[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.

Quantifying The Costs of Creating and Maintaining Hemodialysis Access in An All-Payer Rate-Controlled Health System.

OBJECTIVES: The creation and maintenance of durable hemodialysis access is critically important for reducing patient morbidity and controlling overall costs within health systems. Our objective was to quantify the costs associated with hemodialysis access creation and its maintenance over time within a rate-controlled health system where charges equate to payments. METHODS: The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission administrative claims database was used to identify patients who underwent first-time access creation from 2012-2020. Patients were identified using CPT codes for access creation, and costs were accrued for the initial encounter and all subsequent outpatient access-related encounters. T-tests and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare reinterventions and access-related costs ($USD) between arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and arteriovenous grafts (AVG). Multivariable modeling was used to quantify the association of access type with charge variation. RESULTS: Overall, 12,716 patients underwent first-time access creation (69.3% AVF vs. 30.7% AVG). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention between the two access types at any point following creation (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10); however, AVF were associated with a lower number of cumulative reinterventions (1.50 vs. 2.24) compared to AVG (P<0.0001). AVF was associated with lower overall costs in the year of creation ($9,388 vs. $13,539, P<0.0001), a difference that remained significant over the subsequent 3 years. The lower costs associated with AVF were present both in the costs associated with creation and subsequent maintenance. On multivariable analysis, AVF was associated with a $3,557 reduction in total access-related costs versus AVG (95%CI -$3828, -3287). CONCLUSION: AVF require fewer interventions and are associated with lower costs at placement and over the first three years of maintenance compared to AVG. The use of AVF for first-time hemodialysis access represents an opportunity for healthcare savings in appropriately selected patients with a high preoperative likelihood of AVF maturation.

Hospitalization Cost and In-hospital Outcomes Following Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection Repair.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported lower mortality and morbidity after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TbAD). However, there are few studies in the literature on the cost of both treatment options. Thus, the aim of this study is to focus on in-hospital outcomes and cost associated with TbAD repair procedures in a national database in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) between June 2009 and March 2015 was performed. ICD-9-CM codes were used to identify patients who underwent OSR or TEVAR for TbAD. Endpoints included in-hospital adverse events, in-hospital mortality and hospitalization cost. Logistic regression models and generalized linear models were used to assess the impact of treatment type on the main outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 1752 patients with TbAD, 54.3% underwent OSR and 45.7% underwent TEVAR. Patients in the TEVAR group were older [median age, 64 (IQR 54-73) vs. 59 (IQR 49-70), P < 1] and more likely to have preexisting comorbidities. IAE rates were 78.6% for the OSR group compared to 43.1% for the TEVAR group, P < 0.001. Patients in the OSR group showed significantly higher in-hospital mortality (15.3% vs. 5.9%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, OSR was associated with a 5-fold increase in IAE [aOR(95%CI): 4.8 (3.8-6.1), P < 0.001] and a 3-fold increase in in-hospital mortality [aOR(95%CI): 3.3 (2.1-5.1), P < 0.001]. In regards to charges related to the hospital stay, total cost was significantly higher among patients undergoing OSR $53,371 ($39,029-$80,471) vs. TEVAR $45,311 ($31,479-$67,960), P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that TEVAR presents an advantage in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost when compared to OSR in the treatment of TbAD. However, long-term cost-effectiveness of both procedures remains unknown. Further research is warranted to see whether the superiority of TEVAR is maintained over time.

