Endovascular Thrombectomy Alone for Large Vessel Occlusion: A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation Based on Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion remains debated. In this study, we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of EVT alone versus intravenous alteplase before EVT in patients directly admitted to EVT-capable stroke centers from the Dutch health care payer perspective. METHODS: A decision analysis was performed using a Markov model with 15-year simulated follow-up to estimate total costs, quality-adjusted life years, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of intravenous alteplase before EVT compared with EVT alone. A hypothetical cohort of 10 000 patients with large vessel occlusion aged 70 years was run in Monte Carlo simulation. Functional outcome of each treatment was derived from pooled results of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Uncertainty was assessed by probabilistic analyses, scenario analyses, and 1-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Using functional outcomes obtained from 6 RCTs (intention-to-treat population), intravenous alteplase before EVT resulted in 0.05 quality-adjusted life years gained at an additional $2817 compared with EVT alone, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $62 287. Probabilistic analyses showed that intravenous alteplase before EVT had a probability of 45% and 54%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the $52 500 and $84 000 thresholds. Restricting functional outcomes from our post hoc modified as-treated analysis of 6 RCTs (scenario 1), European RCTs (scenario 2), or a Dutch RCT (scenario 3), intravenous alteplase before EVT was cost-effective in 64%, 81%, and 50% of simulations at the $52 500 threshold, and 79%, 91%, and 67% of simulations at the $84 000 threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous alteplase before EVT was not cost-effective in patients with large vessel occlusion in the Netherlands at the $52 500 threshold but possibly cost-effective at the $84 000 threshold. Variable functional outcomes at 3 months based on different trial populations affected the cost-effectiveness of intravenous alteplase before EVT.

The Use of Pressure Recording Analytical Method in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: The Impact on Clinical Decisions for the Appropriate Postoperative Setting and Cost-effective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the use of the Pressure Recording Analytical Method (PRAM), an hemodynamic monitoring system, in evaluating intraoperative and postoperative hemodynamic instability in patients undergoing endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm, and to evaluate if the decision to refer patients to a ordinary ward or to a Cardiac Step-Down Unit (CSDU) after the intervention on the basis of intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring could be more cost-effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After preoperative clinical evaluation, 44 patients were divided in this non-randomised study into two groups according to their postoperative destination: Group 1-ward (N=22) and Group 2-CSDU (N=22). All patients underwent monitoring with PRAM during the intervention and in the 24 postoperative hours, measuring several indices of myocardial contractility and other hemodynamic variables. RESULTS: According to the variability of two parameters, Stroke Volume Variation and Pulse Pressure Variation, patients were classified as stable or unstable. Unstable patients showed a significant alteration in several hemodynamic indices, in comparison to stable ones. According to the intraoperative monitoring, eight high risk patients could have been sent to an ordinary ward due to their stability, with a reduction in the improper use of CSDU and, consequently, in costs. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic monitoring with PRAM can be useful in these patients, both for intraoperative management and for the choice of the more appropriate postoperative setting, possibly reducing the improper use of CSDU for hemodynamically stable patients who are judged to be at high risk preoperatively, and re-evaluating low surgical risk patients with an unstable intraoperative pattern, with a possible reduction in costs.

Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM). RESULTS: Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

The Prevalence of Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosures by Endovascular Specialists on X (Twitter).

PURPOSE: To evaluate conflicts of interest (COIs) among interventional radiologists and related specialties who mention specific devices or companies on the social media (SoMe) platform X, formerly Twitter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 13,809 posts between October 7, 2021, and December 31, 2021, on X were evaluated. Posts by U.S. interventional radiologists and related specialties who mentioned a specific device or company were identified. A positive COI was defined as receiving a payment from the device manufacturer or company within 36 months prior to posting. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to identify financial payments. The prevalence and value of COIs were assessed and compared between posts mentioning a device or company and a paired control group using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests and independent t tests. RESULTS: Eighty posts containing the mention of 100 specific devices or companies were evaluated. COIs were present in 53% (53/100). When mentioning a specific device or product, 40% interventional radiologists had a COI, compared with 62% neurosurgeons. Physicians who mentioned a specific device or company were 3.7 times more likely to have a positive COI relative to the paired control group (53/100 vs 14/100; P < .001). Of the 31 physicians with a COI, the median physician received $2,270. None of the positive COIs were disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians posting on SoMe about a specific device or company were more likely to have a financial COI than authors of posts not mentioning a specific device or company. No disclosure of any COI was present in the posts, limiting followers' ability to weigh potential bias.

