Comparative hospital economics and patient presentation: vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fracture.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies evaluating vertebral augmentation procedure costs have not made detailed comparisons between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Our study contrasts hospital costs for vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in routine clinical practice in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 2007-2008 hospital discharge and billing records from the Premier Perspective data base. The primary outcome variable, differences in total hospital cost between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, was assessed by using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred seventeen patients received vertebroplasty (64% inpatient, 36% outpatient), and 8118 received kyphoplasty (54% inpatient, 46% outpatient). Approximately 75% were women, and most were white. Mean total unadjusted inpatient costs were $9837 for vertebroplasty versus $13 187 for kyphoplasty (P < .0001). Outpatient vertebroplasty costs were $3319 versus $8100 for kyphoplasty (P < .0001). Lower vertebroplasty costs were largely due to differences in hospital supply and OR. Mean vertebroplasty OR costs were $73.60 (anesthesia), $112.06 (recovery room), and $990.12 (surgery) versus $172.16 (anesthesia), $257.47 (recovery room), and $1,471.49 (surgery) with kyphoplasty. Adjustments for age, sex, admission status, and disease severity accentuated the differences. Mean adjusted inpatient costs were $11 386 for vertebroplasty versus $16 182 for kyphoplasty (P < .0001), and outpatient costs were $2997 for vertebroplasty versus $7010 for kyphoplasty (P < .0001). After adjustments for the same covariates, length-of-stay differences were no longer evident (P = .4945). CONCLUSIONS: Performing vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty reduces hospital costs by nearly $5000 for inpatient procedures and by more than $4000 for outpatient procedures.

Application of contrast agents in the evaluation of stroke: conventional MR and echo-planar MR imaging.

The availability of new therapeutic interventions, including neuroprotective agents and endovascular thrombolysis, has given new hope to patients suffering an acute stroke. Early intervention remains a key factor in the effectiveness of these new and traditional treatments. More importantly, the capability to assess the viability and reversibility of the ischemic tissue became essential for better delineation and differentiation of infarcted versus ischemic tissue and patient management. Abnormal MR imaging (MRI) findings during acute stroke usually reflect the underlying pathophysiologic changes, which can be classified into three sequential stages: (a) hypoperfusion, (b) cellular dysfunction and (c) breakdown of the blood-brain barrier. The first stage is a kinetic phenomenon (not biologic) and, therefore, can be detected immediately. Contrast agents accentuate the abnormal flow kinetics and facilitate the early diagnosis of ischemia using either conventional MRI or newly developed echo-planar perfusion imaging (EPPI). The demonstration of abnormal arterial or parenchymal enhancement on conventional MRI during acute stroke provides the earliest sign of vascular occlusion/stenosis. EPPI, in contrast, provides information related to microcirculation (< 100 microns) and tissue reserve (cerebral blood volume) that cannot be obtained by conventional angiography and is directly related to the target end-organ. Further information obtained from both contrast MRI and EPPI may have a predictive value in the clinical outcome of acute stroke patients.