Medicare costs for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Reintervention after endovascular repair (EVR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms is common. However, the cumulative financial impact of reintervention after EVR on a national scale is poorly defined. Our objective was to describe the cost to Medicare for aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) among a cohort of patients with known follow-up for 5 years after repair. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent EVR within the Vascular Quality Initiative who were linked to their respective Medicare claims file (n = 13,995). We excluded patients who underwent EVR after September 30, 2010, and those who had incomplete Medicare coverage (n = 12,788). The remaining cohort (n = 1207) had complete follow-up until death or 5 years (Medicare data available through September 30, 2015). We then obtained and compiled the corresponding Medicare reimbursement data for the index EVR hospitalization and all subsequent reinterventions. RESULTS: We studied 1207 Medicare patients who underwent EVR and had known follow-up for reinterventions for 5 years. The mean age was 76.2 years (±7.1 years), 21.6% of patients were female, and 91.1% of procedures were elective. The Kaplan-Meier reintervention rate at 5 years was 18%. Among patients who underwent reintervention, 154 (73.7%) had a single reintervention, 40 (19.1%) had two reinterventions, and 15 (7.2%) had three or more reinterventions. The median cost to Medicare for the index EVR hospitalization was $25,745 (interquartile range, $21,131-$28,774). The median cost for subsequent reinterventions was $22,165 (interquartile range, $17,152-$29,605). The cumulative cost to Medicare of aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) increased in a stepwise fashion among patients who underwent multiple reinterventions, with each reintervention being similar in cost to the index EVR. CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost incurred by Medicare to reimburse for each reintervention after EVR is roughly the same as for the initial procedure itself, meaning that Medicare cost projections would be greater than $100,000 for any individual who undergoes an EVR with three reinterventions. The long-term financial impact of EVR must be considered by surgeons, patients, and healthcare systems alike as these cumulative costs may hinder the fiscal viability of an EVR-first therapeutic approach and highlight the need for judicious patient selection paradigms.

Regional Market Competition is Associated with Aneurysm Diameter at the Time of EVAR.

BACKGROUND: Local market competition has been previously associated with more aggressive surgical decision-making. For example, more local competition for organs is associated with acceptance of lower quality kidney offers in transplant surgery. We hypothesized that market competition would be associated with the size of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at the time of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: We included all elective EVARs reported in the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2012-2018). Small AAAs were defined as a maximum diameter <5.5 cm in men or <5.0 cm in women. We calculated the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of physician market concentration (higher HHI = less market competition), for each US census region. Multilevel regression was used to examine the association between the size of AAA at EVAR and HHI, clustering by region. RESULTS: Of 37,914 EVARs performed, 15,379 (40.6%) were for small AAAs. There was significant variation in proportion of EVARs performed for small AAAs across regions (P < 0.001). The South had both the highest proportion of EVARs for small AAAs (44.2%) as well as the highest market competition (HHI 50), whereas the West had the lowest proportion of EVARs for small AAAs (35.0%) and the lowest market competition (HHI 107). Adjusting for patient characteristics, each 10 unit increase in HHI was associated with a 0.1 mm larger maximum AAA diameter at the time of EVAR (95% CI 0.04-0.24 mm, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Physician market concentration is independently associated with AAA diameter at time of elective EVAR. These data suggest that physician decision-making for EVAR is impacted by market competition.

Health care costs of endovascular compared with open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year health care costs between endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). METHODS: Population-based administrative health databases were used to capture TAAA repairs performed in Ontario, Canada, between January 2006 and February 2017. All health care costs incurred by the Ministry of Health from a single-payer universal health care system were included. Costs of the aortic endografts and ancillary devices for the index procedure were estimated as C$44,000 per endovascular case vs C$1000 for open cases, based on previous reports. Costs (2017 Canadian dollars) were calculated in phases (1, 1-3, 3-6, and 6-12 months from surgery) with censoring for death. For each phase, propensity score matching of endovascular and open cases based on preoperative patient and hospital characteristics was used. The association between preoperative characteristics (including repair approach) and the first month postprocedure cost was characterized through multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall 664 TAAA repairs were identified (open, n = 361 [54.5%] and endovascular, n = 303 [45.6%]). At 1 month, the median cost was higher for endovascular TAAA repair in the prematching cohort (C$64,892 vs C$36,647; P < .01). Similarly, in 241 well-balanced endovascular/open patient pairs after propensity score matching, the median health care costs were higher in endovascular TAAA cases during the first month (C$62,802 vs C$33,605; P < .01). The 1- to 3-month median cost was not statistically different between endovascular and open TAAA cases either before matching (C$2781 vs C$2618; P = .71) or after matching (C$2762 vs C$2092; P = .58). Likewise, in the 3- to 6-month and 6- to 12-month postprocedure intervals, there were no significant differences in the median health care costs between groups. On multivariable analysis, older age (5-year increments) (relative change [RC] in mean cost, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.06; P = .01), urgent procedures (RC, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.52; P < .01), and history of stroke (RC, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.00-1.78; P = .05) were associated with higher costs in the first postoperative month, whereas open relative to endovascular TAAA repair was associated with a decreased 1-month cost (RC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: TAAA repair is expensive regardless of technique. Compared with open TAAA repair, endovascular repair was associated with a higher early cost, owing to the upfront cost of the endograft and aortic ancillary devices. There was no difference in cost from 1 to 12 months after repair. A decrease in the cost of endovascular devices might allow equivalent costs between endovascular and open TAAA repair.

