A Cost-Effective Approach to Resistant AV Fistula Stenosis: Successful Treatment Using Coronary OPN NC® Balloon in a Low-Income Setting.

Stenosis in the anastomotic site or venous limb of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the most frequent cause of AVF failure. Percutaneous angioplasty with a standard or high-pressure balloon is the first-line treatment for AVF stenosis due to its higher technical success rate (90%) and lower complication rate (4%). Almost 20% of stenosis cases are resistant or undilatable by regular-pressure balloon angioplasty due to fibrosis, leading to technical failure or restenosis. Alternative therapies, such as atherectomy devices or cutting balloons, are expensive and difficult to obtain in low-income developing countries. We successfully treated resistant AVF stenosis with a coronary OPN-NC® ultra-high-pressure balloon and produced a good angiographic result with technical success. Coronary hardware is easily available and relatively cheaper compared to dedicated peripheral balloons or devices in our country due to reuse, which can be a boon in such type of cases. According to the standard hospital protocol, Cathlab hardware was reused.

IN.PACT AV Access Trial: Economic Evaluation of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Dysfunctional Arteriovenous Fistulae Based on 12-Month Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To study, from a U.S. payer's perspective, the economic consequences of drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) use for the treatment of stenotic lesions in dysfunctional hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost differences between DCBs and PTA at year 1 and beyond were calculated via 2 methods. The first approach used the mean absolute number of trial-observed access circuit reinterventions through 12 months (0.65 ± 1.05 vs 1.05 ± 1.18 events per patient for DCBs and PTA, respectively) and projected treatment outcomes to 3 years. The second approach was based on the trial-observed access circuit primary patency rates at 12 months (53.8% vs 32.4%) and calculated the cost difference on the basis of previously published Medicare cost for patients who maintained or did not maintain primary patency. Assumptions regarding DCB device prices were tested in sensitivity analyses, and the numbers needed to treat were calculated. RESULTS: Using the absolute number of access circuit reinterventions approach, the DCB strategy resulted in an estimated per-patient savings of $1,632 at 1 year and $4,263 at 3 years before considering the DCB device cost. The access circuit primary patency approach was associated with a per-patient cost savings of $2,152 at 1 year and $3,894 at 2.5 years of follow-up. At the theoretical DCB device reimbursement of $1,800, savings were $1,680 and $2,049 at 2.5 and 3 years, respectively. The one-year NNT of DCB compared to PTA was 2.48. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular therapy for arteriovenous access stenosis with the IN.PACT AV DCB can be expected to be cost-saving if longer follow-up data confirm its clinical effectiveness.

Vascular Surgeons Are Not Adequately Valued by Traditional Productivity Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period. METHODS: Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons.

Site of service influence on stent use for hemodialysis access interventions.

OBJECTIVE: With rising health care spending in the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in recent years attempted to use reimbursement rates to influence use of less expensive care sites for covered patients, such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories (OBLs), in lieu of hospital service sites. It has been suggested that cost savings have not been realized because of more procedures being performed by physicians with ownership interests in nonhospital facilities. CMS adopted massive reimbursement changes for 2019 OBL and ASC-based procedures, which reduced dialysis access angioplasty reimbursement in the ASC setting by 50%, whereas facility reimbursement for stenting increased by 33% above prior levels. The clinical utility of adjunctive stenting in treating dialysis access stenosis remains controversial and highly discretionary. As a vascular group performing such procedures in both a hospital and nonhospital facility in which we have equity interest, we reviewed our use of stents in dialysis access procedures both in the hospital and in the ASC/OBL to determine whether site of service affected stent use. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed from 2014 to 2018. All patients undergoing dialysis access angiography with angioplasty and adjunctive stent placement at our OBL (later ASC) and our primary hospital were included in the study. RESULTS: There were 961 angioplasty or stent procedures performed for dialysis accesses between the two sites, 564 (58.7%) in the hospital setting and 397 (41.3%) at the OBL/ASC. There was a significant difference in race and age between the two sites, with younger, minority patients more frequently being treated in the hospital and older, white patients more likely to be treated in the ambulatory setting; 153 (27.1%) underwent adjunctive stent placement in the hospital and 127 (32.0%) in the ambulatory setting (P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas financial incentives have not yet had an appreciable influence on stent use for dialysis access within previous reimbursement paradigms, the dramatic changes recently adopted by CMS may well alter this dynamic and could lead to substantially higher overall costs without proven clinical advantage. Interventionalists may be incentivized to add stents when performing balloon angioplasty in ASCs. With high failure and reintervention rates and increasingly expensive adjuncts (drug-coated balloons and stents, covered stents), the cost implications of attempts to incentivize interventionalists toward a specific type of procedure or site of care are substantial, and unintended negative consequences are likely to occur.

