The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change. METHODS: All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18). CONCLUSIONS: Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

A comparison of reintervention rates after endovascular aneurysm repair between the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, Medicare claims, and chart review.

OBJECTIVE: The accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention. RESULTS: VQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Chart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review.

A risk prediction model for determining appropriateness of CEA in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) over medical therapy in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is predicated upon a life expectancy of at least 5 years after the procedure. The goal of this study was to create a scoring system for prediction of 5-year survival after CEA that can be used to triage patients with ACAS. METHODS: All patients who underwent CEA for severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 1989 to 2005 were identified. Long-term survival was determined by a review of hospital records and the social security death index. Because all patients had at least 5-year follow-up, a logistic regression of predictors of survival at 5 years was performed and the odds ratios associated with particular significant comorbidities were used to create a scoring system to predict survival. The scoring system was then validated within the cohort using the Hosmer-Lemeshow Test and a derivation/validation receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: There were 2004 CEA performed in 1791 patients. The average follow-up was 130 ± 49 months. The clinical profile of the cohort data included 84% hypertension, 56% coronary artery disease (CAD), 24% diabetes, and 71% on statins. The 30-day stroke rate was 1.1% and the death rate was 0.7%. The actual 5-year survival was 73%. Logistic regression yielded the following predictors of mortality: age (by decade) (odds ratio [OR] = 1.8, P < 0.0001), CAD (OR = 1.5, P = 0.0007), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 2.5; P < 0.0001), diabetes (OR = 1.7, P < 0.0001), neck radiation (OR = 2.6, P = 0.005), no statin (OR = 2.1, P < 0.0001), and creatinine more than 1.5 (OR = 2.6, P < 0.0001). These variables were then assigned a hierarchal point scoring system in accordance with the OR value. The 5-year survival based on the scoring system was as follows: 0 to 5 points = 92.5%, 6 to 8 points = 83.6%, 9 to 11 points = 63.7%, 12 to 14 points = 46.5%, and more than 15 points = 33.8%. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test validated the scoring system (P = 0.26) and there was no difference in the ROC curves (C statistic = 0.74 vs 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: This validated scoring system can be a useful tool for determining which patients are likely to benefit most from CEA based on the probability of long-term survival. Given that the 5-year survival of patients in the medical arm of the asymptomatic CEA trials was 60% to 70%, it is reasonable to conclude that patients who score 0 to 8 points are excellent candidates for CEA whereas most patients with ≥12 points should be managed with medical therapy alone.