Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM). RESULTS: Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in Iran: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is one of the most important cardiovascular diseases, especially in the elderly. People with this disease are at risk of rupture of the abdominal aorta and death. The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair compared to open surgery in AAA patients in Iran. METHODS: A Markov chain model was developed based on the use of endovascular repair and open surgery. The base-case patient was defined as a 65-year-old man presenting with AAA diameter greater than 5 cm. The determination of costs was from the perspective of the public sector provider. QALY was used to calculate the effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and TreeAge software were used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The follow-up period was 10 years and the willingness to pay (WTP) was determined as three times the Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. RESULT: At the end of year 10, the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) strategy gained 1 318 313 559 Iranian Rial (IRR) (67 885.29$) in cost and 3.57 QALYs in effectiveness. In contrast, the use of the open surgery repair (OSR) strategy gained 1 186 761 858 IRR (61 111.16$) in cost and 3·32 QALYs in effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing EVAR versus OSR, was 53, 346, 3757 IRR (178.36$) per QALYs, which is lower than the proposed WTP, indicating that EVAR is more expensive and more effective. Based on the Monte Carlo simulation test, EVAR is the preferred strategy in 58.6% of the population. CONCLUSION: Endovascular repair has a relative superiority compared to open surgery, and the probability of the effectiveness of endovascular repair compared to open surgery does not change with increasing willingness to pay.

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs. METHODS: We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs. RESULTS: We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

The Potential Benefits and Costs of an Intensified Approach to Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering in People with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the incidence of major vascular events (MVE) and peripheral vascular events (PVE) in people with a small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and model the theoretical benefits and costs of an intensified low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering programme. METHODS: A total of 583 participants with AAAs measuring 30 - 54 mm were included in this study. The control of LDL-C and prescription of lipid lowering drugs were assessed by dividing participants into approximately equal tertiles depending on their year of recruitment into the study. The occurrence of MVE (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and coronary or non-coronary revascularisation) and PVE (non-coronary revascularisation, AAA repair, and major amputation) were recorded prospectively, and the incidence of these events was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The relative risk reduction reported for these events in a previous randomised control trial (RCT) was then applied to these figures to model the absolute risk reduction and numbers needed to treat (NTT) that could theoretically be achieved with a mean LDL-C lowering of 1 mmol/L. The maximum allowable expense for a cost effective intensive LDL-C lowering programme was estimated using a cost utility analysis. RESULTS: At entry, only 28.5% of participants had an LDL-C of < 1.8 mmol/L and only 18.5% were prescribed a high potency statin (atorvastatin 80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg). The five year incidences of MVE and PVE were 38.1% and 44.7%, respectively. It was estimated that if the mean LDL-C of the cohort had been reduced by 1 mmol/L, this could have reduced the absolute risk of MVE and PVE by 6.5% (95% CI 4.4 - 8.7; NNT 15) and 5.3% (95% CI 1.4 - 7.5; NNT 19), respectively. It was estimated that the maximum allowable expense for a cost effective LDL-C lowering programme would be between $1 239 AUD (€768) and $1 582 AUD (€981) per person per annum over a five year period. CONCLUSION: People with a small asymptomatic AAA are at high risk of MVE and PVE. This study provides evidence of the possible benefits and allowable expense for a cost effective intensive LDL-C lowering programme in this population.

