Hospital cost of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a multicenter study

Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs are Dictated by Device Cost

INTRODUCTION

Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM).

RESULTS

Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

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.

The financial burden associated with endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms using physician-modified fenestrated-branched endografts

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysm repair is more complex and requires more devices than infrarenal aneurysm repair. It is unclear if current reimbursement covers the cost of delivering this more advanced form of vascular care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics of fenestrated-branched (FB-EVAR) physician-modified endograft (PMEG) repairs.

METHODS

We obtained technical and professional cost and revenue data for four consecutive fiscal years (July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2021) at our quaternary referral institution. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent PMEG FB-EVAR in a uniform fashion by a single surgeon for thoracoabdominal/pararenal aortic aneurysms. Patients in industry-sponsored clinical trials or receiving Cook Zenith Fenestrated grafts were excluded. Financial data were analyzed for the index operation. Technical costs were divided into direct costs that included devices and billable supplies and indirect costs including overhead.

RESULTS

62 patients (79% male, mean age: 74 years, 66% thoracoabdominal aneurysms) met inclusion criteria. The mean aneurysm size was 6.0 cm, the mean total operating time was 219 minutes, and the median hospital length of stay was 2 days. PMEGs were created with a mean number of 3.7 fenestrations, using a mean of 8.6 implantable devices per case. The average technical cost per case was $71,198, and the average technical reimbursement was $57,642, providing a net negative technical margin of $13,556 per case. Of this cohort, 31 patients (50%) were insured by Medicare remunerated under diagnosis-related group code 268/269. Their respective average technical reimbursement was $41,293, with a mean negative margin of $22,989 per case, with similar findings for professional costs. The primary driver of technical cost was implantable devices, accounting for 77% of total technical cost per case over the study period. The total operating margin, including technical and professional cost and revenue, for the cohort during the study period was negative $1,560,422.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEG FB-EVAR for pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms produces a substantially negative operating margin for the index operation driven largely by device costs. Device cost alone already exceeds total technical revenue and presents an opportunity for cost reduction. In addition, increased reimbursement for FB-EVAR, especially among Medicare beneficiaries, will be important to facilitate patient access to such innovative technology.

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.

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.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

With increasing healthcare costs and the emergence of new technologies in vascular surgery, economic evaluations play a critical role in informing decision-making that optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing per capita costs. The objective of this systematic review is to describe all English published economic evaluations in vascular surgery and to identify any significant gaps in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive English literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from inception until December 1, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility using predetermined inclusion criteria and subsequently extracted data. Articles were included if they compared 2 or more vascular surgery interventions using either a partial economic evaluation (cost analysis) or full economic evaluation (cost-utility, cost-benefit, and/or cost-effectiveness analysis). Data extracted included publishing journal, date of publication, country of origin of authors, type of economic evaluation, and domain of vascular surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 234 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of the papers included only a cost analysis (183, 78%), and there were only 51 papers that conducted a full economic analysis (22%). The 51 papers conducted a total of 69 economic analyses. This consisted of 32 cost-effectiveness analyses, 29 cost-utility analyses, and 8 cost-benefit analyses. The most common domains studied were aneurysmal disease (89, 38%) and peripheral vascular disease (50, 21%). Economic evaluations were commonly published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (83, 35%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (32, 14%), with most study authors located in the United States (127, 54%). There was a trend of economic evaluations being published more frequently in recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of vascular surgery economic evaluations used only a cost analysis, rather than a full economic evaluation, which may not be ideal in pursuing interventions that simultaneously optimize cost and patient outcomes. The literature is lacking in full economic evaluations-a trend persistent in other surgical specialties-and there is a need for full economic evaluations to be conducted in the field of vascular surgery.

Improved outcomes from endovascular aortic repair in younger patients: Towards improved risk stratification

Objectives

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are conventionally treated by open repair surgery. While endovascular aortic repair improves survival in high-risk patients, younger patients (40–65 years) potentially at lower risk with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair usually have poorer post-operative outcomes and require longer term follow-up. In this study, clinical data on younger patients were analyzed to investigate whether endovascular aortic repair leads to poorer short- and long-term outcomes.

Methods

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing clinical outcomes in patients aged 40–65 years undergoing open repair or endovascular aortic repair and published between 2000 and 2017. In-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and post-operative complication data were retrieved from eligible studies and clinical outcomes were compared. Twenty-one retrospective cohort analyses were included, accounting for 250,837 patients (149,051 endovascular aortic repair; 101,786 open repair). Risk ratios were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed in Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair had a significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.28–0.57; p  < 0.00001), long-term mortality (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.82; p  = 0.01), incidence of reintervention (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.66; p  < 0.0001), and incidence of renal failure (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.37–1.82; p  < 0.00001).

Conclusions

Endovascular aortic repair may improve short- and long-term survival and reduce post-operative complications in younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

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.

