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.

Postoperative Low-Dose Heparin Infusion Does Not Change Complication Rates after Limb Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative subtherapeutic low-dose heparin infusion (LDHI) is sometimes administered in patients undergoing extremity arterial revascularization to maintain graft patency and decrease the risk of thrombosis. However, the safety of this management strategy is unknown. METHODS: From 2013 to 2015, we retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing upper and lower extremity arterial revascularization at a single university-affiliated medical center. Patients were grouped by receipt of LDHI within the first 24-hour postoperative period. Preoperative demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative measures, 30-day postoperative complications, arterial patency rates, and amputation rates were analyzed for each group. RESULTS: We identified 379 patients who received extremity revascularization, and 56 (14.8%) of them had received LDHI. Patients who received LDHI were less likely to have an elective admission on presentation (26.8% vs. 56%, P < 0.001) or an admission from home (69.6% vs. 81.7%, P = 0.04). They were more likely to have preoperative bleeding (44.6% vs. 22%, P < 0.01) and need for emergent operation (23.2% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.04). Postoperatively, although patients who received LDHI demonstrated a trend toward increased bleeding (48.2% vs. 33.7%, P = 0.053), they did not demonstrate an increase in 30-day mortality (1.79% vs. 1.24%, P = 0.55) or reoperation (19.7% vs. 12.4%, P = 0.21). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that LDHI did not have a significant association with immediate postoperative bleeding (P = 0.99), survival (P = 0.13), primary patency (P = 0.872), and amputation-free survival (P = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS: Although LDHI was more likely to be administered in patients who received emergent operations, risk-adjusted analysis demonstrated that it was not associated with increased postoperative bleeding, mortality, short-term need for reintervention, or amputation after extremity arterial revascularization.

Impact of low donor to recipient weight ratios on cardiac transplantation.

BACKGROUND: International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for adult heart transplantation (HT) suggest a donor to recipient body weight ratio (WR) of greater than 0.8. For female to male transplants, a WR of greater than 0.9 is recommended. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was examined for adult HT from 1999 to 2011. Controls with a WR of 0.9 or greater (normal donor to recipient weight ratio) were compared with patients with a WR of 0.6 to 0.89 (WRL) and a WR of less than 0.59 (WRVL). The primary measured outcome was survival. RESULTS: Of the 21,928 patients undergoing HT, 14,592 (66.6%) were performed with a normal donor to recipient weight ratio, 7212 (32.9%) were performed with WRL, and 124 (0.6%) were performed with WRVL. In male donor to male recipient, male donor to female recipient, and female donor to female recipient HT, the use of WRL did not influence median survival (P = .3621) and was not associated with increased mortality (P = .7273). In female donor to male recipient HT, WRL was associated with decreased median survival (435 days, P = .0241) and was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.201; P = .0383). CONCLUSIONS: HT can be safely performed using WRL donors between sex-matched and male to female transplants. However, in female to male transplants, WRL donors are associated with decreased survival. Although clinical circumstances will guide decision making, consensus criteria may be revisited to liberalize the pool of acceptable donors in an era of unprecedented donor shortage.