The Content of Pre-habilitative Interventions for Patients Undergoing Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and Their Effect on Post-Operative Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Patients requiring abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair are at risk of post-operative complications due to poor pre-operative state. Pre-habilitation describes the enhancement of functional capacity and tolerance to an upcoming physiological stressor, intended to reduce those complications. The ability to provide such an intervention (physical, pharmacological, nutritional, or psychosocial) between diagnosis and surgery is a growing interest, but its role in AAA repair is unclear. This paper aimed to systematically review existing literature to better describe the effect of pre-habilitative interventions on post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing AAA repair. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE and Medline were searched from inception to October 2020. Retrieved papers, systematic reviews, and trial registries were citation tracked. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing post-operative outcomes for adult patients undergoing a period of pre-habilitation prior to AAA repair (open or endovascular) were eligible for inclusion. Two authors screened titles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were post-operative 30 day mortality, composite endpoint of 30 day post-operative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), and health related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes. The content of interventions was extracted and a narrative analysis of results undertaken. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 901 patients were included (three exercise based, two pharmacological based, and two nutritional based). Risk of bias was mostly unclear or high and the clinical heterogeneity between the trials precluded data pooling for meta-analyses. The quality of intervention descriptions was highly variable. One exercise based RCT reported significantly reduced hospital LOS and another improved HRQL outcomes. Neither pharmacological nor nutritional based RCTs reported significant differences in primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence to draw clinically robust conclusions about the effect of pre-habilitation on post-operative outcomes following AAA repair. Well designed RCTs, adhering to reporting standards for intervention content and trial methods, are urgently needed to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-habilitation interventions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening condition which, in the absence of increasing diameter or rupture, often remains asymptomatic, and a diameter greater than 5.5 cm requires elective surgical repair. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with AAA through a systematic review of published health economics studies. METHODS: Using a systematic review method, an electronic search was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies published on AAA (both in English and Persian) on PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, and the national databases of Iran from 1990 to 2020 including the keywords "cost-effectiveness", "endovascular", "open surgical", and "abdominal aortic aneurysms". The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 958 studies were found, of which 16 were eligible for further study. All studies were conducted in developed countries, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY) were used to measure the outcomes. According to the QHES checklist, most studies were of good quality. In European countries and Canada, EVAR has not been cost-effective, while most studies in the United States regard this technique as a cost-effective intervention. For example, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values ranged from $14,252.12 to $34,446.37 per QALY in the USA, while ICER was €116,600.40 per QALY in Portugal. CONCLUSION: According to the results, the EVAR technique has been more cost-effective than OSR for high-risk patients, but the need for continuous follow-up, increased costs, and re-intervention over the long term and for low-risk patients has reduced the cost-effectiveness of this method. As the health systems vary among different countries (i.e. quality of care, cost of devices, etc.), and due to the heterogeneity of studies in terms of the follow-up period, time horizon, and threshold, all of which are inherent features of economic evaluation, generalizing the results should be done with much caution, and policymaking must be based on national evidence.

Feasibility and Efficiency Study of a Population-Based Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program in Men and Women in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Based on current evidence, one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men using ultrasound evaluation reduces mortality related to AAA rupture and is considered cost-effective, although all-cause mortality reduction still remains in question. In Spain, there is no population screening program for AAA, so the aim of our study was to perform a pilot population screening program in our area to assess feasibility and efficiency of an AAA screening program for men and women. METHODS: A population AAA screening pilot program was performed in a Barcelona area, including 400,000 inhabitants. According to inclusion criteria, 4,730 individuals aged 65 years at the moment of the trial were invited for screening (2,089 men and 2,641 women). Primary care doctors, trained in duplex ultrasound abdominal evaluations, performed an abdominal aortic measurement. Individuals with a previous diagnosis of AAA, limited life expectancy, or wrong contact data were excluded. Participation data, aortic diameters, AAA prevalence, and related cardiovascular risk factors were analyzed. The results were used in a cost-utility model to assess the efficiency of the screening program. RESULTS: Participation was 50.3% in men and 44% in women. Eleven patients were excluded because of previously diagnosed AAA. Five new asymptomatic AAA were detected in 65-year-old men (0.5% prevalence), all being active smokers. When considering patients excluded for previous AAA diagnosis, the prevalence in 65-year-old men reached 1.4%. Global AAA prevalence in smoking men reached 2.67%. No AAA was detected in women. Subaneurysmal aorta prevalence in men was 2.9% (n = 29), and in women, it was 0.08% (n = 2). A cost-utility analysis model on screening versus no screening retrieved 13,664€ per quality-adjusted life years at a 10-year horizon and 39,455€ per quality-adjusted life years at a 30-year horizon. CONCLUSIONS: AAA population-based screening by ultrasound evaluation in primary care is logistically feasible in our area. Despite that, AAA prevalence is lower than expected in men, and null in women. Cost-utility model results indicate that a local AAA screening program is only efficient in a 30 years' time horizon. Such inefficient results for a population screening make it necessary to consider other strategies such as opportunistic or subgroup screening in our area.