Unplanned 30-day readmissions after endovascular aneurysm repair: An analysis using the Nationwide Readmissions Database

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the preferred method for addressing abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), with proven reduction in perioperative morbidity and mortality. There are, however limited data examining the readmissions after EVAR that are associated with increased patient morbidity and cost. As EVAR use continues its dominance in the management of AAAs, it becomes imperative to identify and mitigate risk factors associated with unplanned hospital readmissions.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for all 30-day readmissions after an index EVAR procedure from 2012 to 2014. Preoperative patient demographics, hospital characteristics, readmission diagnosis, and costs were compared between those who were and were not readmitted within 30 days of the index operation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify potential risk factors associated with unplanned readmissions within 30 days.

RESULTS

We identified 120,646 patients who underwent an EVAR from 2012 to 2014 in the United States. The overall unplanned readmission rate during this period was 11.6% (n = 14,073) within 30 days of the index EVAR procedure. The readmission rate was the highest in 2012, with a rate of 12.3% (P = .02). Multivariate regression analysis showed that EVAR readmissions were significantly higher in patients who were of younger age (18 to 49 years) compared with other age groups (odds ratio [OR], 1.9-2.17; P < .001), female sex (OR, 1.367; P < .001), had Medicare (OR, 1.39) or Medicaid (OR, 1.25) insurance, or a combination of these. Underlying patient comorbidities significantly associated with readmissions included congestive heart failure (OR, 2.4), peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.1), chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.2), cancer with no metastasis (OR, 1.5), metastatic cancer (OR, 2.2), renal failure (OR, 1.8), and diabetes (OR, 1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The trend in 30-day readmission rates after EVAR has decreased slightly since 2012, but overall rates are at 11.6%, which is not insubstantial. Patient factors strongly associated with hospital readmission were younger age and patient comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, concurrent cancer diagnosis, renal failure, and diabetes.

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.

Early extubation is associated with reduced length of stay and improved outcomes after elective aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Timing of extubation after open aortic procedures varies across hospitals. This study was designed to examine extubation timing and determine its effect on length of stay (LOS) and respiratory complications after elective open aortic surgery.

METHODS

We studied extubation timing for 7171 patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (2687 [37.5%]) or suprainguinal bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease (4484 [62.5%]) from October 2010 to April 2015 in hospitals participating in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Our primary outcome was prolonged LOS (>7 days), and the secondary outcome was respiratory complications (pneumonia or reintubation). The association between extubation timing and outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression mixed-effects models that adjusted for confounding factors at the patient and procedure level. A variable importance analysis was conducted using a chi-pie framework to identify factors contributing to the variability of extubation timing.

RESULTS

The 7171 patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery were a mean age of 65.4 (standard deviation, 10.2) years, and 63% were male. Extubation occurred (1) in the operating room (76.3%), (2) <12 hours (10.9%), (3) 12 to 24 hours (7.2%), or (4) >24 hours (5.6%) after surgery. Hospitals in the top quartile for case volume had the highest percentage of patients extubated in the operating room (82.8%). Patients least likely to be extubated in the operating room were older, more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, require vasopressors, have higher estimated blood loss (EBL), and longer procedure times. After adjustment for patient, procedure, and institutional factors, delayed extubation was associated with prolonged LOS (<12 hours: odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.7; 12-24 hours: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.7; >24 hours: OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 4.0-6.9), and pulmonary complications (<12 hours: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; 12-24 hours: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6; >24 hours: OR, 9.6; 95% CI, 7.1-13.0) compared with those extubated in the operating room. Subset analysis of patients extubated in the operating room or <12 hours showed that extubation out of the operating room was associated with prolonged LOS (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7) and pulmonary complications (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5). The variable importance analysis demonstrated that EBL (26%) and procedure time (24%) accounted for half of the variation in extubation timing.

CONCLUSIONS

Extubation in the operating room is associated with shorter LOS and morbidity after open aortic surgery. EBL, procedure time, and center variation account for variability in extubation timing. These data advocate for standardized perioperative respiratory care to reduce variation, improve outcomes, and reduce LOS.

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

OBJECTIVE

Comparing costs between centers is difficult because of the heterogeneity of vascular procedures contained in broad diagnosis-related group (DRG) billing categories. The purpose of this pilot project was to develop a mechanism to merge Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) clinical data with hospital billing data to allow more accurate cost and reimbursement comparison for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures across centers.

METHODS

Eighteen VQI centers volunteered to submit UB04 billing data for 782 primary, elective infrarenal EVAR procedures performed by 108 surgeons in 2014. Procedures were categorized as standard or complex (with femoral-femoral bypass or additional arterial treatment) and without or with complications (arterial injury or embolectomy; bowel or leg ischemia; wound infection; reoperation; or cardiac, pulmonary, or renal complications), yielding four clinical groups for comparison. MedAssets, Inc, using cost to charge ratios, calculated total hospital costs and cost categories. Cost variation analyzed across centers was compared with DRG 237 (with major complication or comorbidity) and 238 (without major complication or comorbidity) coding. A multivariable model to predict DRG 237 coding was developed using VQI clinical data.

