Comparison of success and cost after retrieval of two inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to help guide inferior vena cava (IVC) filter choices by better understanding the retrieval characteristics, complications, and total costs between two commonly used IVC filters. METHODS: All patients who underwent retrieval or attempted retrieval of Denali (Bard Peripheral Vascular) or Option (Argon Medical Devices) IVC filters were identified between March 2016 and October 2021 at a single tertiary care center. Those with imaging studies that permitted evaluation of filter placement, presence or degree of tilt, and/or hooking of the filter into the IVC wall were included in the present study. Filter retrieval success, number of attempts, use of advanced techniques, and fluoroscopy and procedural times were recorded and compared between the two filters. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients presented for retrieval of 52 Denali and 35 Option Elite filters during the study period. Denali filters were more likely to be successfully retrieved at the first attempt (94% vs 77%; P = .019). The procedural and fluoroscopy times were shorter for Denali filters (29 minutes vs 63 minutes [P < .001] and 7 minutes vs 25 minutes [P < .001], respectively). Denali filters were less likely to be significantly tilted (≥15○) at retrieval (12% vs 29%; P < .001) or to have the filter hook embedded in the IVC wall (6% vs 40%; P < .001). Tilting of the filter of ≥15○ had no significant effects on the retrieval success rate (no tilt or tilt <15○ vs tilt of ≥15○: 98% vs 100%; P = .58). In contrast, filter hook penetration into the IVC wall significantly reduced successful recovery (41% vs 99%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that although the filter designs are similar, a benefit exists in the ease of retrievability of the Denali over the Option filter. We found that tilting and hooking of the filter in the IVC wall occurred significantly more with the Option filter. These factors likely made retrieval more difficult and contributed to the longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Factors that affect cost and clinical outcome of endovascular aortic repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of indication for use (IFU), additional graft components, and percutaneous closure of endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) on clinical outcomes and cost of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: Clinical and financial data were obtained for all elective EVARs completed at a university-affiliated medical center between January 2012 and June 2013. Data were analyzed by χ2, Student t-test for independent samples, and Kaplan-Meier survival. RESULTS: There were 67 elective EVARs. Additional cuffs/extensions were used in 37%, increasing the baseline graft cost by 36% (P < .001), total costs by 20% (P < .001), and negatively affecting the contribution margin. Aortic neck IFU (P = .02), failure of the index graft to seal the neck (P = .02), and need for an additional cuff (P = .008) were related to the need for reintervention for type Ia endoleak for graft B (Excluder; W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), whereas limb IFU was related to the need for additional limb extension for graft A (Powerlink; Endologix, Irvine, Calif; P < .001). Limb extension (P = .06) and failure of the index graft to provide an adequate seal (P < .001) were associated with reintervention for type Ib endoleak. Reintervention-free rates at 24 months were 96% for graft A and 94% for graft B (P =.54), but different patterns in reintervention emerged: graft A required reoperation early (<2 months) then stabilized; graft B did not require reintervention until 24 months, but rates increased substantially by 25 months. PEVAR was attempted in 61 (91%): 49 (73%) bilaterally, 7 (10%) unilaterally, and 5 (8%) failed. The mean number of closure devices was four (range, 1-9): $1000 (3.5% of total cost). Bilateral PEVAR was associated with shorter operating time than unilateral PEVAR/failed PEVAR (P < .001) and lower operating room use costs (P = .005) and total hospital costs (P = .003) than failed PEVAR. The contribution margin was higher for bilateral PEVAR than unilateral PEVAR/failed PEVAR (P = .005). Patients with bilateral PEVAR and unilateral PEVAR were more often discharged on postoperative day 1 than those with failed PEVAR (P = .002). Hospital length of stay (P = .49), operating room duration (P = .31), and total costs (P = .72) were similar for unsuccessful PEVAR and EVAR completed with cutdown. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of reintervention occurred when EVAR was performed outside of IFU guidelines or when additional components were needed. Additions raised graft costs significantly above baseline. Notable differences in graft performance in complex anatomy and varied patterns of reoperation could be useful in the graft selection process to improve outcome and contain costs. Bilateral PEVAR was associated with lower costs and postoperative day 1 discharge. Attempting PEVAR may be reasonable unless there is serious concern for failure.