Systematic review on abdominal aortic aneurysm screening cost-efficiency and methodological quality assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a silent, progressive disease that can lead to death. It is easily diagnosed with noninvasive methods and its routine treatment has excellent results. This creates an optimal situation for population screening programs. The aim of this paper was to assess results and methodological quality of cost-utility studies on screening versus no screening scenarios for AAA to assess future establishment of new AAA screening programs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITON: A systematic review of efficiency (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) studies was performed, finally selecting cost-utility studies on AAA screening versus no screening. Papers were selected that dealt with efficiency of screening for AAA according to PICOTS framework and the methodological quality assessed according to the economic evaluation analyses described by Drummond and Caro. Two independent reviewers were involved in the procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Research retrieved 88 studies. From those, 26 showed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results. Finally, 10 studies had cost-utility results and suited criteria (published in the last 10 years; time-horizon: 10 years or more) for exhaustive analysis. All publications, except one, showed adequate incremental cost-utility ratios according to different national perspectives. Methodological assessment showed some quality limitations, but the majority of items analyzed were favorably answered after applying the questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Confirmation of the cost-utility results in this revision at a national/regional level should be the basis for the implantation of new national screening programs worldwide. The methodological evaluation applied in this revision is crucial for the corresponding future piggy-back trials to assess routine application of national AAA screening programs.

Renal Transplant Patients Undergo Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair at a Younger Age and Experience More Complications: Review of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether history of kidney transplant is a risk factor for increased complications in patients who undergo abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. BACKGROUND: The incidence of renal failure and subsequent kidney transplant is steadily rising. Many risk factors leading to AAA overlap with those of renal disease. Due to these similarities, a rising incidence of kidney transplant patients undergoing AAA repair is expected. We surmised a notable difference in AAA surgical repair outcomes in renal transplant recipients compared to the general population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 59,836 adult patients with history of AAA repair and kidney transplant from 2008 to 2015. Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database developed for the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. RESULTS: Significant differences in age, race, hospital characteristics, and complications were identified. The results suggest that patients with prior transplant generally have AAA repair at a significantly younger age (P < .001). A difference in race (P = .017), with 75% vs 87.4% non-Hispanic whites and 5% vs 1.5% Asian/Pacific Islander in the transplant and nontransplant groups, respectively, was shown. Procedures at transplant centers had significantly longer lengths of stay (P < .001) and higher total charges (P < .001). In addition, transplant recipients exhibited a higher in-hospital mortality index (P < .001) than the nontransplanted population. CONCLUSION: A history of kidney transplant significantly influences multiple aspects of care and complications regarding future AAA repair and is associated with increased in-hospital mortality index. Significant findings include increased total charges, longer lengths of stay, postoperative complications, and differences in age and race.