Clinical and Economic Benefits of Stent Grafts in Dysfunctional and Thrombosed Hemodialysis Access Graft Circuits in the REVISE Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare reinterventions and associated costs to maintain arteriovenous graft hemodialysis access circuits after rescue with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), with or without concurrent Viabahn stent grafts, over 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter (n = 30 sites) study evaluated reintervention number, type, and cost in 269 patients randomized to undergo placement of stent grafts or PTA alone. Outcomes were 24-month average cumulative number of reinterventions, associated costs, and total costs for all patients and in 4 groups based on index treatment and clinical presentation (thrombosed or dysfunctional). RESULTS: Over 24 months, the patients in the stent graft arm had a 27% significant reduction in the average number of reinterventions within the circuit compared to the PTA arm (3.7 stent graft vs 5.1 PTA; P = .005) and similar total costs ($27,483 vs $28,664; P = .49). In thrombosed grafts, stent grafts significantly reduced the number of reinterventions (3.7 stent graft vs 6.2 PTA; P = .022) and had significantly lower total costs compared to the PTA arm ($30,329 vs $37,206; P = .027). In dysfunctional grafts, no statistical difference was observed in the number of reinterventions or total costs (3.7 stent graft vs 4.4 PTA; P = .12, and $25,421 stent graft and $22,610 PTA; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 months, the use of stent grafts significantly reduced the number of reinterventions for all patients, driven by patients presenting with thrombosed grafts. Compared to PTA, stent grafts reduced overall treatment costs for patients presenting with thrombosed grafts and had similar costs for stenotic grafts.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of drug-coated therapies in the superficial femoral artery.

OBJECTIVE: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) may increase durability of endovascular treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease while avoiding stent-related risks. The purpose of this study was to use meta-analytic data of DCB studies to compare the cost-effectiveness of potential SFA treatments: DCB, drug-eluting stent (DES), plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), or bare-metal stent (BMS). METHODS: A search for randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with POBA for treatment of SFA disease was performed. Hazard ratios were extracted to account for the time-to-event primary outcome of target lesion revascularization. Odds ratios were calculated for the secondary outcomes of primary patency (PP) and major amputation. Incorporating pooled data from the meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, assuming a payer perspective, used a decision model to simulate patency at 1 year and 2 years for each index treatment modality: POBA, BMS, DCB, or DES. Costs were based on current Medicare outpatient reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Eight studies (1352 patients) met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. DCB outperformed POBA with respect to target lesion revascularization over time (pooled hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Risk of major amputation at 12 months was not significantly different between groups. There was significantly improved 1-year PP in the DCB group compared with POBA (pooled odds ratio, 3.30; P < .001). In the decision model, the highest PP at 1 year was seen in the DES index therapy strategy (79%), followed by DCB (74%), BMS (71%), and POBA (64%). With a baseline cost of $9259.39 per patent limb at 1 year in the POBA-first group, the incremental cost per patent limb for each other strategy compared with POBA was calculated: $14,136.10/additional patent limb for DCB, $38,549.80/limb for DES, and $59,748,85/limb for BMS. The primary BMS option is dominated by being more expensive and less effective than DCB. Compared directly with DCB, DES costs $87,377.20 per additional patent limb at 1 year. Based on the projected PP at 1 year in the decision model, the number needed to treat for DES compared with DCB is 20. At current reimbursement, the use of more than two DCBs per procedure would no longer be cost-effective compared with DES. At 2 years, DCB emerges as the most cost-effective index strategy with the lowest overall cost and highest patency rates over that time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Current data and reimbursements support the use of DCB as a cost-effective strategy for endovascular intervention in the SFA; any additional effectiveness of DES comes at a high price. Use of more than one DCB per intervention significantly decreases cost-effectiveness.

