Variation in hospital costs and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair: A Vascular Quality Initiative pilot project

Appropriateness of Care Measures: A Novel Approach to Quality

The clinical judgment of a physician is one of the most important aspects of medical quality, yet it is rarely captured with quality measures in use today. We propose a novel approach using individualized physician benchmarking that measures the appropriateness of care that a physician delivers by looking at their practice pattern in a specific clinical situation. A prime application of our novel approach to appropriateness measures is the surgical management of peripheral artery disease and claudication. We discuss 4 potential consensus metrics for the treatment of claudication that explore appropriateness of care of claudication management and are meaningful, actionable, and quantifiable. Given the multitude of medical specialties involved in the care of patients with peripheral artery disease and the consequences of both preemptive and delayed care, it is in all of our interests to promote data transparency with confidential communications to outlier physicians while advocating for evidence-based management.

Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era.

METHODS

Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

Proposed public policies to improve outcomes in vascular surgery: an experts' forum

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of vascular surgeries and identify strategies to improve public vascular care.

METHODS

This was a descriptive, qualitative, and cross-sectional survey involving 30 specialists of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein via Zoom. The outcomes of vascular procedures performed in the Public Health System extracted through Big Data analysis were discussed, and 53 potential strategies to improve public vascular care to improve public vascular care.

RESULTS

There was a consensus on mandatory reporting of some key complications after complex arterial surgeries, such as stroke after carotid revascularization and amputations after lower limb revascularization. Participants agreed on the recommendation of screening for diabetic feet and infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The use of Telemedicine as a tool for patient follow-up, auditing of centers for major arterial surgeries, and the concentration of complex arterial surgeries in reference centers were also points of consensus, as well as the need to reduce the values of endovascular materials. Regarding venous surgery, it was suggested that there should be incentives for simultaneous treatment of both limbs in cases of varicose veins of the lower limbs, in addition to the promotion of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in the public system.

CONCLUSION

After discussing the data from the Brazilian Public System, proposals were defined for standardizing measures in population health care in the area of vascular surgery. Notification of complications of arterial surgeries is essential in identifying strategies to improve surgical outcomes. Screening of prevalent and/or morbid diseases allows early intervention and prevention of complications. Use of telemedicine in vascular follow-up allows optimizing the use of resources and reducing the burden on health services. Concentrating complex cases in reference hospitals leads to improved surgical outcomes.

Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Ambulatory Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

We sought to compare the costs of ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair (a-EVAR) and inpatient EVAR (i-EVAR) at up to 1-year of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing elective EVAR between April 2016 and December 2018 at two academic centers. Patients planned for a-EVAR were compared with i-EVAR. Costs at 30 days and 1 year were extracted. These included operating room (OR) use, bed occupancy, laboratory and imaging, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reinterventions. Baseline characteristics were compared. Multiple regression model was used to identify predictors of increased EVAR costs. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare cost differences at 30 days and 1 year via an intention-to-treat analysis. Bonferroni post hoc test compared between-group differences. A p value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy patients were included. Most underwent percutaneous EVAR (>94%) under spinal anesthesia (>84%). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair was successful in 84% (84/100). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair patients (76±8 years) were younger than i-EVAR (78±9 years). They also had a smaller mean aneurysm diameter (56±6 mm) compared with i-EVAR (59±6 mm). Emergency department visits, readmissions, and reinterventions were similar up to 1 year (all p=NS). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair costs showed a non-statistically significant reduction in total costs at 30 days and 1 year by 27% and 21%, respectively. Patients younger than 85 years and males had a 30-day cost reduction by 34% (p=0.027) and 33% (p=0.035), respectively with a-EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day discharge is feasible and successful in selected patients. Patients younger than 85 years and males have a short-term cost benefit with EVAR done in the ambulatory setting without increased complications or reinterventions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study shows the overall safety of ambulatory EVAR with proper patient selection. These patient had similar post-intervention complications to inpatients. Same day discharge also resulted in short-term reduction in costs in male patients and patients younger than 85 years.

