Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Real-world comparative claims analysis of a novel single-branched aortic stent graft device versus thoracic endograft placement with extra-anatomic debranching/revascularization in zone 2 aortic disease.
Ramakrishnan, Ganesh; Beliveau, Lauren; Shinn, Kathryn; Gable, Cara; Brinkman, William; Shutze, William; Gable, Dennis.
Affiliation
  • Ramakrishnan G; Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Beliveau L; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital - Plano, Plano, Texas.
  • Shinn K; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital - Plano, Plano, Texas.
  • Gable C; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
  • Brinkman W; Division of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital - Plano, Plano, Texas.
  • Shutze W; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital - Plano, Plano, Texas.
  • Gable D; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital - Plano, Plano, Texas.
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) ; 36(4): 422-426, 2023.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37334086
Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving landing zone 2 can require extra-anatomic debranching (SR-TEVAR) to ensure left subclavian artery perfusion, resulting in increased costs. A single-branch device (Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis [TBE], WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ) provides a total endovascular solution. Comparative cost analysis of patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR requiring left subclavian artery preservation with TBE versus SR-TEVAR is presented. Methods: A single-center retrospective cost analysis was performed for aortic diseases requiring a zone 2 landing zone (TBE vs. SR-TEVAR) from 2014 to 2019. Facility charges were collected from the universal billing form UB-04 (form CMS 1450). Results: Twenty-four patients were included in each arm. There were no significant differences in the overall mean procedural charges between the two groups: TBE, $209,736 ($57,761) vs. SR-TEVAR $209,025 ($93,943), P = 0.94. TBE resulted in reduced operating room charges ($36,849 [$8750] vs. $48,073 [$10,825], P = 0.02) and reduced intensive care unit and telemetry room charges, which did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.23 and 0.12, respectively). Device/implant charges were the primary cost driver in both groups. Charges associated with TBE were significantly higher: $105,525 ($36,137) vs. $51,605 ($31,326), P > 0.01. Conclusions: TBE had similar overall procedural charges despite higher device/implant-related expenses and reduced facility resource utilization (lower operating room, intensive care unit, telemetry, and pharmacy charges).
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Year: 2023 Document type: Article Country of publication: Estados Unidos

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Year: 2023 Document type: Article Country of publication: Estados Unidos