Directional Atherectomy Is Associated with Better Long-Term Efficiency Compared with Angioplasty for Common Femoral Artery Occlusive Disease in Rutherford 2-4 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased interest in treating common femoral artery (CFA) with endovascular technology, there are little data regarding the long-term outcomes of different endovascular treatment modalities. We report the results after endovascular therapy of symptomatic obstructions of the CFA in a single center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients with eligible CFA lesions who were treated with endovascular methods between 2011 and 2013. The preoperative demographic operative details and postoperative outcomes were compared and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety patients with CFA lesions were treated, and 76 (84.4%) completed a follow-up. Claudication was present in 62 of 76 (81.6%) patients, and stenosis was present in 60 of 76 (78.9%) patients. Angioplasty was performed in 45 patients, and atherectomy was performed in 31 patients. There was no significant difference in the preoperative demographic data, procedure time, contrast administration, or length of hospital stay between the 2 groups. In-hospital treatment costs were significantly higher in the atherectomy group (69,822 RenMinBi Yuan vs. 49,078 RenMinBi Yuan; P = 0.043). During the 4-year primary patency, for whole group or bifurcated/claudicant subgroup, all patients within the atherectomy group were significantly better than those in the angioplasty group. CONCLUSIONS: Atherectomy may be a better alternative to angioplasty for CFA atherosclerotic obstructions lesions. Compared with angioplasty, atherectomy seems to have better results in bifurcated lesions or claudicant patients. In diabetic patients, no superiority was found on either patency or improvement in walking distance.

Radiofrequency perforation of the pulmonary valve: an efficient low cost solution.

Objective The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of using commonly available catheterization laboratory equipment for radiofrequency perforation of the pulmonary valve in patients with pulmonary atresia and intact ventricular septum. Methods The system (off-label use for all items) is made up of a co-axial telescopic arrangement consisting of a 0.014" PT 2 ™ coronary guidewire, for insulation inside a 2.7-F microcatheter which has an inner lumen of 0.021". The microcatheter was passed via a standard 4-F right coronary catheter to just below the atretic pulmonary valve. Radiofrequency (RF) energy was delivered using a standard electrosurgical system. In vitro testing had been performed and indicated that 5-10 W for 2-5 s would be sufficient for valve perforation. Results Radiofrequency perforation was successfully performed in all (n = 5, 100%) patients at a median age of 3 days (range: 1-36) and weight 2.7 kg (range 2.3-3.0). In one patient the pericardium was entered during the initial attempt; the generator was put on coagulation mode during retrieval of the guidewire and no haemopericardium occurred. The pulmonary valve was dilated in all; in three patients (n = 3) the ductus arteriosus was stented during the same session. Conclusion Results of the study show that it is feasible to perforate the pulmonary valve safely using this system. Availability, simplicity and cost are noteworthy benefits.

Angioplasty with drug coated balloons for the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease.

Restenosis or re-occlusion after femoropopliteal angioplasty or stent implantation is the main limitation of endovascular treatment strategies for peripheral artery disease. Within the last years, balloon catheters with anti-proliferative drug coating on the balloon surface have shown to be associated with higher patency rates compared to plain balloon angioplasty. Thus, drug-coated balloons were gradually adopted in many interventional centres for the treatment of femoropopliteal obstructions. The current review summarises the existing evidence for drug-coated balloons in the infrainguinal vessels and their indication in special lesion cohorts.

