Long-term Results of Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection by Closure of the Primary Tear.

BACKGROUND: The role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection is controversial. Some advocate open surgery, based on the premise that all tears must be treated, and others prefer branched endografts with the same premise. However, TEVAR, with closure of the primary tear in the thorax, has shown good results in some centers. This single-center cohort study was designed to contribute to the knowledge of the long-term evolution (mean, 4.8 years) of the patients submitted to endovascular closure of the proximal intimal tear. METHODS: A total of 36 patients with asymptomatic chronic aortic dissection had a successful closure of the primary tear by TEVAR and were followed up for a median time of 57.2 months. RESULTS: In 75% of the cases, there was stabilization or decrease in the maximum diameter. Twenty-five percent had diameter increase in the thoracic or abdominal aorta and indication for one or more additional procedures. One patient refused a second procedure and died from rupture one month after the last evaluation; this was the only case of rupture in the series. One patient died of unrelated cause before having been submitted to a second procedure. Thirty-four patients survived without diameter increase in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic type B aortic dissections can be successfully treated by the coverage of the proximal tear with an endograft. Patients shall be followed carefully, and 25% of them will require one or more additional procedures to achieve a good result.

Performance of current claims-based approaches to identify aortic dissection hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe index visits for acute aortic dissection (AD) to an academic center and validate the prevailing claims-based methodology to identify and stratify them. METHODS: Inpatient hospitalizations at a single center assigned an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code for AD from January 2005 to September 2015 were identified. Diagnoses were verified by review of medical records and imaging studies. All visits were secondarily stratified with the algorithm based on ICD-9 codes. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted to evaluate the ability of the algorithm to correctly identify acute AD by Stanford class and treatment modality (type A open repair [TAOR], type B open repair [TBOR], thoracic endovascular repair [TEVAR], medical management [MM]). RESULTS: In the study interval, there were 1245 visits coded for AD attributed to 968 unique patients. Chart review verification demonstrated that the majority of visits were for AD (79%; n = 981), of which 32% (n = 310) were for an index acute AD event. The true distribution of acute AD visit classifications was TAOR (46.1%; n = 143), TBOR (5.2%; n = 16), TEVAR (7.7%; n = 24), and MM (39.4%; n = 122). The algorithm, which used ICD-9 codes, identified 631 acute visits and stratified them as TAOR (27.1%; n = 171), TBOR (4.1%; n = 26), TEVAR (4.9%; n = 31), and MM (63.9%; n = 403). Analyses demonstrated high specificities, but generally low sensitivities of the algorithm (TAOR: sensitivity, 58%, specificity, 92%; TBOR: sensitivity, 13%, specificity, 98%; TEVAR: sensitivity, 17%, specificity, 98%; MM: sensitivity, 73%, specificity, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent claims-based strategy to identify hospitalizations with acute AD is specific, but lacks sensitivity. Caution should be exercised when studying AD with ICD-9 codes and improvements to existing claims-based methodologies are necessary to support future study of acute AD.

Financial implications of coding inaccuracies in patients undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective, single university hospital review of all elective, infrarenal EVARs performed from 2010 to 2015 was completed. Index procedure hospitalizations were reviewed for MS-DRG classification, comorbidities, complications, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Patients' comorbidities and postoperative complications were tabulated to verify accuracy of MS-DRG classification. Misclassified patients were audited and reclassified as "standard" or "complex" on the basis of a corrected MS-DRG: standard for 238 (major cardiovascular procedure without MCC) and complex for 237 (major cardiovascular procedure with MCC). RESULTS: There were 104 EVARs identified, including 91 standard (original MS-DRG 238, n = 85; MS-DRG 254, n = 6) and 13 complex hospitalizations (original MS-DRG 237, n = 9; MS-DRG 238, n = 3; MS-DRG 253, n = 1). On review, 3% (n = 3) of the originally assigned MS-DRG 238 patients were undercoded while actually meeting MCC criteria for a 237 designation. Hospitalizations coded with MS-DRG 253 and 254 were considered billing errors because MS-DRG 237 and 238 are more appropriate and specific classifications as major cardiovascular procedures. Overall, there was a 9.6% miscoding rate (n = 10), representing a total lost billing opportunity of $587,799. Mean LOS for standard and complex hospitalizations was 3.0 ± 1.5 days vs 7.8 ± 6.0 days (P < .001), with respective intensive care unit LOS of 0.4 ± 0.7 day vs 2.6 ± 3.1 days (P < .001). Postoperative complications occurred in 23% of patients; however, not all met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria as MCC. Miscoded complexity was found to be due to postoperative events in all patients rather than to missed comorbidities. Mean hospitalization cost for standard and complex patients was $28,833 ± $5597 vs $41,543 ± $12,943 (P < .001). Based on institutional reimbursement data, this translates to a mean loss of $5407 per correctly coded patient. Miscoded patients represent an additional overall reimbursement loss of $140,102. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a large lost billing opportunity with miscoding of elective EVARs from 2010 to 2015, with errors in categorization of the procedure as well as miscoding of complexity. The revenue impact is potentially significant in this population, and additional reviews of coding practices should be considered.

