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

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs.

METHODS

We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs.

RESULTS

We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Cost of Follow Up After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients With an Initial Post-Operative Computed Tomography Angiogram Without Abnormalities

OBJECTIVE

The Observing a Decade of Yearly Standardised Surveillance in EVAR patients with Ultrasound or CT Scan (ODYSSEUS) study was conducted to assess differences in outcomes of patients with continued or discontinued yearly follow up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Earlier results of this study showed that discontinued follow up was not associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, an incremental cost analysis and budget impact analysis of de-implementation of yearly imaging following EVAR was performed.

METHODS

In total, 1 596 patients from the ODYSSEUS study were included. The expected cost savings were assessed if yearly imaging was reduced in patients with a post-operative computed tomography angiogram without abnormalities made around 30 days after EVAR. Costs were derived from the Dutch costs manual, benchmark cost prices, and literature review. Costs were expressed in euros (€) and displayed at 2019 prices. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying costs.

RESULTS

A difference of 24% in cost was found between patients with continued and discontinued imaging follow up. The cost per patient was €1 935 in the continued group vs. €1 603 per patient in the discontinued group at five years post-EVAR, with a mean difference of €332 (95% bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence interval -741 to 114). De-implementation of yearly imaging would result in an annual nationwide cost saving of €678 471. Sensitivity analysis with variation in adherence rates, imaging, or secondary intervention costs resulted in a saving of at least €271 388 per year.

CONCLUSION

This study provided an in depth analysis of hospital costs for post-EVAR patients in the Netherlands with a modest impact on the Dutch healthcare budget.

Administrative healthcare data as an addition to the Dutch surgaical aneurysm audit to evaluate mid-term reinterventions following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) is a nationwide mandatory quality registry that evaluates the perioperative outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The DSAA includes perioperative outcomes that occur up to 30 days, but various complications following AAA repair occur after this period. Administrative healthcare data yield the possibility to evaluate later occuring outcomes such as reinterventions, without increasing the registration burden. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and the potential benefit of administrative healthcare data to evaluate mid-term reinterventions following intact AAA repair.

METHOD

All patients that underwent primary endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) for an intact infrarenal AAA between January 2017 and December 2018 were selected from the DSAA. Subsequently, these patients were identified in a database containing reimbursement data. Healthcare activity codes that refer to reinterventions following AAA repair were examined to assess reinterventions within 12 and 15 months following EVAR and OSR.

RESULTS

We selected 4043 patients from the DSAA, and 2059 (51%) patients could be identified in the administrative healthcare database. Reintervention rates of 10.4% following EVAR and 9.5% following OSR within 12 months (p = 0.719), and 11.5% following EVAR and 10.8% following OSR within 15 months (p = 0.785) were reported.

CONCLUSION

Administrative healthcare data as an addition to the DSAA is potentially beneficial to evaluate mid-term reinterventions following intact AAA repair without increasing the registration burden for clinicians. Further validation is necessary before reliable implementation of this tool is warranted.

Has EVAR changed the outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms? A decades worth of experience in an Australian Teaching Hospital

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) are associated with significant mortality, and equipoise remains as to whether patients managed with endovascular stent grafts (rEVAR) demonstrate better outcomes when compared to traditional open repair (OR). This study sought to examine the outcomes of patients presenting with rAAA to our institution and assess the perioperative outcomes and outpatient mortality of patients over the past decade.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted. Patients treated for rAAA between 2010 and 2019 were identified from a search of the hospital database for ACHI and ICD-10 codes for repair of AAA. Demographic, operative and post-operative variables were collected from electronic medical records of identified patients.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were identified, 51 of whom presented with a rAAA. The majority of repairs were rEVARs (59%). Median age was 76 years. Median length of admission to ICU was 3 days, and median length of hospital admission was 10 days. Overall in-patient mortality was 26%, with rates of 39% at 3 years and 47% at 5 years. No significant difference in outpatient mortality was found in patients undergoing rEVAR compared to OR, with rates of 61% at 5 years compared to 65% at 5 years, respectively (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes of our cohort of patients undergoing endovascular repair compared to open repair for ruptured and symptomatic AAAs are comparable over the past decade. Given equipoise remains between repair methods, further observational studies are required to quantify benefits of OR and endovascular repairs for ruptured and symptomatic AAAs.