Potential clinical feasibility and financial impact of same-day discharge in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair for elective infrarenal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential feasibility and financial impact of same-day discharge after elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: All elective EVARs performed between January 2012 and June 2013 were identified. Demographics, comorbidities, complications, nursing care, financial data, and length of stay were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven (73%) EVARs were performed electively, 73% percutaneously. Intraoperative complications were blood loss requiring transfusion (4.5%), thrombosis (3%), femoral artery injury (1.5%), postoperative urinary retention (4.5%), myocardial infarction (3%), respiratory failure (1.5%), congestive heart failure (1.5%), and hemodynamic or rhythm alterations (37%; evident in 88% <6 hours; 13% required therapy). Monitoring only was needed in 28 patients (42%), intensive care in 15%. Seventy-two percent were discharged on postoperative day one; 6% were readmitted <30 days. Telemetry, oxygen, intravenous hydration, and urinary catheters (routine services) were used for shorter periods in uncomplicated patients and those discharged on postoperative day 1. Total hospital costs were $29,479: operating room, 80.3%; anesthesia, 2.2%; preadmission, 1%; postanesthesia unit, 3.1%; intensive care unit, 1.9%; floor, 4.7%; laboratory and diagnostic tests, 1.2%; pharmacy, 1.4%; other, 4.2%. Total cost was similar for those discharged <20 hours or ≥24 to 31 hours postoperatively (P = .51) and for monitoring only vs others ($28,146 vs $30,545; P = .12). Pharmacy ($351 vs $509; P = .05), laboratory work ($86 vs $355; P = .01), and diagnostic testing ($4 vs $254; P = .02) costs were lower for uncomplicated cases. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day discharge is clinically feasible in >40% of elective EVARs but requires coordination for adequate postoperative monitoring. Significant savings are unlikely as most cost is operating room and device related, and further reduction of costs in uncomplicated cases is unlikely.

Procedural trends in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease by insurer status in New York State.

BACKGROUND: Type or lack of insurance may affect access to care, treatment, and outcomes. We evaluated trends for surgical management of all peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in-hospital admissions by insurer status in New York State. STUDY DESIGN: Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) data were obtained and cross-referenced for diagnostic and procedure codes. Data from 2001 to 2002 were averaged and used as a baseline. Change in indication, volume of admissions, procedures, and amputations were calculated for the years 2003 to 2008 and were analyzed by insurer status. RESULTS: There were 83,949 admissions. Endovascular intervention (EVI) increased tremendously for all indications and was used equally in the insured and uninsured. Among critical limb ischemia admissions, patients with private insurance were significantly more likely to be admitted for rest pain and significantly less likely to be admitted for gangrene (p < 0.001). Admission for gangrene declined for all. As EVI increased, amputation decreased and was significantly lowest in patients with private insurance (p < 0.001). Amputation was significantly higher in Medicaid than other insured (Medicaid vs private, p < 0.001; Medicaid vs Medicare, p = 0.003), but comparable to the uninsured (p = 0.08). Age greater than 65 years and low socioeconomic class or minority status were significant risks for gangrene (p = 0.014; p < 0.001) and ultimate amputation (p = 0.05; p < 0.001). Lack of insurance may pose a similar risk. CONCLUSIONS: EVI increased tremendously and was used without disparity across insurer status. Amputation declined steadily and may have been related to increased EVI or to decreased admission for gangrene. Advanced age, low socioeconomic class or minority status, and lack of insurance negatively affect presentation and limb salvage. Universal health care may be beneficial in improving outcomes but must address root causes for delayed presentation.

Endovascular intervention for treatment of claudication: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Treatment of claudication with endovascular intervention (EVI), a procedure designed to enhance quality of life, is on the rise despite being expensive. We examined clinical outcomes and costs for treatment of claudication with EVI. METHODS: Records of all EVI performed at a University Health Center during a single year were reviewed for functional capacity, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Council (TASC) classification, procedure, reintervention, and financial data. Sustained clinical success (SCS) (improvement without target extremity revascularization [TER]) and secondary sustained clinical success (SSCS) (improvement with TER) were tracked over 2 years follow-up. RESULTS: There were 77 patients (90 limbs). Mean follow-up was 14.8 +/- 7.7 months (1-30). Procedural success was 94%. Two-year SCS and SSCS were found to be 28 +/- 9% and 49 +/- 11%, respectively. SCS differed significantly from TASC (p = 0.02), whereas SSCS did not (p = 0.33). Mean time to reintervention was 11.7 +/- 6.6 months. Two-year TER-free rate (65 +/- 7%) did not differ significantly by procedure (p = 0.26), the artery treated (p = 0.24), or TASC (p = 0.18). Two-year costs for EVI were $13,886, differing significantly by TASC (p = 0.017) and by the artery treated (p < 0.001). Estimated cost for a 3-month trial of supervised exercise and pharmacotherapy was $1,376, and the maintenance cost over a 2 year follow-up period was $6,602. CONCLUSIONS: TER was necessary in more than one-third of limbs to maintain 2-year SSCS in 49% of patients. EVI was twice as expensive as estimated 2-year costs for supervised exercise and pharmacotherapy, and 10 times more costlier than a 3-month trial. Mandating a trial of conservative therapy before EVI merits consideration.