Economic analysis of endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal arterial disease: a systematic review and budget impact model for the United States and Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To study the economic impact on payers and providers of the four main endovascular strategies for the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease. BACKGROUND: Bare metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents (DES), and drug-coated balloons (DCB) are associated with lower target lesion revascularization (TLR) probabilities than percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), but the economic impact is unknown. METHODS: In December 2012, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies with TLR as an endpoint. The 24-month probability of TLR for each treatment was weighted by sample size. A decision-analytic Markov model was used to assess the budget impact from payers' and facility-providers' perspectives of the four index procedure strategies (BMS, DES, DCB, and PTA). Base cases were developed for U.S. Medicare and the German statutory sickness fund perspectives using current 2013 reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 2,406 subjects were included. The reported probability of TLR in the identified studies varied widely, particularly following treatment with PTA or BMS. The pooled 24-month probabilities were 14.3%, 19.3%, 28.1%, and 40.3% for DCB, DES, BMS, and PTA, respectively. The drug-eluting strategies had a lower projected budget impact over 24 months compared to BMS and PTA in both the U.S. Medicare (DCB: $10,214; DES: $12,904; uncoated balloons $13,114; BMS $13,802) and German public health care systems (DCB €3,619; DES €3,632; BMS €4,026; PTA €4,290). CONCLUSIONS: DCB and DES, compared to BMS and PTA, are associated with lower probabilities of target lesion revascularization and cost savings for U.S. and German payers.

Cephalic arch stenosis: angioplasty to preserve a brachiocephalic fistula or new brachiobasilic fistula? A cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repeat angioplasty versus new brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) in patients with symptomatic cephalic arch stenosis (CAS). METHODS: Patients presenting with symptomatic CAS (n = 22) underwent angioplasty. They were compared to patients undergoing BBF creation (n = 51). Primary outcomes were functional primary arteriovenous fistulae patency at 3, 6 and 12 months. Data were collected on number of interventions, alternative accesses and hospital days for access-related complications. Quality of life was assessed using Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 scores. Decision tree, Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis permitted cost-utility analysis. Healthcare costs were derived from Department of Health figures and are presented as cost (£)/patient/year, cost/access preserved and cost/quality of life-adjusted year (QALY) for each of the treatment strategies. RESULTS: Functional primary patency rates at 3, 6, 12 months were 87.5%, 81% and 43% for repeated angioplasty and 78%, 63% and 41% for BBF. The angioplasty cohort required 1.64 ± 0.23 angioplasties/patient and 0.64 ± 0.34 lines/patient. BBF required 0.36 ± 0.12 angioplasties/patient and 1.2 ± 0.2 lines/patient. Patients in the BBF cohort spent an additional 0.9 days/year in hospital due to access-related complications. Mean cost/patient/year in the angioplasty group was £5247.72/patient/year versus £3807.55/patient/year in the BBF cohort. Mean cost per access saved was £11,544.98 (angioplasty) versus £4979.10 (BBF). Average cost per QALY was £13,809.79 (angioplasty) versus £10,878.72 per QALY (BBF). CONCLUSIONS: CAS poses a difficult management problem with poor outcomes from conventional angioplasty. Optimal management will depend on patient factors, local outcomes and expertise, but consideration should be given to creation of a new BBF as a cost-effective means to manage this difficult problem.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of enhancements to angioplasty for infrainguinal arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to perform an economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of endovascular enhancements to percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTA) with bail-out bare metal stents for infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: The following interventions were considered: PTA with no bail-out stenting, PTA with bail-out drug-eluting stents, drug-coated balloons, primary bare metal stents, primary drug-eluting stents, endovascular brachytherapy, stent-grafts and cryoplasty. A discrete-event simulation model was developed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions from a health service perspective over a lifetime. Populations of patients with intermittent claudication (IC) and critical leg ischaemia (CLI) were modelled separately. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: For both patient populations, the use of drug-coated balloons dominated all other options by having both lower lifetime costs and greater effectiveness. For willingness-to-pay thresholds between £0 and £100,000 per additional QALY, the probability of drug-coated balloons being cost-effective was at least 58.3 per cent for patients with IC and at least 72.2 per cent for patients with CLI. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to different assumptions regarding the clinical benefits attributable to the interventions. CONCLUSION: The use of drug-coated balloons represents a cost-effective alternative to the use of PTA with bail-out bare metal stents.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel-coated balloons for endovascular therapy of femoropopliteal arterial obstructions.