Assessment of Determinants of Value in Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Over 150,000 carotid endarterectomies (CEA) are performed annually worldwide, accounting for $900 million in the US alone. How cost/spending and quality are related is not well understood but remains an essential component in maximizing value. We sought to identify determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CEA.

METHODS

Medicare and private-payer admissions for CEA from January 2^nd, 2014 to August 28^th, 2020 were linked to retrospective clinical registry data for hospitals in Michigan performing vascular surgery. Hospital-specific risk-adjusted 30-day composite complications (defined as reoperation, new neurologic deficit, myocardial infarction, additional procedure including CEA or carotid artery stenting, readmission, or mortality) and 30-day risk-adjusted, price standardized total episode payments were used to categorize hospitals into low or high value by defining the intersection between complications and spending.

RESULTS

A total of 6595 patients across 39 hospitals were identified across both datasets. Patients at low-value hospitals had a higher rate of 30-day composite complications (17.9% vs 10.1%, p<0.001) driven by a significantly higher rate of reoperation (3.0% vs 1.4%, p=0.016), readmission (10.7% vs 6.2%, p=0.012), new neurologic deficit (4.6% vs 2.3%, p=0.017), and mortality (1.6% vs 0.6%, p<0.049). Mean total episode payments were $19,635 at low-value hospitals compared to $15,709 at high-value hospitals driven by index hospitalization ($10,800 vs $9587, p= 0.002), professional ($3421 vs $2827, p < 0.001), readmission ($3011 vs $1826, p < 0.001) and post-acute care payments ($2335 vs $1486, p < 0.001). Findings were similar when only including patients who did not suffer a complication.

CONCLUSIONS

There is tremendous variation in both quality and payments across hospitals included for CEA. Importantly, costs were higher at low-value hospitals independent of post-operative complication. There appears to be little to no relationship between total episode spending and surgical quality, suggesting that improvements in value may be possible by decreasing total episode cost without affecting surgical outcomes.

Early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair from the "Italian North-easT RegIstry of surgical Conversion AfTer Evar" (INTRICATE)

OBJECTIVE

To report the early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) using data from a multicentric registry.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out on consecutive patients undergoing OSC after failed EVAR at eight tertiary vascular units from the same geographic area in the North-East of Italy, from April 2005 to November 2019. Study endpoints included early and follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

144 consecutive patients were included in the study. Endoleaks were the most common indication for OSC (50.7%), with endograft infection (24.6%) and occlusion (21.9%) being the second most prevalent causes. The overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 13.9% (n=20); 32 patients (22.2%) experienced at least one major complication. Mean length of stay (LoS) was 13 ± 12.7 days. On multivariate logistic regression, age (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1-19, p= .02), renal clamping time (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p= .01), and suprarenal/celiac clamping (OR 6.66, 95% CI 1.81-27.1, p= .005) were identified as independent predictors of peri-operative major complications. Age was the only factor associated with peri-operative mortality at 30 days. Renal clamping time > 25 minutes had sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 70% in predicting the occurring of major adverse events (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.82). At 5 years, estimated survival was significantly lower for patients treated due to aortic rupture/dissection (28%, 95% CI 13-61), compared to patients in whom the indication for treatment was endoleak (54%, 95% CI 40-73), infection (53%, 95% CI 30-94), or thrombosis (82%, 95% CI 62-100; p= .0019). 5-year survival rates were significantly lower in patients who received emergent treatment (28%, 95% CI 14-55) as compared with those who were treated in urgent (67%, 95% CI 48-93) or elective setting (57%, 95% CI 43-76; p= .00026). Subjects who received suprarenal/celiac (54%, 95% CI 36-82) or suprarenal (46%, 95% CI 34-62) aortic cross-clamping had lower survival rates at 5 years than those whose aortic-cross clamp site was infrarenal (76%, 95% CI 59-97; p= .041). Using multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard, older age and emergency setting were independently associate with higher risk for overall 5 years mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