Medicare costs for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Reintervention after endovascular repair (EVR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms is common. However, the cumulative financial impact of reintervention after EVR on a national scale is poorly defined. Our objective was to describe the cost to Medicare for aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) among a cohort of patients with known follow-up for 5 years after repair. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent EVR within the Vascular Quality Initiative who were linked to their respective Medicare claims file (n = 13,995). We excluded patients who underwent EVR after September 30, 2010, and those who had incomplete Medicare coverage (n = 12,788). The remaining cohort (n = 1207) had complete follow-up until death or 5 years (Medicare data available through September 30, 2015). We then obtained and compiled the corresponding Medicare reimbursement data for the index EVR hospitalization and all subsequent reinterventions. RESULTS: We studied 1207 Medicare patients who underwent EVR and had known follow-up for reinterventions for 5 years. The mean age was 76.2 years (±7.1 years), 21.6% of patients were female, and 91.1% of procedures were elective. The Kaplan-Meier reintervention rate at 5 years was 18%. Among patients who underwent reintervention, 154 (73.7%) had a single reintervention, 40 (19.1%) had two reinterventions, and 15 (7.2%) had three or more reinterventions. The median cost to Medicare for the index EVR hospitalization was $25,745 (interquartile range, $21,131-$28,774). The median cost for subsequent reinterventions was $22,165 (interquartile range, $17,152-$29,605). The cumulative cost to Medicare of aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) increased in a stepwise fashion among patients who underwent multiple reinterventions, with each reintervention being similar in cost to the index EVR. CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost incurred by Medicare to reimburse for each reintervention after EVR is roughly the same as for the initial procedure itself, meaning that Medicare cost projections would be greater than $100,000 for any individual who undergoes an EVR with three reinterventions. The long-term financial impact of EVR must be considered by surgeons, patients, and healthcare systems alike as these cumulative costs may hinder the fiscal viability of an EVR-first therapeutic approach and highlight the need for judicious patient selection paradigms.

Regional Market Competition is Associated with Aneurysm Diameter at the Time of EVAR.

BACKGROUND: Local market competition has been previously associated with more aggressive surgical decision-making. For example, more local competition for organs is associated with acceptance of lower quality kidney offers in transplant surgery. We hypothesized that market competition would be associated with the size of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at the time of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: We included all elective EVARs reported in the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2012-2018). Small AAAs were defined as a maximum diameter <5.5 cm in men or <5.0 cm in women. We calculated the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of physician market concentration (higher HHI = less market competition), for each US census region. Multilevel regression was used to examine the association between the size of AAA at EVAR and HHI, clustering by region. RESULTS: Of 37,914 EVARs performed, 15,379 (40.6%) were for small AAAs. There was significant variation in proportion of EVARs performed for small AAAs across regions (P < 0.001). The South had both the highest proportion of EVARs for small AAAs (44.2%) as well as the highest market competition (HHI 50), whereas the West had the lowest proportion of EVARs for small AAAs (35.0%) and the lowest market competition (HHI 107). Adjusting for patient characteristics, each 10 unit increase in HHI was associated with a 0.1 mm larger maximum AAA diameter at the time of EVAR (95% CI 0.04-0.24 mm, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Physician market concentration is independently associated with AAA diameter at time of elective EVAR. These data suggest that physician decision-making for EVAR is impacted by market competition.

Editor's Choice - A Systemic Evaluation of the Costs of Elective EVAR and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Implies Cost Equivalence.

OBJECTIVE: The suggested high costs of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) hamper the choice of insurance companies and financial regulators for EVAR as the primary option for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, arguments used in this debate are impeded by time related aspects such as effect modification and the introduction of confounding by indication, and by asymmetric evaluation of outcomes. Therefore, a re-evaluation minimising the impact of these interferences was considered. METHODS: A comparative analysis was performed evaluating a period of exclusive open repair (OR; 1998-2000) and a period of established EVAR (2010-2012). Data from four hospitals in The Netherlands were collected to estimate resource use. Actual costs were estimated by benchmark cost prices and a literature review. Costs are reported at 2019 prices. A break even approach, defining the costs for an endovascular device at which cost equivalence for EVAR and OR is achieved, was applied to cope with the large variation in endovascular device costs. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six patients who underwent elective AAA repair between 1998 and 2000 (OR period) and 195 patients between 2010 and 2012 (EVAR period) were compared. Cost equivalence for OR and EVAR was reached at a break even price for an endovascular device of €13 190. The main cost difference reflected the longer duration of hospital stay (ward and Intensive Care Unit) of OR (€11 644). Re-intervention rates were similar for OR (24.2%) and EVAR (24.6%) (p = .92). CONCLUSION: Cost equivalence for EVAR and OR occurs at a device cost of €13 000 for EVAR. Hence, for most routine repairs, EVAR is not costlier than OR until at least the five year follow up.