Lower extremity endovascular interventions: can we improve cost-efficiency?

OBJECTIVE: Management of lower extremity arterial disease with endovascular intervention is on the rise. Current practice patterns vary widely across and within specialty practices that perform endovascular intervention. This study evaluated reimbursement and costs of different approaches for offering endovascular intervention and identified strategies to improve cost-efficiency. METHODS: The medical records of all patients admitted to a university health system during 2005 for an endovascular intervention were retrospectively reviewed. Procedure type, setting, admission status, and financial data were recorded. Groups were compared using analysis of variance, Student t test for independent samples, and chi2. RESULTS: A total of 296 endovascular interventions were completed, and 184 (62%) met inclusion criteria. Atherectomy and stenting were significantly more costly when performed in the operating room than in the radiology suite: atherectomy, dollars 6596 vs dollars 4867 (P = .002); stent, dollars 5884 vs dollars 3292, (P < .001); angioplasty, dollars 2251 vs dollars 1881 (P = .46). Reimbursement was significantly higher for inpatient vs ambulatory admissions (P < .001). Costs were lowest when the endovascular intervention was done in the radiology suite on an ambulatory basis and highest when done as an inpatient in the operating room (dollars 5714 vs dollars 12,278; P < .001). Contribution margins were significantly higher for inpatients. Net profit was appreciated only for interventions done as an inpatient in the radiology suite. Reimbursement, contribution margins, and net profit were significantly lower among private pay patients in both the ambulatory and inpatient setting. The 30-day hospital readmission after ambulatory procedures was seven patients (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns for endovascular interventions differ considerably. Costs vary by procedure and setting, and reimbursement depends on admission status and accurate documentation; these dynamics affect affordability. Organizing vascular services within a hub will ensure that care is delivered in the most cost-efficient manner. Guidelines may include designating the radiology suite as the primary venue for endovascular interventions because it is less costly than the operating room. Selective stenting policies should be considered. Contracts with private insurers must include carve-outs for stent costs and commensurate reimbursement for ambulatory procedures, and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT; American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill) coding must be proficient to make ambulatory endovascular interventions fiscally acceptable.

Hospital costs for endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate hospital costs and reimbursement for open (OAAA) and endovascular (EVAAA) repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. STUDY DESIGN: Review of all patients who underwent OAAA or EVAAA in two teaching hospitals during the period January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000, was completed for the following: demographics, Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), resource use, length of stay, hospital costs, and reimbursement data. RESULTS: There were 130 abdominal aortic aneurysm procedures performed. Fifty-seven (44%) OAAA were completed; EVAAA was attempted in 73 (56%). Seventy EVAAA patients (96%) had endografts placed, and three (4%) required conversion to open repair. Significant differences were noted between OAAA and EVAAA in operative time (311.7 +/- 107.5 minutes versus 263.4 +/- 110.8 minutes, respectively, p = 0.02), ICU admission and length of stay (100%, 5.0 +/- 6.1 days versus 29%, 1.4 +/- 7.1 days, respectively, p = 0.003), and hospital length of stay (12.6 +/- 14.8 days versus 4.9 +/- 13.4 days, respectively, p = 0.002). Total costs were $17,539.00 for EVAAA and $9,042.00 for OAAA. EVAAA was profitable ($3,072.00) for Medicare DRG 110 classification, but significant loss occurred with DRG 111 ($5,065.00). Contract renegotiation with private payers (to cover graft costs) was necessary to avoid substantial per- patient loss ($12,108.00). Overall net per-patient profit for EVAAA was $737.00. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is significantly more expensive than open repair, with the major portion attributed to graft cost. Although ICU use and total length of stay decreased with EVAAA, overall costs were not substantially reduced. Hospitals must develop new financial strategies and improve the efficiency of their infrastructures in order to offer EVAAA.