OSC after failed EVAR was associated with relatively high rates of early morbidity and mortality, particularly for emergency setting surgery. Endoleaks with secondary sac expansion were the main indication for OSC and suprarenal aortic cross-clamping was frequently required. Endograft infection and emergent treatment remained associated with poorer short-term and long-term survival.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of posthospital syndrome on outcomes of elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Posthospital syndrome (PHS) is an acquired, transient period of health vulnerability after a hospital admission for acute illness. It is characterized by physiologic deconditioning secondary to stressors from disruption in circadian rhythm, depletion of nutritional and physiologic reserve as well as the pain and discomfort associated with hospitalization. PHS is reported as an independent risk factor for readmission and adverse postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether preoperative hospitalization affects outcomes of elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR).

METHODS

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database for California (2009-2011) were queried using International Classification of Disease Codes, Ninth Edition, codes of 441.4 (abdominal aneurysm without mention of rupture), 397.1 (EVAR with graft), and 397.8 (EVAR with branching or fenestrated graft). PHS exposure is defined as any inpatient admission 30 or fewer days before elective EVAR. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality and overall complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and hospital charge.

RESULTS

A total of 6155 patients were identified. of which 327 patients (5.6%) had more than one episode of hospital admission 30 days or less before elective EVAR. In-hospital mortality was comparable after PHS exposure (P = .09). However, PHS exposure was associated with increased 30-day readmission (9.5% vs 18.4%; P < .001), LOS (3.0 vs 4.5 days; P < .001), and overall complications (14.8% vs 24.5%; P < .001). Risk adjustment was made based on age, sex, race, baseline comorbidities, and reason for preoperative admission. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that PHS exposure was a predictor for longer LOS (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.2; P < .001), higher incidence of 30-day readmission (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; P < .001), and overall complications (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2; P < .001). Additional cost associated with increased 30-day readmission attributable to PHS exposure was estimated at $448,302 per 100 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PHS is an independent risk-adjusted predictor for increased LOS, 30-day readmission, and overall complications after elective EVAR. Recent hospital admission should be assessed carefully before elective EVAR. Medical optimization with an attempt to delay elective surgery by up to 30 days may help to improve surgical outcomes and decrease unnecessary health care expenditures.

Characterizing Reimbursements for Medicare Patients Receiving Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair at Vascular Quality Initiative Centers

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) has a major financial impact on health care systems. We characterized reimbursement for index EVR hospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries having surgery at Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) centers.

METHODS

We linked Medicare claims to VQI clinical registry data for patients undergoing EVR from 2003 to 2015. Analysis was limited to patients fully covered by fee-for-service Medicare parts A and B in the year of their operation and assigned a corresponding diagnosis-related group for EVR. The primary outcome was Medicare's reimbursement for inpatient hospital and professional services, adjusted to 2015 dollars. We performed descriptive analysis of reimbursement over time and univariate analysis to evaluate patient demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural variables, and postoperative events associated with reimbursement. This informed a multilevel regression model used to identify factors independently associated with EVR reimbursement and quantify VQI center-level variation in reimbursement.

RESULTS

We studied 9,403 Medicare patients who underwent EVR at VQI centers during the study period. Reimbursements declined from $37,450 ± $9,350 (mean ± standard deviation) in 2003 to $27,723 ± $10,613 in 2015 (test for trend, P < 0.001). For patients experiencing a complication (n = 773; 8.2%), mean reimbursement for EVR was $44,858 ± $23,825 versus $28,857 ± $9,258 for those without complications (P < 0.001). Intestinal ischemia, new dialysis requirement, and respiratory compromise each doubled Medicare's average reimbursement for EVR. After adjusting for diagnosis-related group, several patient-level factors were independently associated with higher Medicare reimbursement; these included ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (+$2,372), additional day in length of stay (+$1,275), and being unfit for open repair (+$501). Controlling for patient-level factors, 4-fold variation in average reimbursement was seen across VQI centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Reimbursement for EVR declined between 2003 and 2015. We identified preoperative clinical factors independently associated with reimbursement and quantified the impact of different postoperative complications on reimbursement. More work is needed to better understand the substantial variation observed in reimbursement at the center level.