National temporal trends and determinants of cost of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades, there has been a shift in the management of aortic abdominal aneurysm from open intervention (open aortic aneurysm repair) to an endovascular approach (endovascular aortic aneurysm repair). This shift has yielded clinical as well as socioeconomic reverberations. In our current study, we aim to analyze these effects brought about by the switch to endovascular treatment and to scrutinize the determinants of cost variations between the two treatment modalities. METHODS: The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample database was queried for clinical data ranging from 2001 to 2013 using International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes for open and endovascular aortic repair. Clinical parameters and financial data related to the two treatment modalities were analyzed. Temporal trends of index hospitalization costs were determined. Multivariate linear regression was used to characterize determinants of cost for endovascular aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. RESULTS: A total of 128,154 aortic repairs were captured in our analysis, including 62,871 open repairs and 65,283 endovascular repairs. Over the assessed time period, there has been a decrease in the cost of elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair from $34,975.62 to $31,384.90, a $3,590.72 difference (p < 0.01), while the cost of open aortic repair has increased from $37,427.77 to $43,640.79 by 2013, a $6,212.79 increase (p < 0.01). The cost of open aortic aneurysm repair disproportionately increased at urban teaching hospitals, where by 2013, it costs $50,205.59, compared to $34,676.46 at urban nonteaching hospitals, and $34,696.97 at rural institutions. Urban teaching hospitals were found to perform an increasing proportion of complex open aneurysm repairs, involving concomitant renal and visceral bypass procedures. On multivariate analysis, strong determinants of cost increase for both endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open aortic aneurysm repair are rupture status, prolonged length of stay, occurrence of complications, and the need for disposition to a nursing facility or another acute care institution. CONCLUSION: As the vascular community has shifted from an open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm to an endovascular approach, a number of unforeseen clinical and economic effects were noted. We have characterized these ramifications to help guide further clinical decision and resource allocation.

Longitudinal Spending on Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients requiring elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Long-term outcomes of the 2 approaches are similar, making the relative cost of caring for these patients over time an important consideration. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked Medicare claims to Vascular Quality Initiative registry data for patients undergoing elective EVR or open AAA repair from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was Medicare's cumulative disease-related spending, adjusted to 2015 dollars. Disease-related spending included the index operation and associated hospitalization, surveillance imaging, reinterventions (AAA-related and abdominal wall procedures), and all-cause admissions within 90 days. We compared the incidence of disease-related events and cumulative spending at 90 days and annually through 7 years of follow-up. The analytic cohort comprised 6804 EVR patients (median follow-up: 1.85 years; interquartile range: 0.82-3.22 years) and 1889 open repair patients (median follow-up: 2.62 years; interquartile range: 1.13-4.80 years). Spending on index surgery was significantly lower for EVR (median [interquartile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001). EVR patients underwent more surveillance imaging (1.8 studies per person-year EVR versus 0.7 studies per person-year open; P<0.001) and AAA-related reinterventions (4.0 per 100 person-years EVR versus 2.1 per 100 person-years open; P=0.041). Open repair patients had higher rates of 90-day readmission (12.9% EVR versus 17.8% open; P<0.001) and abdominal wall procedures (0.6 per 100 person-years EVR versus 1.5 per 100 person-years open; P<0.001). Overall, EVR patients incurred more disease-related spending in follow-up ($7355 EVR versus $2706 open through 5 years). There was no cumulative difference in disease-related spending between surgical groups by 5 years of follow-up (-$33 EVR [95% CI: -$1543 to $1476]). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no cumulative difference in disease-related spending on EVR and open repair patients 5 years after surgery. Generalized recommendations about which approach to offer elective AAA patients should not be based on relative cost.