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs. METHODS: We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs. RESULTS: We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in Iran: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is one of the most important cardiovascular diseases, especially in the elderly. People with this disease are at risk of rupture of the abdominal aorta and death. The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair compared to open surgery in AAA patients in Iran. METHODS: A Markov chain model was developed based on the use of endovascular repair and open surgery. The base-case patient was defined as a 65-year-old man presenting with AAA diameter greater than 5 cm. The determination of costs was from the perspective of the public sector provider. QALY was used to calculate the effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and TreeAge software were used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The follow-up period was 10 years and the willingness to pay (WTP) was determined as three times the Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. RESULT: At the end of year 10, the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) strategy gained 1 318 313 559 Iranian Rial (IRR) (67 885.29$) in cost and 3.57 QALYs in effectiveness. In contrast, the use of the open surgery repair (OSR) strategy gained 1 186 761 858 IRR (61 111.16$) in cost and 3·32 QALYs in effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing EVAR versus OSR, was 53, 346, 3757 IRR (178.36$) per QALYs, which is lower than the proposed WTP, indicating that EVAR is more expensive and more effective. Based on the Monte Carlo simulation test, EVAR is the preferred strategy in 58.6% of the population. CONCLUSION: Endovascular repair has a relative superiority compared to open surgery, and the probability of the effectiveness of endovascular repair compared to open surgery does not change with increasing willingness to pay.

[Cost-revenue aspects of endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies with respect to the introduction of a new thoracic side-branch prosthesis]. / Kosten-Erlös-Aspekte der endovaskulären Versorgung distaler Aortenbogenpathologien im Hinblick auf die Einführung einer neuen thorakalen Seitenarmprothese.

BACKGROUND: The standard vascular surgical procedure (SV) for the treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies involves a hybrid approach using a left carotid-subclavian bypass and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Considering the introduction of a thoracic side branch prosthesis (TBE), the aim of this study was to analyze the cost-revenue aspects of both procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cases treated by SV from 2017 to 2022. To draw conclusions regarding the use of TBE, the main diagnoses and procedures of SV were recoded based on current classifications (ICD/OPS 2023) for revenue calculations and regrouped according to aG-DRG 2023. An OPS modification and regrouping were performed for modeling TBE revenues. RESULTS: A total of 13 cases were identified (mean age 62.5 ± 13.8 years; 10 males). After regrouping, the following DRGs were obtained: F42Z in N = 5, F51A in N = 4, F08B in N = 2, and F07A and F36B each in N = 1. The total revenue after regrouping was €â€¯666,514.13, including an additional payment (ZE) of €â€¯132,729.14. With the modeled application of TBE, a total revenue of €â€¯659,212.19 was achieved. Compared to SV, this represents a revenue decrease of €â€¯16,886.71 (changed DRG), but with an increase in ZE revenue by €â€¯65,559.78 (different ZE). The use of TBE resulted in a saving of 74 occupancy days, including 13.5 days in intensive care. CONCLUSION: A cost coverage seems probable with a change in the procedure, despite the yet to be determined pricing of TBE. This is highly dependent on the coding quality and the future development of ZE, given the annually changing DRG relative weights. Precise and transparent performance and cost documentation are essential for determining the pricing.

Cost Analysis of Target Lesion Revascularisation in Patients With Femoropopliteal In Stent Re-Stenosis or Occlusion: The COSTLY-TLR Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the cost of target lesion revascularisation procedures (TLR) for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD) following stenting, from a healthcare payer's perspective. METHODS: European multicentre study involving consecutive patients requiring femoropopliteal TLR (January 2017 - December 2021). The primary outcome was overall cost (euros) associated with a TLR procedure from presentation to discharge. Exact costs per constituent, clinical characteristics, and early outcomes were reported. RESULTS: This study included 482 TLR procedures (retrospectively, 13 hospitals, six countries): 56% were female, mean age was 75 ± 2 years, 61% were Rutherford class 5 or 6, 67% had Tosaka class 3 disease, and 16% had common femoral or iliac involvement. A total of 52% were hybrid procedures and 6% involved open surgery only. Technical success was 70%, 30 day mortality rate was 1%, and the 30 day major amputation rate was 4%. Most costs were for operating time during the TLR (healthcare professionals' salaries, indirect and estate costs), with a mean of: €21 917 ± €2 110 for all procedures; €23 337 ± €8 920 for open procedures; €12 903 ± €3 108 for endovascular procedures; and €22 806 ± €3 977 for hybrid procedures. In a regression analysis, procedure duration was the main parameter associated with higher overall TLR costs (coefficient, 2.77; standard error, 0.88; p < .001). The mean cost per operating minute of TLR (indirect, estate costs, all salaried staff present included) was €177 and the mean cost per night stay in hospital (outside intensive care unit) was €356. The mean cost per overnight intensive care unit stay (minimum of 8 hours per night) was €1 193. CONCLUSION: The main driver of the considerable peri-procedure costs associated with femoropopliteal TLR was procedure time.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment after 6-24 h in ischaemic stroke patients with collateral flow on CT-angiography: A model-based economic evaluation of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.