Comparison of perioperative costs with fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair

Background

Perioperative health care utilization and costs in patients undergoing elective fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain unclear.

Methods

The fast-track EVAR group included patients treated with a 14 Fr stent graft, bilateral percutaneous access, no general anesthesia or intensive care monitoring, and next-day hospital discharge. The standard EVAR group was identified from Medicare administrative claims using a matching algorithm to adjust for imbalances in patient characteristics. Hospital outcomes included operating room time, intensive care monitoring, hospital stay, secondary interventions, and major adverse events (MAEs). Perioperative outcomes occurring from hospital discharge to 30 days postdischarge included MAE, secondary interventions, and unrelated readmissions.

Results

Among 1000 matched patients (250 fast-track; 750 standard), hospital outcomes favored the fast-track EVAR group, including shorter operating room time (2.30 vs 2.83 hrs, P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.16 vs 1.69 d, P<0.001), less need for intensive care monitoring (4.4% vs 48.0%, P<0.001), and lower secondary intervention rate (0% vs 2.4%, P=0.01). Postdischarge outcomes also favored fast-track EVAR with a lower rate of MAE (0% vs 7.2%, P<0.001) and all-cause readmission (1.6% vs 6.8%, P=0.001). The total cost to the health care system during the perioperative period was $26,730 with fast-track EVAR vs $30,730 with standard EVAR. Total perioperative health care costs were $4000 (95% CI: $3130–$4830) lower with fast-track EVAR vs standard EVAR, with $2980 in savings to hospitals and $1030 savings to health care payers.

Conclusion

A fast-track EVAR protocol using a 14 Fr stent graft resulted in shorter procedure time, lower intensive care utilization, faster discharge, lower incidence of MAE, lower readmission rates, and lower perioperative costs compared to standard EVAR.

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.

Interaction between frailty and sex on mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists surrounding gender outcome disparity and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Previous reports have demonstrated worse outcomes for women undergoing open aneurysm repair (OAR); however, these differences are less evident with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Epidemiologic studies have documented that women score higher on most frailty assessment scales but paradoxically have longer life expectancy compared to men. The interaction of gender/frailty and the influence on outcomes and practice patterns surrounding EVAR and OAR is poorly described. This analysis characterizes the association of frailty/sex interactions on mortality as well as patient selection surrounding elective AAA repair in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

METHODS

All elective infrarenal AAA (EVAR + OAR; 2003-2017) cases were queried from the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Each patient was assigned a previously published modified frailty index (mFI) score derived from comorbidity and preoperative functional status data. Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for statistically significant covariates, including procedural complexity, determined associations within full models and sex-stratified models.

RESULTS

A total of 20,750 elective AAA cases were analyzed (EVAR 15,893 [77%]; OAR 4857 [23%]). Thirty-day mortality for EVAR and OAR was 0.7% (n = 115) and 3.5% (n = 169), respectively. Patients who died were significantly more likely to be older (EVAR, 78 vs 73 years; OAR, 74 vs 69 years; P < .0001), have larger AAA diameters (EVAR, 59 vs 56 mm; P = .005; OAR, 62 vs 59 mm; P = .001), higher mFI scores (EVAR, 3.2 vs 2.4; OAR, 3.1 vs 2.2; P < .0001), and be of female sex (EVAR hazard ratio = 1.66 [95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.52]; P = .007; OAR-1.43 [1.02-1.99]; P = .003). Significant differences in the gender distribution of frailty scores among EVAR patients were evident (mean mFI: male 2.42 vs female 2.34; P = .02), but no difference was detected for OAR (male 2.17 vs female 2.22; P = .38). The mFI was a strong independent predictor of mortality (30 days: EVAR hazard ratio = 1.36 [1.22-1.53] and OAR 1.46 [1.32-1.60]; 1 year: EVAR 1.32 [1.25-1.39] and OAR-1.38 [1.28-1.48]). There was no interaction between mFI and gender on the association with mortality. Across frailty strata, male patients were nearly twofold more likely to undergo either elective EVAR or OAR for an AAA below recommended minimum diameter thresholds (male, <5.5 cm; female, <5.0 cm). Greater mFI score did not alter OAR selection but was associated with less frequent EVAR of small AAA.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the strong association between frailty and postoperative mortality, mFI can be used as a predictive tool to aid in surgical planning of patients undergoing elective AAA repair. While mFI can predict postoperative mortality for both men and women, it does not account for the survival disparity between sexes, and further research is warranted to explain this difference. There appear to be significant gender differences in patient selection based on current Society for Vascular Surgery-endorsed treatment thresholds that may have important implications on the appropriateness of AAA care delivery nationally.