Leveraging vascular quality initiative data to improve hospital length of stay for patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair

Background: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS-SVQI) is a database that provides insight into standards of care and highlights opportunities for quality improvement by benchmarking institutional data against local, regional and national trends. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a frequently performed vascular operation. Postoperative length of stay in hospital (LOS) varies among institutions. We reviewed the morbidity and mortality of patients who underwent EVAR at our institution and the financial impact of increased LOS for these patients. In addition, we sought to identify modifiable factors associated with prolonged LOS. Methods: We identified all patients who underwent elective EVAR between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2014. Preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative details, postoperative factors, long-term (1 yr) outcomes and cost data were reviewed. Univariate analysis was used to determine statistical differences between patients with LOS less than or equal to 2 days and greater than 2 days. Interventions were implemented to modify factors identified as having a negative impact on EVAR LOS. Results: Identified factors that negatively affected EVAR LOS included social, neurologic, cardiovascular, urologic and renal issues. Following targeted interventions, LOS after EVAR decreased from an average of 3.8 to 3.0 days (p < 0.05). Logistic regression (n = 124) identified cardiovascular issues as the most significant predictor of LOS greater than 2 days (p = 0.001, odds ratio 14.24, 95% confidence interval 2.8­71.4). Reduction in LOS was associated with the additional benefit of 6.6% adjusted cost savings. Conclusion: By leveraging SVS-VQI data, we were able to reduce EVAR LOS by identifying modifiable factors and instituting focused interventions. The reduction in LOS was associated with cost savings to the hospital.

Contexte: L'Initiative pour la qualité de la chirurgie vasculaire de la Société canadienne de chirurgie vasculaire (IQCV-SCCV) est une base de données qui donne un aperçu des normes thérapeutiques et souligne les possibilités d'améliorations de la qualité en faisant la comparaison entre les tendances institutionnelles et les tendances locales, régionales et nationales. La réparation endovasculaire d'anévrisme (REVA) est une intervention fréquente. La durée du séjour hospitalier postopératoire varie d'un établissement à l'autre. Nous avons examiné la morbidité et la mortalité chez les patients ayant subi une REVA dans notre établissement et mesuré l'impact économique d'un séjour hospitalier prolongé chez ces patients. De plus, nous avons tenté de dégager les facteurs modifiables associés à un séjour prolongé. Méthodes: Nous avons recensé tous les patients ayant subi une REVA entre le 1er janvier 2011 et le 31 décembre 2014. Nous avons pris en compte les caractéristiques préopératoires des patients, les détails peropératoires, les facteurs postopératoires, les résultats à long terme (1 an) et les coûts. Une analyse univariée a servi à déterminer les différences statistiques entre les patients ayant séjourné à l'hôpital 2 jours ou moins et plus de 2 jours. Des interventions ont été appliquées pour modifier les facteurs reconnus pour leur impact négatif sur le séjour hospitalier après une REVA. Résultats: Les facteurs identifiés pour leur effet négatif sur le séjour hospitalier après une REVA étaient entre autres problèmes sociaux, neurologiques, cardiovasculaires, urologiques et rénaux. Après l'application d'interventions ciblées, la durée du séjour hospitalier post-REVA a diminué d'une moyenne de 3,8 à 3,0 jours (p < 0,05). La régression logistique (n = 124) a permis d'identifier les problèmes cardiovasculaires comme principaux prédicteurs d'un séjour hospitalier de plus de 2 jours (p = 0,001, rapport des cotes 14,24, intervalle de confiance de 95 % 2,8­71,4). L'abrègement du séjour hospitalier a été associé à un avantage additionnel de 6,6 % en économies de coûts ajustées. Conclusion: Après analyse des données de l'IQCV-SCCV, nous avons réussi à abréger la durée des séjours hospitaliers pour REVA en identifiant les facteurs modifiables et en appliquant des interventions ciblées. L'abrègement des séjours hospitaliers a été associé à des économies pour l'hôpital.