Endovascular versus surgical creation of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to perform cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses comparing endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation to surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in hemodialysis patients from the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy. METHODS: A systematic literature review has been conducted to retrieve complications' rates after arteriovenous fistula creation procedures. One study comparing endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, performed with WavelinQ device, to the surgical approach through propensity score matching was preferred to single-arm investigations to execute the economic evaluations. This study was chosen to populate a Markov model to project, on a time horizon of 1 year, quality adjusted life years and costs associated with endovascular arteriovenous fistula (WavelinQ) and surgical arteriovenous fistula options for both cohorts of incident and prevalent hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: For both incident and prevalent hemodialysis patients, endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, performed with WavelinQ, was the dominant strategy over surgical arteriovenous fistula approach, showing less cost and better patients' quality of life. Compared to the current scenario, progressively increasing utilization rates of WavelinQ over surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the next 5 years in incident hemodialysis patients are expected to save globally 30-36 million euros to the NHS. CONCLUSION: Endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation performed with WavelinQ could be a cost-saving strategy in comparison with the surgical approach for patients in hemodialysis. Future studies comparing different devices for endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation versus the surgical option would be needed to confirm or reject the validity of this preliminary evaluation. In the meantime, decision-makers can use these results to take decisions on the diffusion of endovascular procedures in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus standard grafts for hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate-access arteriovenous grafts (IAAVGs), or early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (AVGs), are more expensive than standard grafts (sAVGs) but can be used immediately after placement, reducing the need for a tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC). We hypothesized that a decrease in TDC-related complications would make IAAVGs a cost-effective alternative to sAVGs. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state-transition model in which patients initially received either an IAAVG or an sAVG and a TDC until graft usability; patients were followed through multiple subsequent access procedures for a 60-month time horizon. The model simulated mortality and typical graft- and TDC-related complications, with parameter estimates including probabilities, costs, and utilities derived from previous literature. A key parameter was median time to TDC removal after graft placement, which was studied under both real-world (7 days for IAAVG and 70 days for sAVG) and ideal (no TDC placed with IAAVG and 1 month for sAVG) conditions. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement rates and reflect a payer perspective. Both microsimulation (10,000 trials) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 samples) were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: IAAVG placement is a dominant strategy under both real-world ($1201.16 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) and ideal ($1457.97 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) conditions. Under real-world parameters, the result was most sensitive to the time to TDC removal; IAAVGs are cost-effective if a TDC is maintained for ≥23 days after sAVG placement. The mean catheter time was lower with IAAVG (3.9 vs 8.7 months; P < .0001), as was the mean number of access-related infections (0.55 vs 0.74; P < .0001). Median survival in the model was 29 months. Overall mortality was similar between groups (76.3% vs 76.7% at 5 years; P = .33), but access-related mortality trended toward improvement with IAAVG (6.1% vs 6.8% at 5 years; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: The Markov decision analysis model supported our hypothesis that IAAVGs come with added initial cost but are ultimately cost-saving and more effective. This apparent benefit is due to our prediction that a decreased number of catheter days per patient would lead to a decreased number of access-related infections.

Financial viability of endovascular aortic repair in the modern era.