RESULTS

Of the 782 EVAR procedures, 56% were standard and 15% had complications, with wide variation between centers. Mean total costs ranged from $31,100 for standard EVAR without complications to $47,400 for complex EVAR with complications and varied twofold to threefold among centers. Implant costs for standard EVAR without complications varied from $8100 to $28,200 across centers. Average Medicare reimbursement was less than total cost except for standard EVAR without complications. Only 9% of all procedures with complications in the VQI were reported in the higher reimbursed DRG 237 category (center range, 0%-21%). There was significant variation in hospitals' coding of DRG 237 compared with their expected rates. VQI clinical data accurately predict current DRG coding (C statistic, 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

VQI data allow a more precise EVAR cost comparison by identifying comparable clinical groups compared with DRG-based calculations. Total costs exceeded Medicare reimbursement, especially for patients with complications, although this varied by center. Implant costs also varied more than expected between centers for comparable cases. Incorporation of VQI data elements documenting EVAR case complexity into billing data may allow centers to better align respective DRG reimbursement to total costs.

“Fast-Track” Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

The “open” repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) continues to evolve with incorporation of less invasive methods for surgical exposure and the use of patient care pathways for shorter hospital stays. In a consecutive series of 30 patients with infrarenal AAA, a “ fasttrack” hospital care pathway was implemented that included the following: AAA exposure via a limited (10–15 cm) retroperitoneal incision, use of self-retaining retractor and special vascular clamps/instruments, and prosthetic graft endoaneurysmorrhaphy. Excellent anatomic exposure for graft implantation was achieved with an average operative time of 175 minutes. Use of oral metoclopromide and patient-controlled epidural analgesia resulted in patient ambulation and oral diet on postoperative day 1. Average length of hospital stay was 3.6 days (range: 3–7 days), and no patient required readmission for AAA repair-related or gastrointestinal problems. One patient died (30-day mortality rate of 3.3%) caused by delayed recognition of a splenic injury, and 1 patient sustained an intraoperative ureter injury that was repaired and stented. Although stent-graft exclusion for AAA repair has become popular, the major advantages of endovascular therapy, such as shorter ICU and hospital stays, earlier dietary feeding, and reduction in postoperative morbidity, can also be achieved by using minimal incision exposure for AAA interposition grafting combined with traditional hand-sewn vascular anastomoses. “Fast-track” AAA repair is applicable to the majority of patients with infrarenal AAAs, and vascular surgeons can easily master the technique of “limited” incision retroperitoneal exposure. This approach avoids the concerns of endovascular stent-graft durability and the mandatory vascular imaging follow-up to identify endoleak development and AAA enlargement.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Although endovascular surgery for aortic aneurysms can be traced to the 19th century, open surgery has dominated during the past 50 years. Indeed, open repair of aneurysms has been one of the most successful developments in vascular surgery. Despite improvements in mortality rates, open repair remains a major operation often undertaken in patients with significant comorbidities. Starting from basic research dating back several decades, the 1990s were noted for very active clinical development of endovascular abdominal aortic repair in an attempt to provide an alternative to open repair, especially for high-risk patients. Early successes with decreased intensive care unit and hospital stays were tempered by technical issues and the “endoleak,” the term given to an incomplete exclusion of the aneurysm from the circulation. This potential for rupture, despite treatment, was cause for concern. The need for long-term surveillance and secondary procedures, if not conversion to open repair, further compounded these issues. Despite these concerns, progress continued, and by the end of 2002, the Food and Drug Administration had approved three devices for marketing. Although surgeons are faced with increasingly complex issues related to endovascular repair, anesthesiologists have found their management of this procedure to be simpler in many ways. The smaller incisions and improved hemodynamic stability have led to a variety of anesthetics being tried, including monitored anesthesia care. Anesthesiologists continue to explore a number of opportunities to improve patient outcome in these procedures. These include selection of the most optimal anesthetic, the most appropriate perioperative renal protection, and the best preparation for and management of a conversion to an open procedure. Whatever the final role for endovascular surgery in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms, it is an intellectually stimulating and scientifically promising technique for surgeons, anesthesiologists, and the patients they serve.

A Novel Anesthetic Technique for PEVAR

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) continues to evolve. Device profiles continue to decline, further reducing the physiological insult of the procedure. Anesthesia, however, has not evolved with a large proportion of patients continuing to receive general anesthesia for their increasingly less invasive procedures. We report on a novel anesthetic technique providing outstanding anesthesia in patients undergoing PEVAR in an outpatient setting. The total anesthesia used was remarkably cost effective.