PURPOSE: To explore the cost-effectiveness of using drug-eluting balloon (DEB) angioplasty for the treatment of femoropopliteal arterial lesions, which has been shown to significantly lower the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with standard balloon angioplasty (BA). METHODS: A simplified decision-analytic model based on TLR rates reported in the literature was applied to baseline and follow-up costs associated with in-hospital patient treatment during 1 year of follow-up. Costs were expressed in Swiss Francs (sFr) and calculated per 100 patients treated. Budgets were analyzed in the context of current SwissDRG reimbursement figures and calculated from two different perspectives: a general budget on total treatment costs (third-party healthcare payer) as well as a budget focusing on the physician/facility provider perspective. RESULTS: After 1 year, use of DEB was associated with substantially lower total inpatient treatment costs when compared with BA (sFr 861,916 vs. sFr 951,877) despite the need for a greater investment at baseline related to higher prices for DEBs. In the absence of dedicated reimbursement incentives, however, use of DEB was shown to be the financially less favorable treatment approach from the physician/facility provider perspective (12-month total earnings: sFr 179,238 vs. sFr 333,678). CONCLUSION: Use of DEBs may be cost-effective through prevention of TLR at 1 year of follow-up. The introduction of dedicated financial incentives aimed at improving DEB reimbursements may help lower total healthcare costs.

Limited economic evidence of carotid artery stenosis diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this article is to assess the availability and validity of economic evaluations of carotid artery stenosis (CS) diagnosis and treatment. DESIGN: Systematic review of economic evaluations of the diagnosis and treatment of CS. METHODS: Systematic review of full economic evaluations published in Medline and Google Scholar up until 28 February 2012. Based on economic checklists (Evers and Philips), the identified studies were classified as high, medium, or low quality. RESULTS: Twenty-three evaluations were identified. The study quality ranged from 26% to 84% of all achievable points (Evers). Seven studies were of high, eight of medium and eight of low quality. No comparison was made between carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and best medical treatment (BMT). For subjects with severe stenosis, comparisons of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and BMT were also missing. Three of five studies dealing with pre-operative imaging found that duplex Doppler ultrasound (US) was cost-effective compared with carotid angiogram (AG). CONCLUSIONS: There is a huge lack of high-quality studies and of studies that confirm published results. Also, for a given study quality, the most cost-effective treatment strategy is still unknown in some cases ('CAS' vs. 'BMT', 'US combined with magnetic resonance angiography supplemented with AG' vs. 'US combined with computer tomography angiography').

Late outcomes of balloon angioplasty and angioplasty with selective stenting for superficial femoral-popliteal disease are equivalent.

OBJECTIVE: Several trials have reported early superior patency of stenting over isolated angioplasty (plain old balloon angioplasty [POBA]) for infra-inguinal occlusive disease, yet long-term data are sparse. The purpose of this study was to contrast long-term clinical outcomes and costs of angioplasty alone vs angioplasty with selective stenting in the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary endovascular treatments of the native femoropopliteal arteries from 2002 to 2009 were divided into two groups, POBA alone or stenting based on final treatment received at their index procedure. Study end points included actuarial 5-year primary patency (using strict criteria of any hemodynamic deterioration or return of symptoms), 5-year limb salvage, and 5-year survival and hospital costs. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-four primary procedures were performed during the study interval; 517 (63%) were POBA and 307 (37%) were stenting. The mean follow-up duration was 33 months (range, 0-98 months). The indication for intervention in the stenting group was claudication in 71% of the patients, whereas the remaining 29% had critical limb ischemia (CLI). In the POBA cohort, the indication for treatment was claudication in 59% of the patients and CLI in the remaining 41%. A higher percentage of POBA lesions were TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II A & B when compared to stenting (91% POBA vs 73% stenting; P < .001). There was no difference in overall 5-year primary patency (POBA 36% ± 3%; stenting 41% ± 4%; P = .31), nor was there a difference in patients with claudication (POBA 42% ± 4%; stenting 45% ± 4%; P = .8). In patients with CLI, the 4-year primary patency was 27% ± 5% (POBA) vs 36% ± 8% (stenting), P = .22; the 4-year limb salvage was 80% ± 4% (POBA) vs 90% ± 5% (stenting), P = .18. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (claudication: 83% ± 3% POBA vs 84% ± 4% stenting at 5 years (P = .65), CLI: 44% ± 4% POBA vs 49% ± 6% stenting at 4 years (P = .40). Subgroup analysis by lesion anatomy showed similar primary patency between POBA and stenting for TASC II A & B lesions, while the primary patency was significantly higher at 5 years after stenting of TASC II C & D lesions (34% ± 6% vs 12% ± 9%; P < .05). Stenting increased the procedural cost by 57% when compared to POBA (P < .001) regardless of treatment indication. In addition, stenting added 45% (P < .001) to the overall hospital cost of patients treated for claudication. CONCLUSION: Stenting resulted in equivalent long-term outcomes compared to POBA when stratified by indications. However, stenting yielded statistically better primary patency in patients with TASC II C & D lesions. The lack of improved clinical outcomes and significantly higher cost of stenting supports a posture of selective use of stents (especially in TASC II A & B) in the endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease.

