Robotic mitral valve operations by experienced surgeons are cost-neutral and durable at 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Robotic mitral valve surgery has potential advantages in patient satisfaction and 30-day outcome. Cost concerns and repair durability limit wider adoption of robotic technology. This study examined detailed cost differences between robotic and sternotomy techniques in relation to outcomes and durability following robotic mitral program initiation. METHODS: Between April 2013 and October 2015, 30-day and 1-year outcomes of 328 consecutive patients undergoing robotic or sternotomy mitral valve repair or replacement by experienced surgeons were examined. Multivariable logistic regression informed propensity matching to derive a cohort of 182 patients. Echocardiographic follow-up was completed at 1 year in all robotic patients. Detailed activity-based cost accounting was applied to include direct, semidirect, and indirect costs with special respect to robotic depreciation, maintenance, and supplies. A quantitative analysis of all hospital costs was applied directly to each patient encounter for comparative financial analyses. RESULTS: Mean predicted risk of mortality was similar in both the robotic (n = 91) and sternotomy (n = 91) groups (0.9% vs 0.8%; P > .431). The total costs of robotic mitral operations were similar to those of sternotomy ($27,662 vs $28,241; P = .273). Early direct costs were higher in the robotic group. There was a marked increase in late indirect cost with the sternotomy cohort related to increased length of stay, transfusion requirements, and readmission rates. Robotic repair technique was associated with no echocardiographic recurrence greater than trace to only mild regurgitation at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced mitral surgeons can initiate a robotic program in a cost-neutral manner that maintains clinical outcome integrity as well as repair durability.

Custo direto do implante por cateter de bioprótese valvar aórtica nas diferentes vias de acesso / Direct cost of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the different access routes

Introdução: Uma nova alternativa de tratamento foi desenvolvida, o Implante por Cateter de Bioprótese Valvar Aórtica (TAVI, em inglês, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), indicado para os pacientes portadores de estenose aórtica grave com várias comorbidades, considerados inoperáveis pelo tratamento cirúrgico convencional. O TAVI ainda não foi incorporado ao rol de políticas de saúde do Brasil pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), tampouco pela Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS), pois há escassez de evidências científicas fundamentadas em análise econômica do procedimento que relatem os resultados e o custo a longo prazo em comparação à cirurgia convencional. Objetivo: Identificar o custo direto médio do implante por cateter de bioprótese valvar aórtica, verificar se há alteração significativa de custo nas diferentes vias de acesso utilizadas e identificar os fatores preditores que possam elevar o custo do procedimento. Método: Trata-se de uma pesquisa com abordagens quantitativa, exploratória, descritiva, transversal, retrospectiva e documental, realizada em um hospital da Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de São Paulo (SES-SP), da Administração Direta, especializado no tratamento de doenças cardiovasculares de alta complexidade. A população do estudo correspondeu aos procedimentos eletivos do TAVI, desde a inauguração da sala híbrida, em março de 2012, até agosto de 2015, totalizando 108 procedimentos, sendo 92 por via transfemoral, 8 por via transapical e 8 por via transaórtica. Resultados: O custo direto médio dos procedimentos TAVI nas três vias totalizou R$ 82.230,94. Por via transfemoral, esse custo médio foi de R$ 82.826,38; por via transaórtica, R$ 79.440,91; e por via transapical, R$ 78.173,41. O total de material e medicamento/solução representou, por via transfemoral, 91,89% do total do custo direto médio do procedimento TAVI; por via transapical, 91,81%; e por via transaórtica, 90,69%, e o custo fixo com a válvula transcateter, no valor de R$ 65 mil, representou 78,47% sobre o custo total do procedimento TAVI, por via transfemoral; 83,14%, por via transapical; e 81,82%, por via transaórtica. O Teste Kruskal-Wallis Teste das Variáveis Contínuas apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as vias de acesso. No custo total do procedimento TAVI, o Teste de Bonferroni mostrou diferença na associação entre as vias transfemoral e transapical. No entanto, na associação com a via transaórtica, não apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa. Os fatores preditores que elevaram o custo do procedimento TAVI foram: vias de acesso, duração do procedimento, material de hemodinâmica, medicamento/solução, material de consumo, material de perfusão, total de material e medicamento/solução, recursos humanos, gases medicinais, depreciação e energia. A segunda válvula foi a única variável referente às intercorrências no Centro Cirúrgico que elevou o custo do procedimento. A média de idade dos pacientes com indicação ao TAVI foi de 81,50 ±6,96 anos. Conclusão: O TAVI é um avanço a ser discutido e acompanhado, havendo a necessidade de reforçar novas pesquisas que avaliem os benefícios do tratamento com base nos resultados e custos, a fim de auxiliar na tomada de decisão para incorporação desse tratamento para o público-alvo, melhorando a qualidade de vida dos pacientes e proporcionando a integração destes novamente às atividades diárias.

