Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) by sutureless prostheses is changing surgeon options, although which patients benefit most, as well as their possible economic impact is still to be defined. METHODS: Perceval-S prosthesis (LivaNova) is reserved, at the documented Institution, for patients at perceived high surgical risk. This retrospective analysis of outcome and resource consumption compared Perceval with other tissue valves. To clarify the comparison, only patients respecting 'instructions-for- use' of Perceval were reviewed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: > 65 years, +/- coronary artery bypass grafting, patent foramen ovale closure or myectomy. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: bicuspid, combined valve or aortic sur- gery. Costs were calculated per patient on a daily basis including preoperative tests, operating costs (hourly basis), disposables, drugs, blood components and personnel. RESULTS: The sutureless group (SU-AVR) had a higher risk profile than the sutured group (ST-AVR). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in SU-AVR (isolated AVR: cross-clamp 52.9 ± 12.6 vs. 69 ± 15.3 min, p < 0.001; CPB 79.4 ± 20.3 vs. 92.7 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 0.9% in SU-AVR and nil in ST-AVR, p = 0.489; intubation 7 (IQR 5-10.7) and 7 h (IQR 5-9), p = 0.785; intensive care unit 1 (IQR 1-1) and 1 day (IQR 1-1), p = 0.258; ward stay 5.5 (IQR 4-7) and 5 days (IQR 4-6), p = 0.002; pacemaker 5.7% (6/106) and 0.9% (1/109), p = 0.063, respectively. Hospital costs (excluding the prosthesis) were $12,825 (IQR 11,733-15,334) for SU-AVR and $12,386 (IQR 11,217-14,230) in ST-AVR, p = 0.055. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher operative risks in SU-AVR, hospital mortality, morbidity and resource consumption did not differ. Operative times were shorter with the sutureless device and this improve- ment, along with more frequent ministernotomy, may have improved many postoperative aims.

Hospital cost savings and other advantages of sutureless vs stented aortic valves for intermediate-risk elderly patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and hospital costs of using sutureless aortic valves vs conventional stented aortic valves. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2011, 52 elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in our center had a sutureless valve inserted. From among 180 patients who had a stented valve inserted during the same period, 52 patients were matched to the sutureless group, based on age, gender, and operation type. We compared clinical outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups. RESULTS: The sutureless group had a higher Euroscore (logistic Euroscore I) risk (12.8 vs 9.7; p = 0.02), with significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (p < 0.01), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (p < 0.01), intensive care unit stay (p < 0.01), intubation time (p < 0.01), and overall hospital stay (p = 0.05). The sutureless group also revealed a significant hospital cost saving of approximately 8200€ (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of using the sutureless bioprosthesis were excellent. The reduced ACC and CPB times had a favorable effect on the duration of intubation and intensive care stay, resulting not only in faster recovery and discharge home, but also in a significant hospital cost reduction.

Surgical glue in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: An initial experience and cost-effectiveness analysis.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most common bariatric procedures. Gastric leaks and bleeding are the most frequent complications, associated with a high clinical and economic burden. The best method of staple line reinforcement in LSG is debated. Surgical glue is one of the options available. The aim of this study was to assess the safety, efficiency, and relative cost-effectiveness of surgical glue used to perform LSG in morbid obese adults as compared with standard stapling. METHODS: A prospective, observational, and comparative before-after study was conducted. All consecutive patients undergoing LSG at Montpellier University Hospital in 2011 and 2012 were included and treated according to 2 groups: standard stapling (n = 99, group 1) and surgical glue reinforcement (n = 94, group 2). Clinical and economic outcomes were measured after 6 months. RESULTS: The duration of intervention was significantly shorter in group 2 (68 vs 82 minutes, P = .001). There was no significant difference regarding complications, but leaks in group 1 were more severe. Group 2 was also associated with a reduced initial length of stay (4.8 vs 5.2 days, P = .01). Six-month readmissions and total length of stay were also shorter in group 2 (5.5 vs 6.1 days, P = .003). Surgical glue use was associated with a significant reduction in the initial inpatient cost (€5488 vs €6152, P = .005) and in the 6-month total inpatient cost, including readmissions (€6006 vs €6754, P = .005). The incremental cost of glue to avoid a severe complication was -€5446.33 (95 confidence interval, -8202.01 to -2690.66). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical glue might be a safe and cost-effective intervention in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.