Trends in the national outcomes and costs for claudication and limb threatening ischemia: angioplasty vs bypass graft.

PURPOSE: Debate exists as to the benefit of angioplasty vs bypass graft in the treatment of lower extremity peripheral vascular disease. The associated costs are poorly defined in the literature. We sought to determine national estimates for the costs, utilization, and outcomes of angioplasty and bypass graft for the treatment of both claudication and limb threat. METHODS: We searched the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (1999-2007), identifying patients who had an identifiable International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 diagnosis code of atherosclerotic disease (claudication [440.21] or limb threat [440.22-440.24]). Of these, only patients who underwent intervention of angioplasty ± stent (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA; 39.50-39.90]), peripheral bypass graft (BPG; 39.29) or aortofemoral bypass (ABF; 39.25) were included. We compared demographics, costs, and comorbidities, as well as multivariable-adjusted outcomes of in-hospital mortality and major amputation. Additionally, we used the New Jersey State Inpatient and Ambulatory databases in order to better understand the influence of outpatient procedures on current volume and trends. RESULTS: There were 563,143 patients identified (PTA: 38%, BPG: 50%, ABF: 6%; 5.1%: multiple procedure codes). Patients who had PTA and BPG were similar in age (70.4 vs 69.5 years) but older than patients who had ABF (61.8 years, P < .01). Patients who underwent PTA were more often women (PTA: 46%, BPG: 42%, ABF: 45.2%; P < .01). Average costs for PTA increased over 60% for claudication between 2001 and 2007 ($8670 to $14,084) and limb threat ($13,903 to $23,196). For BPG, average costs increased 36% for both claudication ($9322 to $12,681) and limb threat ($16,795 to $22,910). In 2007, the average cost per procedure of PTA was higher than BPG for both claudication ($13,903 vs $12,681; P = .02) and limb threat ($23,196 vs $22,910; P = .04). The number of patients per year undergoing PTA increased threefold (15,903 to 46,138) for claudication and limb threat (6752 to 19,468). For BPG, procedures per year decreased approximately 40% for both claudication (13,625 to 9108) and limb threat (25,575 to 13,762). In-hospital mortality was similar for PTA and BPG groups for claudication (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .04) and limb threat (2.1% vs 2.6%; P < .01). In-hospital amputation rates were significantly higher for patients who had PTA (7%) than BPG (3.9%, odds ratio [OR], 1.67 [1.49-1.85]; P < .01) or patients who underwent ABF (3.0%; OR, 2.32 [1.79, 3.03]; P < .01). CONCLUSION: PTA has altered the treatment paradigm for lower limb ischemia with an increase in costs and procedures. It is unclear if this represents an increase in patients or number of treatments per patient. Although mortality is slightly lower with PTA for all indications, amputation rates for limb-threat patients appear higher, as does the average cost. Longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the appropriateness of PTA in both claudication and limb-threat patients. The mortality benefit with PTA may be ultimately lost, and average costs elevated, if multiple interventions are performed on the same patients.