Introduction: A new treatment alternative has been developed, the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), indicated for patients with severe aortic stenosis with various comorbidities deemed inoperable by conventional surgical treatment. TAVI has not yet been incorporated into the Brazilian health policies by the Public Health System (SUS), or by the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS), because there is a shortage of scientific evidence based on an economic analysis of the procedure that reports the results and the long-term costs compared to conventional surgery. Objective: To identify the average direct cost of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation, to verify if there is significant change of cost in the different access routes used, and to identify predictive factors that could increase the cost of the procedure. Method: This is a study with quantitative, exploratory, descriptive, transversal, retrospective, and documentary approaches, carried out in a hospital of the State Department of Health of São Paulo (SES-SP), of the Direct Administration, specialized in the treatment of high-complexity cardiovascular diseases. The study population corresponded to TAVI elective procedures, from the inauguration of the hybrid room, in March 2012, up to August 2015, totaling 108 procedures, of which 92 were transfemoral, 8 were transapical, and 8 were transaortic. Results: The average direct cost of the TAVI procedures in the three routes totaled R$ 82,230.94. Transfemorally, this average cost was R$ 82,826.38; through the transaortic route, R$ 79,440.91; and through the transapical route, R$ 78,173.41. The total material and medication / solution represented 91.89% of the total average direct cost of the TAVI procedure through the transfemoral route; 91.81% through the transapical route; and 90.69% through the transaortic route, and the fixed cost with the transcatheter valve, in the amount of R$ 65,000.00, represented 78.47% of the total cost of the TAVI procedure through the transfemoral route; 83.14%, through the transapical route; and 81.82% through the transaortic route. The Kruskal-Wallis Test Continuous Variables Test showed a statistically significant difference among the access routes. In the total cost of the TAVI procedure, the Bonferroni Test showed a difference in the association between the transfemoral and transapical routes. However, in the association with the transaortic route, there was no statistically significant difference. Predictive factors that increased the cost of the TAVI procedure were: access routes, length of procedure, hemodynamic material, drug / solution, consumption material, infusion material, total material and medicine/solution, human resources, medical gas, depreciation and energy. The second valve was the only variable related to the complications in the or that increased the cost of the procedure. The mean age of patients with TAVI was 81.50 ± 6.96 years. Conclusion: TAVI is an advance to be discussed and monitored, and there is a need to encourage new studies that evaluate the benefits of treatment based on the results and costs, in order to assist in the decision making for the incorporation of this treatment into its population, improving the quality of life of patients and providing once again their integration into daily activities.

Is robotic mitral valve surgery more expensive than its conventional counterpart?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Is robotic mitral valve surgery more expensive than its conventional counterpart?' Altogether 19 papers were found using the reported search, of which 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. There is a general impression in the surgical community that robotic operations might incur prohibitive additional costs. There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding cost analysis in cardiac robotic surgery. From the five studies, four were single institution experiences and one was a database inquiry study. These four studies showed that operational costs are higher for robotic cases but this was partially (one study) or completely (three studies) offset by lower postoperative costs. Overall hospital costs were similar between the two approaches in three studies and one study showed higher costs in the robotic group. Higher operating theatre (OT) costs were driven mainly by use of robotic instruments (approximately US$1500 per case) and longer OT times. Savings in postoperative care were driven by shorter length of hospital stay (on average 2 days fewer in robotic cases) and lower morbidity. If amortization cost, that is, the value of the initial capital investment on the robotic system divided by all operations performed, is included in this analysis, robotic approach becomes significantly more expensive by approximately US$3400 per case. The fifth study was a large national database inquiry in which robotic approach was found to be more expensive by US$600 per case excluding amortization cost and by US$3700 if amortization is included. We conclude that the total hospital cost of robotic mitral valve surgery is slightly higher than conventional sternotomy surgery. If amortization is taken into consideration, robotic cases are considerably more expensive.

The challenges of managing rheumatic disease of the mitral valve in Jamaica.

Between January, 2009 and December, 2013, 84 patients were identified who underwent isolated mitral valve surgery in Jamaica at The University Hospital of the West Indies and The Bustamante Hospital for Children. The most common pathology requiring surgery was rheumatic heart disease, accounting for 84% of the procedures performed. The majority of patients had regurgitation of the mitral valve (67%), stenosis of the mitral valve (22%), and mixed mitral valve disease (11%). The most common procedure performed was replacement of the mitral valve (69%), followed by mitral valve repair (29%). Among the patients, one underwent closed mitral commissurotomy. The choice of procedure differed between age groups. In the paediatric population (<18 years of age), the majority of patients underwent repair of the mitral valve (89%). In the adult population (18 years and above), the majority of patients underwent mitral valve replacement (93%). Overall, of all the patients undergoing replacement of the mitral valve, 89% received a mechanical valve prosthesis, whereas 11% received a bioprosthetic valve prosthesis. Of the group of patients who underwent mitral valve repair for rheumatic heart disease, 19% required re-operation. The average time between initial surgery and re-operation was 1.2 years. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease remain significant public health challenges in Jamaica and other developing countries. Focus must remain on primary and secondary prevention strategies in order to limit the burden of rheumatic valvulopathies. Attention should also be directed towards improving access to surgical treatment for young adults.