BACKGROUND: In the current era of cost containment, the financial impact of high-cost procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains an area of intensive interest. Previous reports suggested slim to negative operating margins with EVAR, prompting widespread initiatives to reduce cost and to improve reimbursement. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the reclassification of EVAR to more specific diagnosis-related group (DRG) coding and predicted an overall increase in hospital reimbursement. The potential impact of this change has not been described. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective EVAR at a single institution between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified retrospectively, then stratified by date. Group 1 patients underwent EVAR before DRG change in 2015 and were classified with DRG 237/238, major cardiovascular procedure. Group 2 patients underwent EVAR after the change and were classified as DRG 268/269, aortic/heart assist procedures. The total direct cost included implant cost, operating room (OR) labor, room and board, and other supply costs. Net revenue reflected real payer mix values without extrapolation based on standard Medicare rates. Hospital profit was defined as the contribution to indirect (CTI), subtracting total direct cost from net revenue. RESULTS: A total of 188 encounters were included, 67 (36%) in group 1 and 121 (64%) in group 2. Medicare patients composed 84% of group 1 and 81% of group 2. CTI (profit) increased by $4447 (+123%) from $3615 in group 1 to $8062 in group 2. Net revenue per encounter increased by $2054 (+7.1%). In group 1, the higher reimbursement DRG code 237 was applied in 5 of 67 (7.5%) patients, whereas DRG code 268 was assigned in 19 of 121 (15.1%) patients in group 2. Total direct cost per encounter decreased by $2012 (-7.9%). This decrease in cost was driven by a reduction in implant cost, from a mean $16,914 per encounter in group 1 to a mean $15,655 in group 2 (-$1259 or -7.4% per encounter) and by a decrease in OR labor cost, $2838 in group 1 to $2361 in group 2 (-$477 or -17.0% per encounter). CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in hospital CTI was observed for elective EVAR during the course of the study. The increased DRG reimbursement after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coding changes in 2015 was a major driver of this salutary change. Notably, efforts to reduce implant and OR cost as well as to improve coding and documentation accuracy over time had an equally important impact on financial return.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change. METHODS: All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18). CONCLUSIONS: Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

Ten-Year Clinical Characteristics and Early Outcomes of Type B Aortic Dissection Patients With Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: This study examined the 10-year hospitalization characteristics, economic patterns and early clinical outcomes of type B aortic dissection (TBAD) patients that underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in one high-volume hospital in China. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective analysis based on electronic medical record system data provided by Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University from 2009 to 2018. RESULTS: We identified 1,367 cases of TBAD patients with TEVAR over the past decade. The total incidence of in-hospital complications was 7.6% (104 of 1,367), among which acute kidney injury (AKI) had the highest incidence (3.1%, 42 of 1,367). Aortic-related reintervention was performed in 7 patients (0.5%). The overall aortic-related in-hospital mortality rate was 2.7% (37 of 1,367) and had no significant time-varying trend (P = 0.2). Among these, 27% of in-hospital deaths were caused by retrograde type A dissection (RTAD). Chronic TBAD had a higher risk of in-hospital death versus acute TBAD, with a risk ratio of 2.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-6.09). Patients with hypertension (risk ratio 4.63, 95% CI: 1.38, 15.54) also had a higher in-hospital death risk. These 2 factors were also the predictive factors for the composite endpoint of in-hospital adverse events (risk ratio 2.17, 95% CI: 1.43, 3.29 and risk ratio 4.83, 95% CI: 1.90, 12.28, respectively), in addition to Marfan syndrome (risk ratio 4.05, 95% CI: 1.61, 10.19). The average length of hospitalization significantly declined during the past decade (annual percentage change -6.3%, 95% CI -8.2 to -4.3), and the stent-grafts (SGs) cost was the main expenditure of the total hospitalization costs. CONCLUSION: Our study showed a favorable early outcome of TEVAR over the past decade. Greater attention should be paid to certain risk factors in order to reduce the in-hospital adverse events. SG expenditure is still the primary economic burden on Chinese TBAD patients.

Editor's Choice - A Systemic Evaluation of the Costs of Elective EVAR and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Implies Cost Equivalence.