BACKGROUND: The MR CLEAN-LATE trial has shown that patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in the late window (6-24 h after onset or last-seen-well) based on the presence of collateral flow on CT-angiography is safe and effective. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of late-window collateral-based EVT-selection compared to best medical management (BMM) over a lifetime horizon (until 95 years of age). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model-based economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective in The Netherlands. A decision tree was combined with a state-transition (Markov) model. Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Initial probabilities at 3-months post-stroke were based on MR CLEAN-LATE data. Transition probabilities were derived from previous literature. Information on short- and long-term resource use and utilities was obtained from a study using MR CLEAN-LATE and cross-sectional data. All costs are expressed in 2022 euros. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at a rate of 4% and 1.5%, respectively. The effect of parameter uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: On average, the EVT strategy cost €159,592 (95% CI: €140,830-€180,154) and generated 3.46 QALYs (95% CI: 3.04-3.90) per patient, whereas the costs and QALYs associated with BMM were €149,935 (95% CI: €130,841-€171,776) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.48-3.29), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY and the incremental net monetary benefit were €16,442 and €19,710, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000/QALY, EVT was cost-effective in 87% of replications. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Collateral-based selection for late-window EVT is likely cost-effective from a societal perspective in The Netherlands.

Costs and health effects of CT perfusion-based selection for endovascular thrombectomy within 6 hours of stroke onset: a model-based health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although CT perfusion (CTP) is often incorporated in acute stroke workflows, it remains largely unclear what the associated costs and health implications are in the long run of CTP-based patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset with a large vessel occlusion. METHODS: Patients with a large vessel occlusion were included from a Dutch nationwide cohort (n=703) if CTP imaging was performed before EVT within 6 hours after stroke onset. Simulated cost and health effects during 5 and 10 years follow-up were compared between CTP based patient selection for EVT and providing EVT to all patients. Outcome measures were the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay of €80 000 per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), difference in costs from a healthcare payer perspective (ΔCosts) and quality-adjusted life years (ΔQALY) per 1000 patients for 1000 model iterations as outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with treating all patients, CTP-based selection for EVT at the optimised ischaemic core volume (ICV≥110 mL) or core-penumbra mismatch ratio (MMR≤1.4) thresholds resulted in losses of health (median ΔQALYs for ICV≥110 mL: -3.3 (IQR: -5.9 to -1.1), for MMR≤1.4: 0.0 (IQR: -1.3 to 0.0)) with median ΔCosts for ICV≥110 mL of -€348 966 (IQR: -€712 406 to -€51 158) and for MMR≤1.4 of €266 513 (IQR: €229 403 to €380 110)) per 1000 patients. Sensitivity analyses did not yield any scenarios for CTP-based selection of patients for EVT that were cost-effective for improving health, including patients aged ≥80 years CONCLUSION: In EVT-eligible patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset, excluding patients based on CTP parameters was not cost-effective and could potentially harm patients.