Episode-based cost reduction for endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Effective strategies to reduce costs associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain elusive for many medical centers. In this study, targeted interventions to reduce inpatient EVAR costs were identified and implemented.

METHODS

From June 2015 to February 2016, we analyzed the EVAR practice at a high-volume academic medical center to identify, to rank, and ultimately to reduce procedure-related costs. In this analysis, per-patient direct costs to the hospital were compared before (September 2013-May 2015) and after (March 2016-January 2017) interventions were implemented. Improvement efforts concentrated on three categories that accounted for a majority of costs: implants, rooming costs, and computed tomography scans performed during the index hospitalization.

RESULTS

Costs were compared between 141 EVAR procedures before implementation (PRE period) and 47 EVAR procedures after implementation (POST period). Based on data obtained through the Society for Vascular Surgery EVAR Cost Demonstration Project, it was determined that implantable device costs were higher than those at peer institutions. New purchasing strategies were implemented, resulting in a 30.8% decrease in per-case device costs between the PRE and POST periods. Care pathways were modified to reduce use of and costs for computed tomography scans obtained during the index hospitalization. Compared with baseline, per-case imaging costs decreased by 92.9% (P < .001), including a 99.0% (P = .001) reduction in postprocessing costs. Care pathways were also implemented to reduce preprocedural rooming for patients traveling long distances the day before surgery, resulting in a 50% decrease in utilization rate (35.4% PRE to 17.0% POST; P = .021), without having a significant impact on median postprocedural length of stay (PRE, 2 days [interquartile range, 1-11 days]; POST, 2 days [1-7 days]; P = .185). Medication costs also decreased by 38.2% (P < .001) as a hospital-wide effort.

CONCLUSIONS

Excessive costs associated with EVAR threaten the sustainability of these procedures in health care organizations. Targeted cost reduction efforts can effectively reduce expenses without compromising quality or limiting patients' access.

Total Hospital Costs and Length of Stay of Endovascular Coiling Versus Neurosurgical Clipping for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of feasibility and safety between endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has been incrementally reported. However, economic comparison has been rarely reported. This meta-analysis aims at qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the difference of hospital costs and length of stay between endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment in UIA.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, EMBASE, and Web of Science database were searched for cohort studies describing economic hospital cost or length of stay in patients with UIA. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and rated quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Ravmen 5.2 was used to perform forest plot analysis.

RESULTS

Nine studies describing 24,856 UIAs treated with neurosurgical clipping and 31,309 UIAs treated with endovascular coiling were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the total hospital costs (THCs) were similar between coiling and clipping in UIA patients (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.33, 95% confidence interval: -0.68 to 0.02, I² = 99%, P = 0.07). Subgroup analysis showed that THCs of coiling were significantly lower than clipping in the United States but opposite in South Korea. One-year medical costs of coiling were similar in both groups (SMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.00, I² = 0%, P = 0.07). In addition, the length of stay of coiling were significantly shorter than that of clipping (SMD: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81, I² = 95%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Generally, no significant difference in THCs and 1-year medical costs between coiling versus clipping in UIAs was observed. However, the length of stay of endovascular coiling was much shorter than neurosurgical clipping and decreased over time.