with PAD with interventions was associated with improved limb salvage and survival. Despite existing guidelines, statin therapy was low in our PAD population, and efforts are ongoing to increase their use across the health care system.

Provider Trends in Atherectomy Volume between Office-Based Laboratories and Traditional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: As patient care is being increasingly transitioned out of the hospital and into the outpatient setting, there is a growing interest in developing office-based angiography suites, that is, office-based laboratories. Office-based care has been associated with increased efficiency and greater patient satisfaction, with substantially higher reimbursement directly to the physicians providing care. Prior studies have demonstrated a shift of revascularization procedures to office-based laboratories with a concomitant increase in atherectomy use, a procedure with disproportionately high reimbursement in comparison to other peripheral revascularization techniques. We sought to determine provider trends in endovascular procedure volume, settings, and shifts in practice over time, specific to atherectomy. METHODS: Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2013 to 2015, we identified providers who performed diagnostic angiography (DA), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), stent placement (stent), and atherectomy, and procedures were aggregated at the provider level. Trends in procedures performed in office-based laboratory and facility-based settings were analyzed. Atherectomy was specifically analyzed using the total number and proportion of office-based laboratory procedures, and providers were stratified into quintiles by case volume. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 5,298 providers were identified. Over this time period, the number of providers performing atherectomy increased 25.7%, with the highest quintile of atherectomy providers performing an average of 263 cases (range 109-1,455). The proportion of physicians who performed atherectomy only in the office increased from 39.8% to 50.7% from 2013 to 2015, whereas only 20.8% of physicians who performed DA, PTA, or stent in 2015 did so only in an office-based laboratory. Of the physicians with the highest atherectomy volume, 77.8% operated only in the office in 2015, and these physicians increased their atherectomy volume to 114.1% during the study period. Of those physicians who transitioned to a solely office-based laboratory practice over the study period, atherectomy volume increased 63.4%, which was disproportionate compared with the growth of their DA, PTA, and stent volume. CONCLUSIONS: Over this short study period, a rapid shift into the office setting for peripheral intervention occurred, with a concomitant increase in atherectomy volume that was disproportionate to the increase in other peripheral interventions. This increase in office-based laboratory atherectomy occurred in the setting of increased reimbursement for the procedure and despite a lack of data supporting superiority over PTA/stent.

Financial implications of coding inaccuracies in patients undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective, single university hospital review of all elective, infrarenal EVARs performed from 2010 to 2015 was completed. Index procedure hospitalizations were reviewed for MS-DRG classification, comorbidities, complications, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Patients' comorbidities and postoperative complications were tabulated to verify accuracy of MS-DRG classification. Misclassified patients were audited and reclassified as "standard" or "complex" on the basis of a corrected MS-DRG: standard for 238 (major cardiovascular procedure without MCC) and complex for 237 (major cardiovascular procedure with MCC). RESULTS: There were 104 EVARs identified, including 91 standard (original MS-DRG 238, n = 85; MS-DRG 254, n = 6) and 13 complex hospitalizations (original MS-DRG 237, n = 9; MS-DRG 238, n = 3; MS-DRG 253, n = 1). On review, 3% (n = 3) of the originally assigned MS-DRG 238 patients were undercoded while actually meeting MCC criteria for a 237 designation. Hospitalizations coded with MS-DRG 253 and 254 were considered billing errors because MS-DRG 237 and 238 are more appropriate and specific classifications as major cardiovascular procedures. Overall, there was a 9.6% miscoding rate (n = 10), representing a total lost billing opportunity of $587,799. Mean LOS for standard and complex hospitalizations was 3.0 ± 1.5 days vs 7.8 ± 6.0 days (P < .001), with respective intensive care unit LOS of 0.4 ± 0.7 day vs 2.6 ± 3.1 days (P < .001). Postoperative complications occurred in 23% of patients; however, not all met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria as MCC. Miscoded complexity was found to be due to postoperative events in all patients rather than to missed comorbidities. Mean hospitalization cost for standard and complex patients was $28,833 ± $5597 vs $41,543 ± $12,943 (P < .001). Based on institutional reimbursement data, this translates to a mean loss of $5407 per correctly coded patient. Miscoded patients represent an additional overall reimbursement loss of $140,102. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a large lost billing opportunity with miscoding of elective EVARs from 2010 to 2015, with errors in categorization of the procedure as well as miscoding of complexity. The revenue impact is potentially significant in this population, and additional reviews of coding practices should be considered.

Regional quality groups in the Society for Vascular Surgery® Vascular Quality Initiative.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI) is designed to improve the quality, safety, effectiveness, and cost of vascular health care. The SVS VQI is uniquely organized as a distributed network of regional quality improvement groups across the United States. The regional approach allows for the involvement of a variety of health care professionals, the pooling of available resources and expertise, and serves as a motivating factor for each participating institution. Regional quality group sizes, administrative structure, and meeting logistics vary according to geography and regional needs. This review describes the process of forming, growing, and maintaining a regional quality improvement group of the SVS VQI.