OBJECTIVE: The suggested high costs of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) hamper the choice of insurance companies and financial regulators for EVAR as the primary option for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, arguments used in this debate are impeded by time related aspects such as effect modification and the introduction of confounding by indication, and by asymmetric evaluation of outcomes. Therefore, a re-evaluation minimising the impact of these interferences was considered. METHODS: A comparative analysis was performed evaluating a period of exclusive open repair (OR; 1998-2000) and a period of established EVAR (2010-2012). Data from four hospitals in The Netherlands were collected to estimate resource use. Actual costs were estimated by benchmark cost prices and a literature review. Costs are reported at 2019 prices. A break even approach, defining the costs for an endovascular device at which cost equivalence for EVAR and OR is achieved, was applied to cope with the large variation in endovascular device costs. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six patients who underwent elective AAA repair between 1998 and 2000 (OR period) and 195 patients between 2010 and 2012 (EVAR period) were compared. Cost equivalence for OR and EVAR was reached at a break even price for an endovascular device of €13 190. The main cost difference reflected the longer duration of hospital stay (ward and Intensive Care Unit) of OR (€11 644). Re-intervention rates were similar for OR (24.2%) and EVAR (24.6%) (p = .92). CONCLUSION: Cost equivalence for EVAR and OR occurs at a device cost of €13 000 for EVAR. Hence, for most routine repairs, EVAR is not costlier than OR until at least the five year follow up.

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.

A scoping review of the rationale and evidence for cost-effectiveness analysis of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for intact complex aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis of new interventions is increasingly required by policymakers. For intact complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs), fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative option for patients who are physically ineligible for open surgical repair (OSR). Thus, F/B-EVAR is increasingly used, but whether it represents a cost-effective treatment option remains unknown. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was conducted from the PubMed, Ovid Embase, and Scopus databases. They were searched to identify relevant English-language articles published from inception to December 31, 2019. All costs in the identified literature were transformed to U.S. dollar values by the following exchange rate: 1 GBP = 1.3 USD; 1 EUR = 1.1 USD. RESULTS: At this literature search, no randomized clinical trials assessing cost-effectiveness of F/B-EVAR vs OSR for intact CAAs were found. Also, no health economic evaluation studies were found regarding use of F/B-EVAR in patients unfit for OSR. A Markov model analysis based on seven observational center- or registry-based studies published from 2006 to 2014 found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for F/B-EVAR vs OSR was $96,954/quality-adjusted life-year. In the multicenter French Medical and Economical Evaluation of Fenestrated and Branched Stent-grafts to Treat Complex Aortic Aneurysms (WINDOW) registry (2010-2012), F/B-EVAR had a higher cost than OSR for a similar clinical outcome and was therefore economically dominated. At 2 years, costs were higher with F/B-EVAR for juxtarenal/pararenal aneurysms and infradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms but similar for supradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms. The higher costs were related to a $24,278 cost difference of the initial admission (95% of the difference at 2 years) due to stent graft costs. Both these studies, however, included a highly varying center experience with complex endovascular aortic repair, and their retrospective design is subject to selection bias for chosen treatment, which could affect the studied outcome. In contrast, in a more recent U.S. database analysis (879 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, 45% OSRs), the unadjusted total hospitalization cost of OSR was significantly higher compared with F/B-EVAR (median, $44,355 vs $36,612; P = .004). In-hospital mortality as well as major complications were two to three times higher after OSR, indicating that endovascular repair might be the economically dominant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The literature regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of F/B-EVAR for intact CAAs is scarce and ambiguous. Based on the limited nonrandomized available evidence, stent grafts are the main driver for F/B-EVAR expenses, whereas cost-effectiveness in relation to OSR may vary by health care setting and selection of patients.

