Percutaneous Versus Surgical Pulmonic Valve Implantation for Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Percutaneous pulmonic valve implantation (PPVI) is an alternative treatment strategy to surgical pulmonic valve implantation (SPVI) for right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. This study sought to compare outcomes of both treatment strategies. METHODS: The study population was extracted from the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for PPVI and SPVI. Study outcomes included all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of index hospital stay (LOS), post-procedural bleeding, mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis, vascular complications (VC), infective endocarditis (IE), total hospitalization charges, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 975 patient discharges (176 in PPVI and 799 in SPVI group) were identified (average age 25.7 years; 57.5% male). PPVI was associated with significantly shorter median LOS (1 versus 5 days, p < 0.01), lower risk of bleeding (4.6% versus 26.4%, p < 0.01), and lower total hospitalization charges ($169,551.7 versus $210,681.8, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of all-cause in-hospital mortality (0% versus 1.4%, p = 0.12), mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis (1.7% versus 2.0%, p = 0.78), VC (2.3% versus 2.0%, p = 0.82), IE (1.7% versus 3.1%, p = 0.31), or 30-day readmission rates (4.4% versus 7.6%, p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Compared with SPVI, PPVI was associated with shorter LOS, lower bleeding, and lower total charges. There was no significant difference between the two strategies in terms of all-cause in-hospital mortality, mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis, VC, IE, or 30-day readmission rates.

In-hospital cost comparison between percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation and surgery.

Objectives: Today, both surgical and percutaneous techniques are available for pulmonary valve implantation in patients with right ventricle outflow tract obstruction or insufficiency. In this controlled, non-randomized study the hospital costs per patient of the two treatment options were identified and compared. Methods: During the period of June 2011 until October 2014 cost data in 20 patients treated with the percutaneous technique and 14 patients treated with open surgery were consecutively included. Two methods for cost analysis were used, a retrospective average cost estimate (overhead costs) and a direct prospective detailed cost acquisition related to each individual patient (patient-specific costs). Results: The equipment cost, particularly the stents and valve itself was by far the main cost-driving factor in the percutaneous pulmonary valve group, representing 96% of the direct costs, whereas in the open surgery group the main costs derived from the postoperative care and particularly the stay in the intensive care department. The device-related cost in this group represented 13.5% of the direct costs. Length-of-stay-related costs in the percutaneous group were mean $3885 (1618) and mean $17 848 (5060) in the open surgery group. The difference in postoperative stay between the groups was statistically significant ( P ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: Given the high postoperative cost in open surgery, the percutaneous procedure could be cost saving even with a device cost of more than five times the cost of the surgical device.

Short-Term Costs and Hospitalization Rates in Patients With Adult Congenital Heart Disease After Pulmonic Valve Replacement.

In the adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) population, pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) is a common intervention, its benefit, however, has been incompletely investigated. This study investigates short- and intermediate-term outcomes after PVR in ACHD. Using State Inpatient Databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, we investigated both hospitalization rate and financial burden accrued over the 12-month period after PVR compared with the 12 months before. Among 202 patients who underwent PVR, per patient-year hospitalization rates doubled in the year after PVR compared with the year before (0.16 vs 0.36, p = 0.006). With the exception of postprocedural complications, the most common reasons for hospitalization were unchanged after surgery: 22% of patients were admitted with equal or greater frequency after PVR. These patients experienced higher inpatient costs both at index admission and in the year after PVR (p = 0.004 and p <0.001, respectively). Univariate predictors of increased hospitalizations after PVR were age ≥50 years (p = 0.016), transposition of the great arteries, or conotruncal abnormalities (p <0.001), lipid disorders (p = 0.025), hypertension (p = 0.033), and number of chronic conditions ≥4 (p = 0.004). Multivariate analysis identified transposition of the great arteries or conotruncal abnormalities as an independent risk factor for increased hospitalization and cost post-PVR (p ≤0.001). In conclusion, short-term costs and hospitalization rates increase after PVR in a small group of patients with ACHD.

Cost comparison of Transcatheter and Operative Pulmonary Valve Replacement (from the Pediatric Health Information Systems Database).

Outcomes for transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TC-PVR) and operative pulmonary valve replacement (S-PVR) are excellent. Thus, their respective cost is a relevant clinical outcome. We performed a retrospective cohort study of children and adults who underwent PVR at age ≥ 8 years from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, at 35 centers contributing data to the Pediatric Health Information Systems database to address this question. A propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for known confounders. Secondary analyses of department-level charges, risk of re-admission, and associated costs were performed. A total of 2,108 PVR procedures were performed in 2,096 subjects (14% transcatheter and 86% operative). The observed cost of S-PVR and TC-PVR was not significantly different (2013US $50,030 vs 2013US $51,297; p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis, total costs of S-PVR and TC-PVR were not significantly different (p = 0.52). Length of stay was shorter after TC-PVR (p <0.0001). Clinical and supply charges were greater for TC-PVR (p <0.0001), whereas laboratory, pharmacy, and other charges (all p <0.0001) were greater for S-PVR. Risks of both 7- and 30-day readmission were not significantly different. In conclusion, short-term costs of TC-PVR and S-PVR are not significantly different after adjustment.