[Effectiveness of nephroprotection by the selection of contrast media used during vascular interventions in patients with chronic renal failure?]. / Ist Nephroprotektion durch die Auswahl des Röntgen-Kontrastmittels im Rahmen von Gefäßinterventionen bei vorbestehender Niereninsuffizienz möglich?

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of endovascular procedures made aware of a kidney disease induced by contrast media (CM). Contrast-induced nephropathy (= CIN) can develop in 0.6-44 % of the treated patients by angiography and / or endovascular intervention. The incidence in high-risk patients ranges from 50 to 70 %. In most cases CIN is inconspicuous and reversible. But pre-existing chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, age and variable different risk factors (e. g., PAOD) can induce irreversible renal impairment. The purpose of the presented trial is to investigate incidence, predictors, and out-come of CIN in chronic renal failure patients using two different CM; one non-ionic isoosmolar -iodixanol and the other non-ionic low-osmolar iopromide. METHODS: To evaluate the incidence of CIN after endovascular diagnostics and intervention two collectives of 100  patients with chronic renal insufficiency were treated with different contrast media (CM). Inclusion followed prospectively in two collectives. One collective received iopromide (Ultravist™, Bayer Health Care, Lever-kusen, Germany), and the second hundred patients received iodixanol (Visipaque™, Nycomed Amersham, Princeton, New Jersey). Demographics, comorbidities, procedure-related data were completed by serum creatinine levels and GFR (= glomerular filtration rate). Inclusion criteria were a serum creatinine level ≥ 1.5 mg% and a GFR ≤ 60 mL / min. Those parameters were measured twice pre-interventionally, and one time 48-72  hours after the endovascular procedure. RESULTS: Collectives were homogenous and comparable concerning pre-existing risk factors, age and gender. Renal function stayed at a constant level and was independent of contrast medium selection, repectively. Average creatinine levels ranged around 1.77 mg% ±â€Š0.75  standard deviation (SD) pre-interventionally; postinterventional measurement exposed a creatinine level of 1.74 mg% ±â€Š0.74 SD as mean of both collectives. GFR (preinterventional 39.64 mL / min ±â€Š12.48 SD) increased non-significantly to 45.48 mL / min ±â€Š16.82 SD. Pre-existing chronic kidney disease had no effect on renal function parameters; no other risk factors could be evaluated. CONCLUSION: According to cost-effectiveness a low-osmolar monomeric contrast medium (LOCM) is a sufficient selection, under careful renal function control.

Hospital costs of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty (BPA) procedure and management for CTEPH patients: An observational study based on the French national hospital discharge database (PMSI).

INTRODUCTION: Since 2014, Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty (BPA) has become an emerging and complementary strategy for chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) patients who are not suitable for pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) or who have recurrent symptoms after the PEA procedure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the hospital cost of BPA sessions and management in CTEPH patients. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study of CTEPH-adults hospitalized for a BPA between January 1st, 2014 and June 30th, 2016 was conducted in the 2 centres performing BPA in France (Paris Sud and Grenoble) using the French national hospital discharge database (PMSI-MCO). Patients were followed until 6 months or death, whichever occurred first. Follow-up stays were classified as stays with BPA sessions, for BPA management or for CTEPH management based on a pre-defined algorithm and a medical review using type of diagnosis (ICD-10), delay from last BPA procedure stay and length of stay. Hospital costs (including medical transports) were estimated from National Health Insurance perspective using published official French tariffs from 2014 to 2016 and expressed in 2017 Euros. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were analysed; mainly male (53%), with a mean age of 64,3 years. The first BPA session was performed 1.1 years in median (IQR 0.3-2.92) after the first PH hospitalisation. A mean of 3 stays with BPA sessions per patient were reported with a mean length of stay of 8 days for the first stay and 6 days for successive stays. The total hospital cost attributable to BPA was € 4,057,825 corresponding to €8,764±3,435 per stay and €21,245±12,843 per patient. Results were sensitive to age classes, density of commune of residence and some comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The study generated robust real-world data to assess the hospital cost of BPA sessions and management in CTEPH patients within its first years of implementation in France.