Longitudinal Spending on Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients requiring elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Long-term outcomes of the 2 approaches are similar, making the relative cost of caring for these patients over time an important consideration. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked Medicare claims to Vascular Quality Initiative registry data for patients undergoing elective EVR or open AAA repair from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was Medicare's cumulative disease-related spending, adjusted to 2015 dollars. Disease-related spending included the index operation and associated hospitalization, surveillance imaging, reinterventions (AAA-related and abdominal wall procedures), and all-cause admissions within 90 days. We compared the incidence of disease-related events and cumulative spending at 90 days and annually through 7 years of follow-up. The analytic cohort comprised 6804 EVR patients (median follow-up: 1.85 years; interquartile range: 0.82-3.22 years) and 1889 open repair patients (median follow-up: 2.62 years; interquartile range: 1.13-4.80 years). Spending on index surgery was significantly lower for EVR (median [interquartile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001). EVR patients underwent more surveillance imaging (1.8 studies per person-year EVR versus 0.7 studies per person-year open; P<0.001) and AAA-related reinterventions (4.0 per 100 person-years EVR versus 2.1 per 100 person-years open; P=0.041). Open repair patients had higher rates of 90-day readmission (12.9% EVR versus 17.8% open; P<0.001) and abdominal wall procedures (0.6 per 100 person-years EVR versus 1.5 per 100 person-years open; P<0.001). Overall, EVR patients incurred more disease-related spending in follow-up ($7355 EVR versus $2706 open through 5 years). There was no cumulative difference in disease-related spending between surgical groups by 5 years of follow-up (-$33 EVR [95% CI: -$1543 to $1476]). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no cumulative difference in disease-related spending on EVR and open repair patients 5 years after surgery. Generalized recommendations about which approach to offer elective AAA patients should not be based on relative cost.

Association of Operative Repair Type and Trauma Center Designation With Outcomes in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has shown improved outcomes at trauma centers. Whether the benefit of trauma center designation extends to endovascular repair of rAAA is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2007 to 2014 discharge database to identify patients with rAAA. Data included demographic and admission factors, discharge disposition, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes, and hospital characteristics. Hospitals were categorized by trauma center designation and teaching hospital status. The effect of repair type and trauma center designation (level I, level II, or other-other trauma centers and nondesignated hospitals) was evaluated to determine rates and risks of 9 postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day postdischarge mortality. RESULTS: Of 1941 rAAA repair patients, 61.2% had open and 37.8% had endovascular; 1.0% had both. Endovascular repair increased over the study interval. Hospitals were 12.0% level I, 25.0% level II, and 63.0% other. A total of 48.7% of hospitals were teaching hospitals (level I, 100%; level II, 42.2%; and other, 41.8%). Endovascular repair was significantly more common at teaching hospitals (41.5% vs 34.3%, P < .001) and was the primary repair method at level I trauma centers (P < .001). Compared with open repair, endovascular repair was protective for most complications and in-hospital mortality. The risk for in-hospital mortality was highest among endovascular patients at level II trauma centers (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-2.92) and other hospitals (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% CI: 1.01-2.72). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair overall was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes. Endovascular repair at level I trauma centers had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality which may be a result of their teaching hospital status, organizational structure, and other factors. The weight of the contributions of such factors warrants further study.

Leveraging vascular quality initiative data to improve hospital length of stay for patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair

Background: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS-SVQI) is a database that provides insight into standards of care and highlights opportunities for quality improvement by benchmarking institutional data against local, regional and national trends. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a frequently performed vascular operation. Postoperative length of stay in hospital (LOS) varies among institutions. We reviewed the morbidity and mortality of patients who underwent EVAR at our institution and the financial impact of increased LOS for these patients. In addition, we sought to identify modifiable factors associated with prolonged LOS. Methods: We identified all patients who underwent elective EVAR between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2014. Preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative details, postoperative factors, long-term (1 yr) outcomes and cost data were reviewed. Univariate analysis was used to determine statistical differences between patients with LOS less than or equal to 2 days and greater than 2 days. Interventions were implemented to modify factors identified as having a negative impact on EVAR LOS. Results: Identified factors that negatively affected EVAR LOS included social, neurologic, cardiovascular, urologic and renal issues. Following targeted interventions, LOS after EVAR decreased from an average of 3.8 to 3.0 days (p < 0.05). Logistic regression (n = 124) identified cardiovascular issues as the most significant predictor of LOS greater than 2 days (p = 0.001, odds ratio 14.24, 95% confidence interval 2.8­71.4). Reduction in LOS was associated with the additional benefit of 6.6% adjusted cost savings. Conclusion: By leveraging SVS-VQI data, we were able to reduce EVAR LOS by identifying modifiable factors and instituting focused interventions. The reduction in LOS was associated with cost savings to the hospital.