Midterm cost and effectiveness of thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open repair.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) has been rapidly introduced as a primary treatment modality for thoracic aortic diseases with limited data available on midterm to late-term outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single institution study comparing hospital and midterm outcomes and costs for TEVAR versus open elective repair of descending thoracic aneurysms was conducted. Fifty-seven patients were included between 2005 and 2007 (TEVAR=28; open=29) and were followed until May 2010. RESULTS: Patients in the TEVAR group were older (73.2 versus 62.3 years; p<0.001). Hospital mortality was higher in the open repair group (10.3% versus 3.6%; p=0.611). There was no statistical difference in stroke, paraparesis or paralysis, sepsis, or renal failure; however, a composite major adverse event variable showed a higher complication with open repair versus TEVAR (37.9% versus 14.3%; p=0.043). Mean follow-up was 42.6 months for open repair versus 26.9 for TEVAR (p=0.002). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed the initial survival benefit for TEVAR was lost in less than 6 months; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance during follow-up (log-rank test p=0.232). Mean surveillance imaging costs for a TEVAR patient were $1,800.38 higher than for an open patient at 2 years. Compliance of TEVAR patients with follow-up imaging was 78%, 64%, 50%, and 42% at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, and was even lower in those not registered in device trials. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the TEVAR group had favorable early outcomes; however, midterm survival was reduced secondary to comorbidities. This study raises concern for the ongoing costs of surveillance imaging in TEVAR as well as patient compliance with follow-up.

National trends in lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions, and major amputations.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in endovascular interventions have expanded the options available for the invasive treatment of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Whether endovascular interventions substitute for conventional bypass surgery or are simply additive has not been investigated, and their effect on amputation rates is unknown. METHODS: We sought to analyze trends in lower extremity endovascular interventions (angioplasty and atherectomy), lower extremity bypass surgery, and major amputation (above and below-knee) in Medicare beneficiaries between 1996 and 2006. We used 100% samples of Medicare Part B claims to calculate annual procedure rates of lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions (angioplasty and atherectomy), and major amputation between 1996 and 2006. Using physician specialty identifiers, we also examined trends in the specialty performing the primary procedure. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2006, the rate of major lower extremity amputation declined significantly (263 to 188 per 100,000; risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-0.8). Endovascular interventions increased more than threefold (from 138 to 455 per 100,000; RR = 3.30; 95% CI: 2.9-3.7) while bypass surgery decreased by 42% (219 to 126 per 100,000; RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.5-0.7). The increase in endovascular interventions consisted both of a growth in peripheral angioplasty (from 135 to 337 procedures per 100,000; RR = 2.49; 95% CI: 2.2-2.8) and the advent of percutaneous atherectomy (from 3 to 118 per 100,000; RR = 43.12; 95% CI: 34.8-52.0). While radiologists performed the majority of endovascular interventions in 1996, more than 80% were performed by cardiologists and vascular surgeons by 2006. Overall, the total number of all lower extremity vascular procedures almost doubled over the decade (from 357 to 581 per 100,000; RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.5-1.8). CONCLUSION: Endovascular interventions are now performed much more commonly than bypass surgery in the treatment of lower extremity PAD. These changes far exceed simple substitution, as more than three additional endovascular interventions were performed for every one procedure declined in lower extremity bypass surgery. During this same time period, major lower extremity amputation rates have fallen by more than 25%. However, further study is needed before any causal link can be established between lower extremity vascular procedures and improved rates of limb salvage in patients with PAD.

Combined aortic debranching and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) effective but at a cost.

OBJECTIVES: To compare hybrid repair (HR) (aortic debranching and TEVAR) with conventional open thoracoabdominal and aortic arch repairs (OR), including a cost analysis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty patients with thoracoabdominal aneurysms were evaluated between November 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006. INTERVENTIONS: There were 18 HRs and 12 ORs. Aortic abnormalities included the arch, visceral aorta, and arch/visceral aorta combined. Aortic debranching with TEVAR (HR) was performed at a single setting. Dacron grafts were used for OR, and branch vessels were bypassed. Hospital costs and reimbursements were obtained from the finance department. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative morbidity, mortality, and cost. RESULTS: Patients were significantly older in the HR group (mean [SD], 72 [8.9] vs 58 [17.4] years, P = .2). The HR group had significantly less blood loss (mean [SD], 1.7 [2.3] vs 4.8 [3.1] L, P = .004), transfusions (5.1 [5.9] vs 14.7 [7.8] units, P = .001), renal failure (0% vs 42.0%, P = .002), and pulmonary morbidity (17% vs 67%, P < .001); shorter intensive care unit stays (5.2 [4.8] vs 16.4 [12.9] days, P = .005); and shorter hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 11.6 [6.2] vs 20.8 [10.8] days, P = .01). There were no differences in mortality or spinal cord ischemia. There was no difference in mean direct hospital costs (HR: $59,435.70 vs OR: $49,341; P = .35). However, the mean cost margin per case was -34% for HR and +6.2% for OR (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Improved clinical outcomes are seen after HR despite treatment of an older, sicker patient population. However, HR ultimately comes at a significant cost to the hospital, with a 34% loss in revenue per case.

Practical strategies for developing the business case for hospital glycemic control teams.

Many business models may be used to make the business case for support of a multidisciplinary team to implement targeted glucose control in the hospital. Models may be hospital-supported or self-supporting. In the former, the hospital provides financial support based on improved documentation opportunities, reduction in length of stay, and improved resource utilization. In the latter, clinical revenues for diabetes management offsets costs of salary, fringe benefits, and overheads. A combination of these strategies may also be used. The business plan presented to administration must justify return on investment. It is imperative to involve hospital administration, particularly representatives from coding, billing, and finance, in the development of the business plan. The business case for hospital support will be based on opportunities related to improving accuracy of documentation and coding for diabetes-related diagnoses, including level of control and complications present, on reduction in length of stay and on optimization of resource utilization through reduction in morbidity and mortality (cost aversion). The case for revenue generation through billing for clinical services will be based on opportunities to increase the provision of glycemic management services in the hospital. Examples from the literature and of analyses to support each of these models are presented.