Cost-minimization study of the percutaneous approach to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) is less invasive compared with surgical access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (S-EVAR). P-EVAR has been associated with shorter recovery and fewer wound complications. However, vascular closure devices (VCDs) are costly, and the economic effects of P-EVAR have important implications for resource allocation. The objective of our study was to estimate the differences in the costs between P-EVAR and S-EVAR. METHODS: We used a decision tree to analyze the costs from a payer perspective throughout the course of the index hospitalization. The probabilities, relative risks, and mean difference summary measures were obtained from a systematic review and meta-analysis. We modelled differences in surgical site infection, lymphocele, and the length of hospitalization. Cost parameters were derived from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample using "International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification" codes. Attributable costs were estimated using generalized linear models adjusted by age, sex, and comorbidities. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: A total of 6876 abdominal and thoracic EVARs were identified. P-EVAR resulted in a mean cost savings of $751 per procedure. The mean costs for P-EVAR were $1287 (95% confidence interval [CI], $884-$1835) and for S-EVAR were $2038 (95% CI, $757-$4280). P-EVAR procedures were converted to open procedures in 4.3% of the cases. The P-EVAR patients had a difference of -1.4 days (95% CI, -0.12 to -2.68) in the length of hospitalization at a cost of $1190/d (standard error, $298). The cost savings of P-EVAR was primarily driven by the cost differences in the length of hospitalization. In the base case, four VCDs were used per P-EVAR at $200/device. In the two-way sensitivity analysis, P-EVAR resulted in cost savings, even when 1.5 times more VCDs had been used per procedure and the cost of each VCD was 1.5 times greater. In our probabilistic sensitivity analysis, P-EVAR was the cost savings strategy for 82.6% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations when simultaneously varying parameters across their uncertainty ranges. CONCLUSIONS: P-EVAR had lower costs compared with S-EVAR and could result in dramatic cost savings if extrapolated to the number of aortic aneurysms repaired. Our analysis was a conservative estimate that did not account for the improved quality of life after P-EVAR.

Clinical and economic outcomes of ProGlide compared with surgical repair of large bore arterial access.

Aim: This study compared real-world complication rates, hospitalization duration and costs, among patients undergoing arterial repair using the Perclose ProGlide (ProGlide) versus surgical cutdown (Cutdown). Materials & methods: Retrospective study of matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement/repair, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aortic repair or balloon aortic valvuloplasty with arterial repair by either ProGlide or Cutdown between 1 January 2013 and 24 April 2017. Results: Infections and blood transfusions were lower in the ProGlide cohort. Patients in the ProGlide cohort had a 42.5% shorter index hospitalization, which corresponded to US$14,687 lower costs. Conclusion: The use of ProGlide for arterial repair was associated with significantly lower transfusion rates, shorter index hospitalization and lower hospitalization costs compared with surgical cutdown.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Endovascular Aortic Repair With Open Femoral Exposure.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess cost differences between patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) and open surgical femoral exposure in elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An IRB-approved single center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2009 to 2016 was performed. One hundred patients were selected with 50 patients who underwent PEVAR and 50 patients who underwent open surgical femoral exposure. Patient demographics, procedural variables, and hospital outcomes were collected and compared. Primary outcomes assessed used in cost calculations included operating time (OR time), hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit stay (ICU LOS). Extrapolated cost differences were based on known, published cost multipliers for the primary outcomes observed. RESULTS: Patients undergoing PEVAR had significant reduction in mean OR time (113.9 min versus 144.9 min, P < 0.001), mean ICU LOS (19.7 h versus 28.9 h, P = 0.094), and overall LOS (28.3 h versus 33.1 h, P = 0.020). There was no statistically significant difference in access related complications, although there was a trend toward less complication rates with PEVAR (0% versus 5%, P = 0.056). Calculated cost of procedures based on mean ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and OR time, showed significant reduction in mean hospital costs with PEVAR ($16,628.5 versus $21,705.8, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated an overall 23% cost reduction with PEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Prior reports comparing PEVAR versus EVAR with open femoral exposures have shown improvement in overall patient time to ambulation and other hospital metrics such as LOS with PEVAR. There is, however, a paucity of overall cost comparison data regarding PEVAR. In this study, adoption of PEVAR was seen to significantly reduce OR times (19%) and overall hospital LOS (50%). The outcomes observed ultimately translated into significant reduction in hospital costs.

Transesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy for percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects: A comparative study.

The aim of the study was to compare transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy for percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) closure.This was a retrospective analysis of children who underwent percutaneous ASD closure. The procedure was guided by TEE without fluoroscopy in 130 patients (TEE group) and by fluoroscopy in 163 patients (fluoroscopy group). Baseline demographic/clinical characteristics were recorded. Patients were followed until hospital discharge. Outcomes were procedure duration, peri/postoperative complications, hospital stay, and costs.The TEE and fluoroscopy groups showed no significant differences in age (71.7 ±â€Š40.7 vs 62.5 ±â€Š38.8 months), male/female ratio (54/76 vs 66/97), weight (22.0 ±â€Š12.0 vs 20.1 ±â€Š9.0 kg), ASD diameter (9.9 ±â€Š4.2 vs 9.3 ±â€Š3.9 cm), distances to the superior vena cava (13.4 ±â€Š4.6 vs 13.3 ±â€Š4.2 cm), inferior vena cava (13.4 ±â€Š4.3 vs 13.9 ±â€Š4.1 cm) and atrial septal roof (12.1 ±â€Š4.0 vs 12.3 ±â€Š3.2 cm), or atrial septal size (38.2 ±â€Š6.2 vs 39.4 ±â€Š26.6 cm); distance to the mitral valve was greater in the TEE group (13.2 ±â€Š4.4 vs 11.3 ±â€Š3.9 cm; P < .001). The TEE and fluoroscopy groups showed no significant differences in occlusion device size (14.3 ±â€Š4.6 vs 13.8 ±â€Š4.0 cm) or sheath size (8.7 ±â€Š1.8 vs 8.7 ±â€Š0.9 cm), but procedure duration was shorter in the TEE group (21.5 ±â€Š14.6 vs 28.6 ±â€Š10.9 minutes; P < .001). Postoperative fever (>38°C) occurred less frequently in the TEE group than in the fluoroscopy group (0.8% vs 9.2%; P < .001); there were no significant differences for the other complications. No patient had postoperative residual shunt, occlusion device shedding/displacement, or pericardial effusion. The TEE group had longer hospital stay (3.2 ±â€Š0.6 vs 2.9 ±â€Š0.6 days; P < .001) and higher procedure cost (29,687 ±â€Š4218 vs 28,530 ±â€Š1668 CNY (China Yuan); P = .002) than the fluoroscopy group.TEE-guided percutaneous ASD closure can be used as an alternative to fluoroscopy-guided procedures and avoids the use of radiation or contrast agents.

Same-day discharge after coronary stenting and femoral artery device closure: A randomized study in stable and low-risk acute coronary syndrome patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare same-day (SD) vs. delayed hospital discharge (DD) after single and multivessel coronary stenting facilitated by femoral closure device in patients with stable angina and low-risk acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: University of Southern California patients were screened and coronary stenting was performed in 2480 patients. Four hundred ninety-three patients met screening criteria and consented. Four hours after percutaneous coronary intervention, 100 were randomized to SD (n=50) or DD (n=50). Patients were followed for one year; outcomes-, patient satisfaction-, and cost analyses were performed. RESULTS: Groups were well distributed, with similar baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics. Mean age was 58.1±8.8years and 86% were male. Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina were the clinical presentations in 30% and 44% of the SD and DD groups, respectively (p=0.2). Multivessel stenting was performed in 36% and 30% of SD and DD groups, respectively (p=0.14). At one year, two patients from each group (4%) required unplanned revascularization and one patient in the SD group had a gastrointestinal bleed that required a blood transfusion. Six SD and four DD patients required repeat hospitalization (p=0.74). There were no femoral artery vascular complications in either group. Patient satisfaction scores were equivalent. SD discharge was associated with $1200 savings per patient. CONCLUSIONS: SD discharge after uncomplicated single and multivessel coronary stenting of patients with stable, low-risk ACS, via the femoral approach facilitated by a closure device, is associated with similar clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost savings compared to overnight (DD) hospital stay.