Contexte: L'Initiative pour la qualité de la chirurgie vasculaire de la Société canadienne de chirurgie vasculaire (IQCV-SCCV) est une base de données qui donne un aperçu des normes thérapeutiques et souligne les possibilités d'améliorations de la qualité en faisant la comparaison entre les tendances institutionnelles et les tendances locales, régionales et nationales. La réparation endovasculaire d'anévrisme (REVA) est une intervention fréquente. La durée du séjour hospitalier postopératoire varie d'un établissement à l'autre. Nous avons examiné la morbidité et la mortalité chez les patients ayant subi une REVA dans notre établissement et mesuré l'impact économique d'un séjour hospitalier prolongé chez ces patients. De plus, nous avons tenté de dégager les facteurs modifiables associés à un séjour prolongé. Méthodes: Nous avons recensé tous les patients ayant subi une REVA entre le 1er janvier 2011 et le 31 décembre 2014. Nous avons pris en compte les caractéristiques préopératoires des patients, les détails peropératoires, les facteurs postopératoires, les résultats à long terme (1 an) et les coûts. Une analyse univariée a servi à déterminer les différences statistiques entre les patients ayant séjourné à l'hôpital 2 jours ou moins et plus de 2 jours. Des interventions ont été appliquées pour modifier les facteurs reconnus pour leur impact négatif sur le séjour hospitalier après une REVA. Résultats: Les facteurs identifiés pour leur effet négatif sur le séjour hospitalier après une REVA étaient entre autres problèmes sociaux, neurologiques, cardiovasculaires, urologiques et rénaux. Après l'application d'interventions ciblées, la durée du séjour hospitalier post-REVA a diminué d'une moyenne de 3,8 à 3,0 jours (p < 0,05). La régression logistique (n = 124) a permis d'identifier les problèmes cardiovasculaires comme principaux prédicteurs d'un séjour hospitalier de plus de 2 jours (p = 0,001, rapport des cotes 14,24, intervalle de confiance de 95 % 2,8­71,4). L'abrègement du séjour hospitalier a été associé à un avantage additionnel de 6,6 % en économies de coûts ajustées. Conclusion: Après analyse des données de l'IQCV-SCCV, nous avons réussi à abréger la durée des séjours hospitaliers pour REVA en identifiant les facteurs modifiables et en appliquant des interventions ciblées. L'abrègement des séjours hospitaliers a été associé à des économies pour l'hôpital.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is financially viable at a high-volume medical center with positive hospital contribution margins and physician payment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine hospital finances and physician payment associated with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) for complex aortic disease at a high-volume center and to compare the costs and reimbursements for FEVAR with open repair, and their trends over time. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical and administrative records. Data for each patient included inpatient and outpatient encounters 3 months before and 12 months after the primary aneurysm operation. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, 157 and 71 patients were treated with physician-modified endograft (PMEG) and Cook Zenith Fenestrated (ZFEN) repair, respectively. Twenty-one patients who were evaluated for FEVAR underwent open repair instead. The 228 FEVAR patients provided a total positive contribution margin (reimbursements minus direct costs) of $2.65 million. The index encounter (the primary aneurysm operation and hospitalization) accounted for the majority (90.6%) of the total contribution margin. The largest component (50.3%) of direct cost for FEVAR from the index encounter was implant/graft expenses. The average direct costs for FEVAR and for open repair from the index encounter were $34,688 and $35,020, respectively. The average contribution margins for FEVAR and for open repair were approximately $10,548 and $21,349, respectively, attributable to differences in reimbursement. The average direct cost for FEVAR trended down over time as cumulative experience increased. Average reimbursement for FEVAR increased after Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved payments with the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial for PMEG in 2011, and a new technology add-on payment for ZFEN in 2012. These factors transitioned the average contribution margin from negative to positive in 2012. The average physician payments for PMEG increased from $128 to $5848 after the start of the IDE trial. The average physician payments for ZFEN and for open repair between 2011 and 2017 were $7597 and $7781, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR can be performed at a high-volume medical center with positive contribution margins and with comparable physician payments to open repair. At this institution, hospital reimbursement and physician payments improved for PMEG with participation in an IDE trial, while hospital direct costs decreased for both PMEG and ZFEN with accumulated experience.