Economic Evaluation of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke has been proven clinically effective, but evidence of the cost-effectiveness based on real-world data is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether endovascular therapy plus usual care is cost-effective in comparison to usual care alone in acute ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Empirical data on health outcomes and the use of resources following endovascular treatment were gathered parallel to the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) and its 2-year follow-up study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the extra costs per additional patient with functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and the extra cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: The mean costs per patient in the intervention group were $126 494 versus $143 331 in the control group (mean difference, -$16 839 [95% CI, -$38 113 to $5456]). Compared with patients in the control group, more patients in the intervention group achieved functional independence, 37.2% versus 23.9% (absolute difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 4.0%-22.0%]) and they generated more quality-adjusted life years, 0.99 versus 0.83 (mean difference of 0.16 [95% CI, 0.04-0.29]). Endovascular treatment dominated standard treatment with $18 233 saved per extra patient with a good outcome and $105 869 saved per additional quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment added to usual care is clinically effective, and cost saving in comparison to usual care alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Registration: URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/695; Unique identifier: NL695. URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared. RESULTS: Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Editor's Choice - Cost Effectiveness of Primary Stenting in the Superficial Femoral Artery for Intermittent Claudication: Two Year Results of a Randomised Multicentre Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Invasive treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) is commonly performed, despite limited evidence of its cost effectiveness. IC symptoms are mainly caused by atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA), and endovascular treatment is performed frequently. The aim of this study was to investigate its cost effectiveness vs. non-invasive treatment. METHODS: One hundred patients with IC due to lesions in the SFA were randomised to treatment with primary stenting, best medical treatment (BMT) and exercise advice (stent group), or to BMT and exercise advice alone (control group). Patients were recruited at seven hospitals in Sweden. For this analysis of cost effectiveness after 24 months, 84 patients with data on quality adjusted life years (QALY; based on the EuroQol Five Dimensions EQ-5D 3L™ questionnaire) were analysed. Patient registry and imputed cost data were used for accumulated costs regarding hospitalisation and outpatient visits. RESULTS: The mean cost per patient was €11 060 in the stent group and €4 787 in the control group, resulting in a difference of €6 273 per patient between the groups. The difference in mean QALYs between the groups was 0.26, in favour of the stent group, which resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 23 785 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The costs associated with primary stenting in the SFA for the treatment of IC were higher than for exercise advice and BMT alone. With concurrent improvement in health related quality of life, primary stenting was a cost effective treatment option according to the Swedish national guidelines (ICER < €50 000 - €70 000) and approaching the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for willingness to pay (ICER < £20 000 - £30 000). From a cost effectiveness standpoint, primary stenting of the SFA can, in many countries, be used as an adjunct to exercise training advice, but it must be considered that successful implementation of structured exercise programmes and longer follow up may alter these findings.

Investigating the "Weekend Effect" on Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endovascular Mechanical Thrombectomy for Ischemic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: With growing evidence of its efficacy for patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) ischemic stroke, the use of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has increased. The "weekend effect," whereby patients presenting during weekends/off hours have worse clinical outcomes than those presenting during normal working hours, is a critical area of study in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Our objective was to evaluate whether a "weekend effect" exists in patients undergoing EVT. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2016-2018 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data included patients ≥18 years with documented diagnosis of ischemic stroke (ICD-10 codes I63, I64, and H34.1), procedural code for EVT, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score; the exposure variable was weekend vs. weekday treatment. The primary outcome was in-hospital death; secondary outcomes were favorable discharge, extended hospital stay (LOS), and cost. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine predictors for outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 6052 AIS patients who received EVT (mean age 68.7±14.8 years; 50.8% female; 70.8% White; median (IQR) admission NIHSS 16 (10-21). The primary outcome of in-hospital death occurred in 560 (11.1%); the secondary outcome of favorable discharge occurred in 1039 (20.6%). The mean LOS was 7.8±8.6 days. There were no significant differences in the outcomes or cost based on admission timing. In the mixed-effects models, we found no effect of weekend vs. weekday admission on in-hospital death, favorable discharge, or extended LOS. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the "weekend effect" does not impact outcomes or cost for patients who undergo EVT for LVO.

Endovascular aortic repair is a cost-effective option for in-hospital patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) versus open aortic repair (OAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using incremental costs per decreased in-hospital mortality rate gained through our patients' cohort. METHODS: Medical records and healthcare costs of patients with AAA hospitalized between 2010 and 2015 were extracted from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan. Multiple regression analysis was applied to adjust for confounding factors and to compare the differences in postoperative clinical outcomes between patients who received EVAR and OAR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EVAR was determined based on the healthcare cost obtained from the analyzed data. RESULTS: A total of 2803 AAA patients were identified (n = 559 with ruptured AAA and n = 2244 unruptured AAA). Patients with ruptured AAA who underwent EVAR compared with OAR patients had shorter hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays (all p < 0.05). For patients with unruptured AAA, those who received EVAR compared with OAR, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality were 0.371 and 0.447 (all p < 0.05). The total direct surgical costs and medical expenses during hospitalization in all AAA patients were higher for the EVAR group; however, ICER was <1 per capita gross domestic product. Stratification by age groups further suggested that ICER for patients with unruptured AAA who received EVAR, compared with OAR, decreased with age. CONCLUSION: Total direct medical costs were higher for AAA patients receiving EVAR regardless of rupture status; however, the cost is offset by lower odds of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality. The observed decrease in ICER with age and EVAR use warrants further analysis. Our findings further validate the use of EVAR over OAR. These results provides supporting evidence for physicians and patients with AAA to inform shared decision making regarding endovascular or OAR options.

Cost-effectiveness of transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have demonstrated that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR, and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR with CEA for carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a 5-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness. RESULTS: For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs, whereas TCAR cost $19154 for 2.92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR, and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost-effective in 49% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that, although 5-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at 6 years of follow-up.