Early decision-analytic modeling - a case study on vascular closure devices.

BACKGROUND: As economic considerations become more important in healthcare reimbursement, decisions about the further development of medical innovations need to take into account not only medical need and potential clinical effectiveness, but also cost-effectiveness. Already early in the innovation process economic evaluations can support decisions on development in specific indications or patient groups by anticipating future reimbursement and implementation decisions. One potential concept for early assessment is value-based pricing. METHODS: The objective is to assess the feasibility of value-based pricing and product design for a hypothetical vascular closure device in the pre-clinical stage which aims at decreasing bleeding events. A deterministic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of established vascular closure devices from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance system. To identify early benchmarks for pricing and product design, three strategies of determining the product's value are explored: 1) savings from complications avoided by the new device; 2) valuation of the avoided complications based on an assumed willingness-to-pay-threshold (the efficiency frontier approach); 3) value associated with modifying the care pathways within which the device would be applied. RESULTS: Use of established vascular closure devices is dominated by manual compression. The hypothetical vascular closure device reduces overall complication rates at higher costs than manual compression. Maximum cost savings of only about €4 per catheterization could be realized by applying the hypothetical device. Extrapolation of an efficiency frontier is only possible for one subgroup where vascular closure devices are not a dominated strategy. Modifying care in terms of same-day discharge of patients treated with vascular closure devices could result in cost savings of €400-600 per catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: It was partially feasible to calculate value-based prices for the novel closure device which can be used to inform product design. However, modifying the care pathway may generate much more value from the payers' perspective than modifying the device per se. Manufacturers should thus explore the feasibility of combining reimbursement of their product with arrangements that make same-day discharge attractive also for hospitals. Due to the early nature of the product, the results are afflicted with substantial uncertainty.

Editor's choice. A randomized controlled trial of the fascia suture technique compared with a suture-mediated closure device for femoral arterial closure after endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate whether the fascia suture technique (FST) can reduce access closure time and procedural costs compared with the Prostar technique (Prostar) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair and to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of both techniques. METHODS: In this two center trial, 100 patients were randomized to access closure by either FST or Prostar between June 2006 and December 2009. The primary endpoint was access closure time. Secondary outcome measures included access related costs and evaluation of the short- and mid-term complications. Evaluation was performed peri- and post-operatively, at discharge, at 30 days and at 6 months follow up. RESULTS: The median access closure time was 12.4 minutes for FST and 19.9 minutes for Prostar (p < .001). Prostar required a 54% greater procedure time than FST, mean ratio 1.54 (95% CI 1.25-1.90, p < .001) according to regression analysis. Adjusted for operator experience the mean ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 1.09-1.55, p = .005) and for patient body mass index 1.59 (95% CI 1.28-1.96, p < .001). The technical failure rate for operators at proficiency level was 5% (2/40) compared with 28% (17/59) for those at the basic level (p = .003). The proficiency level group had a technical failure rate of 4% (1/26) for FST and 7% (1/14) for Prostar, p = 1.00, while corresponding rates for the basic level group were 27% (6/22) for FST and 30% (11/37) for Prostar (p = .84). There was a significant difference in cost in favor of FST, with a median difference of €800 (95% CI 710-927, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In aortic endovascular repair FST is a faster and cheaper technique than the Prostar technique.