Association of Operative Repair Type and Trauma Center Designation With Outcomes in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has shown improved outcomes at trauma centers. Whether the benefit of trauma center designation extends to endovascular repair of rAAA is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2007 to 2014 discharge database to identify patients with rAAA. Data included demographic and admission factors, discharge disposition, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes, and hospital characteristics. Hospitals were categorized by trauma center designation and teaching hospital status. The effect of repair type and trauma center designation (level I, level II, or other-other trauma centers and nondesignated hospitals) was evaluated to determine rates and risks of 9 postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day postdischarge mortality. RESULTS: Of 1941 rAAA repair patients, 61.2% had open and 37.8% had endovascular; 1.0% had both. Endovascular repair increased over the study interval. Hospitals were 12.0% level I, 25.0% level II, and 63.0% other. A total of 48.7% of hospitals were teaching hospitals (level I, 100%; level II, 42.2%; and other, 41.8%). Endovascular repair was significantly more common at teaching hospitals (41.5% vs 34.3%, P < .001) and was the primary repair method at level I trauma centers (P < .001). Compared with open repair, endovascular repair was protective for most complications and in-hospital mortality. The risk for in-hospital mortality was highest among endovascular patients at level II trauma centers (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-2.92) and other hospitals (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% CI: 1.01-2.72). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair overall was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes. Endovascular repair at level I trauma centers had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality which may be a result of their teaching hospital status, organizational structure, and other factors. The weight of the contributions of such factors warrants further study.

The futility of surveillance for old and small aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the yield of ultrasound surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in patients older than 80 years compared with a younger population for detecting AAA growth reaching the threshold size for repair. Secondary objectives included analysis of the incidence of AAA repair and the cost-benefit of surveillance. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all patients undergoing AAA surveillance in Ottawa between 2007 and 2015. Patients were dichotomized by enrollment age (<80 years vs ≥80 years) and stratified by enrollment AAA size. Cohorts were cross-referenced with the Ottawa surgical database, leveraging the common health region to ensure complete data capture. The threshold size for repair was sex specific (female, 5.0 cm; male, 5.5 cm). Factors influencing AAA growth rate were assessed with a general linear multiple mixed model. Analyses with Cox proportional hazards models with competing risk for mortality assessed aorta-related events, and cost-benefit was analyzed by referencing Ontario billing codes. RESULTS: A total of 1231 patients underwent serial ultrasound surveillance, of whom 500 were older than 80 years at some point during the study period. The mean AAA growth rate was 1.63 mm/y (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.71). Old age and small enrollment aneurysm size were significantly protective against AAA growth. Overall, 357 (29%) patients reached the AAA size threshold for repair, and 272 (22%) underwent AAA repair. Patients older than 80 years were less likely to reach the AAA threshold size for repair compared with their younger counterparts (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97). Of the 357 patients whose AAA reached the threshold size for repair, octogenarians were substantially less likely to undergo elective AAA repair (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24-0.47). Repair of ruptured AAA was rare (0.8%), and age differences were insignificant. For every octogenarian with an enrollment AAA size between 3.0 and 3.9 cm who ultimately received elective AAA repair, 51 patients were enrolled in surveillance without elective repair. This corresponded to an estimated $33,139 in ultrasound fees. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of most patients with small AAA is appropriate. However, patients older than 80 years were significantly less likely than their younger counterparts to experience aortic growth reaching the threshold size for repair. Furthermore, in the unlikely event of AAA growth, patients older than 80 years were substantially less likely to undergo repair. These results suggest that in the context of patient-specific health and wishes, surveillance of AAAs <4 cm in octogenarians is costly and unlikely to be beneficial.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.