Surgeon leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair increases medical center contribution margin and physician reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) allows endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aneurysms previously outside the indications of use for standard devices. However, because of considerable device costs and increased procedure time, FEVAR is thought to result in financial losses for medical centers and physicians. We hypothesized that surgeon leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for FEVAR procedures will increase medical center contribution margin (CM) and physician reimbursement. METHODS: At the UMass Memorial Center for Complex Aortic Disease, a vascular surgeon with experience in medical finances is supported to manage the billing and coding of FEVAR procedures for medical center and physician reimbursement. A comprehensive financial analysis was performed for all FEVAR procedures (2011-2015), independent of insurance status, patient presentation, or type of device used. Medical center CM (actual reimbursement minus direct costs) was determined for each index FEVAR procedure and for all related subsequent procedures, inpatient or outpatient, 3 months before and 1 year subsequent to the index FEVAR procedure. Medical center CM for outpatient clinic visits, radiology examinations, vascular laboratory studies, and cardiology and pulmonary evaluations related to FEVAR were also determined. Surgeon reimbursement for index FEVAR procedure, related adjunct procedures, and assistant surgeon reimbursement were also calculated. All financial analyses were performed and adjudicated by the UMass Department of Finance. RESULTS: The index hospitalization for 63 FEVAR procedures incurred $2,776,726 of direct costs and generated $3,027,887 in reimbursement, resulting in a positive CM of $251,160. Subsequent related hospital procedures (n = 26) generated a CM of $144,473. Outpatient clinic visits, radiologic examinations, and vascular laboratory studies generated an additional CM of $96,888. Direct cost analysis revealed that grafts accounted for the largest proportion of costs (55%), followed by supplies (12%), bed (12%), and operating room (10%). Total medical center CM for all FEVAR services was $492,521. Average surgeon reimbursements per FEVAR from 2011 to 2015 increased from $1601 to $2480 while the surgeon payment denial rate declined from 50% to 0%. Surgeon-led negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during 2015 resulted in a 27% increase in physician reimbursement for the remainder of 2015 ($2480 vs $3068/case) and a 91% increase in reimbursement from 2011 ($1601 vs $3068). Assistant surgeon reimbursement also increased ($266 vs $764). Concomitant FEVAR-related procedures generated an additional $27,347 in surgeon reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Physician leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for FEVAR results in a positive medical center CM and increased physician reimbursement.

Healing of intracranial aneurysms with bioactive coils.

Inadequate healing is an important mechanism for aneurysm development and recanalization after embolization. Matrix coils have been shown by experimental studies to enhance vascular repair and fibrosis, thus reducing the risk of recanalization. The clinical application of Matrix coils represents the transition from pure mechanical occlusion to adjunct biologic healing of aneurysms. Our preliminary clinical experience reveals evidence of a healing response in aneurysms treated with Matrix coils. This technology can be further improved through the incorporation of new knowledge on the molecular pathogenesis of aneurysms and the cellular and molecular mechanisms of healing.

Fenestrated and branched endovascular techniques for thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair.

Since 1991, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been established as an alternative for open surgical repair of aortic aneurysms. One of the main limitations for EVAR is the need for a sufficient sealing zone below or above vital aortic side branches. Recently, efforts have been made to overcome these limitations by incorporating fenestrations or branches in customized stent-grafts. This paper reviews the technical and clinical possibilities, as well as the results with fenestrated and branched stent-grafts. All these techniques can be classified into 6 groups, including abdominal fenestrated, abdominal branched, thoraco-abdominal fenestrated, thoraco-abdominal branched, thoracic fenestrated, and thoracic branched stent-grafting. The only well-elaborated technique at this moment is abdominal fenestrated stent-grafting. Currently, branched stent-grafting must be regarded as experimental, but advancements are taking place rapidly. It is anticipated that wider adoption will take place in the near future. New developments include the further use of reinforced fenestrations, indwelling catheters and flexor sheaths, as well as the use of new type branches.

Staged repair of extensive aortic aneurysms: long-term experience with the elephant trunk technique.

OBJECTIVE: This paper reports our experience of a large series of elephant trunk patients accumulated over 12 years. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Extensive aneurysms of the ascending/arch and descending thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta are significant surgical problems that have potential for great morbidity. We adopted a staged approach known as the elephant trunk procedure in 1991, and we have used it with some modifications since that time. METHODS: Between February 1991 and December 2003, we performed 1660 operations for ascending/arch or descending thoracic/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Of these, 321 operations were performed in 218 patients for extensive aneurysms with the elephant trunk technique. We performed 218 ascending/arch repairs and 103 descending thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic replacements. RESULTS: In 218 ascending/arch repairs, strokes occurred in 3 of 218 (2.7%) patients, with 1 of 187 (0.5%) in the retrograde cerebral perfusion group and 2 of 31 (6.5%) in the no-retrograde cerebral perfusion group (odds ratio 0.08, P < 0.009). Thirty-day mortality for this group was 19 of 218 (8.7%). Among 199 recovering patients after stage 1 repair, 4 of 199 (2%) died during the 30-day to 6-week interval between stages. After stage 2 repair, 0 of 103 patients experienced immediate neurologic deficit, and 10 of 103 (9.7%) died within 30 days of surgery. Actuarial survival after completed stage 2 was 71% at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Despite extreme underlying disease, long-term survival is excellent in patients with extensive aneurysms when both stages of repair are completed. To prevent rupture, the second stage should be completed as soon as the patient's condition permits, preferably within 6 weeks.