RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare procedural and long-term costs associated with the use of Balloon-Expandable Covered Stents (BECS) in the management of Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease (AIOD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-consequence model was developed to simulate the intra- and post-operative management of patients with AIOD from the perspective of private health-payers. The study assessed the costs of the LifeStream (BD, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), iCAST/Advanta V12 (Getinge, Goteborg, Sweden), BeGraft Peripheral (Bentley, Hechingen, Germany), and Viabahn Balloon Expandable (VBX) (W.L. Gore, Flagstaff, Arizona) BECS devices. Device costs were identified from the Australian Prosthesis List, whereas clinical outcomes of BECS were estimated from a systematic review of the literature. Costs were calculated over 24 and 36 month time horizons and reported in US dollars. RESULTS: Long-term, per-patient cost of each device at 24 and 36 months was $6253/$6634 for the LifeStream; $6359/$6869 for the iCAST/Advanta V12; $4806 (data available to 24 months) for the BeGraft Peripheral; and $4839/$5046 for the Viabahn VBX, respectively. Most of the cost difference was attributed to the number of stents required per treated limb and frequency of clinically-driven target lesion revascularization events. CONCLUSIONS: Best-available clinical evidence and economic modeling demonstrates that the BeGraft Peripheral and Viabahn VBX were of similar cost and the least costly options at 24 months, whereas at 36 months, the lowest cost BECS option for the treatment of AIOD was the Viabahn VBX. CLINICAL IMPACT: This analysis supports economically informed decision-making for health-payers managing systems that care for patients with AIOD. Stent length and avoiding reintervention were identified as key areas of cost-saving for future BECS development.
RESUMO
Background: Retrograde dissection is now recognized as an important complication following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study is to describe two different situations of TAAD after TEVAR. We will introduce the surgical methods used to repair TAAD following TEVAR at our center, and evaluate its long-term prognosis. Methods: Between January 2010 and October 2019, 50 patients who had previously received TEVAR treatment for TBAD were admitted to our center for repair of a type A aortic dissection. According to the patients' CT angiographies and intra-operative findings, we identified two distinct groups: a retrograde group (stent-induced new aortic injury, with retrograde extension involving the ascending aorta) and an antegrade group (entry tear located in the aortic root, ascending aorta or the aortic arch, away from the edges of the stent grafts). The options for treatment of the proximal aorta were Bentall procedure (12/50, 24.0%) and ascending aorta replacement (38/50, 76.0%). All patients underwent total arch replacement (TAR) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation. Survival over the follow-up period was evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the log-rank test. Results: The median interval time from prior TEVAR to reoperation was 187 days (IQR: 30.0, 1375.0 days). 18.0% of TAAD after TEVAR did not have any obvious symptoms at the time of diagnosis, most of which were found on routine follow-up imaging. The patients in the retrograde group were younger than those in the antegrade group (44.0 ± 9.4 vs. 51.4 ± 10.5 years, P = 0.012). No significant differences in the incidence of post-operative complications or mortality were noted between the two groups. The mean follow-up time was 3 years. No late death or complications occurred after one year following surgery upon follow-up. The asymptomatic survival rate one year after surgery was 90.0%. Conclusion: The TAR and FET technique was feasible and effective for complicated TAAD after TEVAR. The surgical success rate and long-term prognosis of patients undergoing the timely operation are satisfactory.