Epidemiological Analysis of 37,424 Carotid Artery Stenosis Intervention Procedures During 11 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil: Stenting has Been More Common Than Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil. METHODS: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS.

Variations in utilization and clinical outcomes for endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and endovascular arterial embolization in a single multi-hospital network.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolization (EAE) are increasingly common treatment options for patients with refractory epistaxis. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization pattern and clinical outcomes between these interventions within our single multi-hospital network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients undergoing ESPAL and/or EAE within any of the hospitals in a single healthcare network between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. We compared differences in procedure utilization with various hospital characteristics. Secondarily, we evaluated clinical outcomes and costs associated with each procedure. RESULTS: Forty-three ESPAL and 33 EAE procedures were performed across 7 hospitals, with the majority of procedures being performed at teaching institutions (65% and 91%, p = .013). The majority of both interventions were performed in larger hospitals and EAE patients were more likely to undergo inter-hospital transfer compared to ESPAL patients (48.5% and 16.3%, p = .02). Success rates for ESPAL and EAE were comparable (95% and 93%); however, the median direct cost of treatment for EAE was significantly higher than the cost for ESPAL ($12984.89 and $5002.02, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of both ESPAL and EAE interventions were performed at teaching and larger hospitals. Transfers occurring prior to EAE may have been due to the limited availability of interventional radiology services, and likely contributed to the increased cost of treatment. ESPAL is a known cost-effective management strategy and should be considered early in treatment algorithms of refractory epistaxis.

Analyzing Cost-Effectiveness of Allocating Neurointerventionist for Drive and Retrieve System for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: There are regional disparities in implementation rates of endovascular thrombectomy due to time and resource constraints such as endovascular thrombectomy specialists. In Hokkaido, Japan, Drive and Retrieve System (DRS), where endovascular thrombectomy specialists perform early endovascular thrombectomies by traveling from the facilities where they normally work to facilities closer to the patient. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of allocating a endovascular thrombectomy specialist for DRS to treat stroke patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: he number of ischemic stroke patients expected to receive endovascular thrombectomy in Hokkaido in 2015 was estimated. It was assumed that an additional neutointerventionist was allocated for DRS. The analysis was performed from the government's perspective, which includes medical and nursing-care costs, and the personnel cost for endovascular thrombectomy specialist. The analysis was conducted comparing the current scenario, where patients received endovascular thrombectomy in facilities where endovascular thrombectomy specialists normally work, with the scenario with DRS within 60 min drive distance. Patient transport time was analyzed using geographic information system, and patient severity was estimated from the transport time. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in each medical area which was calculated from the incremental costs and the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated from patient severity using published literature. The entire process was repeated 100 times. RESULTS: DRS was most cost-effective in Kamikawachubu area, where the ICER was $14,173±16,802/QALY, significantly lower than the threshold that the Japanese guideline suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Since DRS was cost-effective in Kamikawachubu area, the area should be prioritized when a endovascular thrombectomy specialist for DRS is allocated as a policy.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with In-Hospital Outcomes After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple studies have shown improved outcomes and higher utilization of care with the increase of insurance coverage. This study aims to assess whether Medicaid expansion (ME) has changed the utilization and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. MATERIALS: Data of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2017). METHODS: Interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was utilized to evaluate changes in annual trends of postoperative outcomes after elective AAA repair before and after 2014. We also assessed if these trend changes were significant by comparing the changes in states which adopted ME in 2014 versus nonexpansion states (NME), and conducting a difference-in-difference analysis. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and adverse events (bowel and leg ischemia, cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke and return to the OR). RESULTS: A total of 19,143 procedures were included (Endovascular: 85.8% and open: 14.2%), of which 40.9% were performed in ME States. Compared to preexpansion trends (P1), there was a 2% annual increase in elective AAA repair in ME states (P1: -1.8% versus P2: +0.2%, P< 0.01) with no significant change in NME (P1: +0.3% versus P2: +0.2%, P = 0.97). Among elective cases, annual trends in the use of EVAR increased by 2% in ME states (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.1, 4.1, P = 0.06), compared to a 3% decrease in NME States [95%CI = -5.8, -0.6, P = 0.01) (PMEversusNME < 0.01]. There was no association between ME and in-hospital mortality. Nonetheless, it was associated with a decrease in the annual trends of in-hospital complications (ME: -1.4% (-2.1,-0.8) versus NME: +0.2% (-0.2, +0.8), P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While no association between ME and increased survival was noted in states which adopted ME, there was a significant increase of elective AAA cases and EVAR utilization and a decrease in in-hospital complications in ME States.