METHODS

Six patients underwent PEVAR in an outpatient setting. The patients received moderate intravenous (IV) access sedation using versed and fentanyl in combination with bilateral ilioinguinal nerve blocks. Patients received 25 mL bilaterally of 0.5% bupivicaine with epinephrine. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III. None received central venous access, arterial, or urinary catheters. Standard noninvasive monitoring was used. A board-certified anesthesiologist was present at all times during the procedures.

RESULTS

All patients underwent successful repair. Average cost per case for anesthetic supplies averaged around $7.00. The fentanyl dose ranged from 100 to 200 μg with an average dose of 130 μg. Versed dose ranged from 2 to 3 mg with an average dose of 2.4 mg. No patient required conversion to general anesthesia. Postoperative pain relief was excellent. Two patients required pain medication before discharge. Two patients required oral narcotic analgesic the night of discharge. No patients required narcotics after that time.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral ilioinguinal nerve block, when combined with moderate IV sedation allows outstanding anesthesia for patients undergoing PEVAR. This novel combination has not been reported previously. The technique provides safe, effective, care for of a subset of patients not requiring general anesthesia. It offers a greatly reduced cost when compared with general anesthesia. Additional benefits include prolonged pain relief perioperatively as well as potentially decreasing the physiologic and cognitive effects seen with general anesthesia.

Endovascular Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms has Improved Outcomes Compared to Open Surgical Repair

INTRODUCTION

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains a critical diagnosis, and research is needed to address outcomes following surgical repair. The purpose of this study was to compare nationwide outcomes for patients who received either endovascular repair (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSAR) for rAAA.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file from 2005 to 2009 was used to identify patients diagnosed with rAAA and treated with either EVAR or OSAR. Those patients with both procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, postoperative complications, and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital resource utilization and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 8480 patients with rAAA who underwent EVAR (n = 1939) or OSAR (n = 6541) were identified. On multivariate regression, the likelihood of dying in the hospital after OSAR compared to EVAR was significantly greater (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74-2.18). There was significantly greater frequency of postoperative complications after OSAR compared to EVAR (OR = 2.1, 95%CI = 1.86-2.37, P < .0001). Freedom from readmission after OSAR was significantly greater than that after EVAR. Total hospital cost for all services after EVAR was greater than that after OSAR (US$100 875 vs US$89 035; P < .0001), but intensive care unit (ICU) cost for EVAR was significantly less than that for OSAR (US$5516 vs US$8600; P < .0001). Total hospital and ICU LOS were shorter in EVAR compared to OSAR (P < .0001 for both).

DISCUSSION

EVAR for rAAA has shown mortality benefits over OSAR as well as reduced ICU and total LOS. This data suggest EVAR is associated with a greater survival benefit, fewer postoperative complications, and may help improve hospital resource utilization.

Characterizing the evolution of perioperative outcomes and costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to characterize the evolution in perioperative outcomes and costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) by detailing changes in adjusted outcomes and costs over time.

METHODS

National Inpatient Sample (2000-2011) data were used to evaluate patient characteristics, outcomes, and perioperative costs for elective EVAR performed for intact AAA. Outcomes were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities, and hospital factors by multivariate analysis. Costs were calculated from hospital cost to charge ratio files and adjusted to 2011 dollars.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2011, 185,249 patients underwent elective EVAR for intact AAA. The absolute rates of in-hospital major morbidity, mortality, and procedural costs all decreased significantly over time (P < .0001). The prevalence of major comorbidities in patients undergoing EVAR, including obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, all increased significantly over time. After adjusting for multiple demographics, comorbidities, and hospital-level factors, recent outcomes of EVAR (2009-2011) remain superior to the early experience (2000-2002) with respect to mortality and major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2000-2011, the perioperative outcomes of EVAR improved significantly despite a higher prevalence of comorbidities among patients undergoing repair. Concurrently, procedure-associated costs declined. Advanced technology is often implicated in escalating healthcare spending, and the value of novel techniques is often questioned. These findings highlight that, in the case of EVAR, procedural outcomes have improved while the initial costs of repair have declined over time. EVAR offers an interesting example for stakeholders to consider in the era of cost-containment pressures and criticism of nascent, expensive technology in healthcare.

Duplex Ultrasound versus Computed Tomography for the Postoperative Follow-Up of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Where Do We Stand Now?

In the last decade, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has rapidly developed to be the preferred method for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with suitable anatomy. EVAR offers the advantage of lower perioperative mortality and morbidity but carries the cost of device-related complications such as endoleak, graft migration, graft thrombosis, and structural graft failure. These complications mandate a lifelong surveillance of EVAR patients and their endografts. The purpose of this study is to review and evaluate the safety of color-duplex ultrasound (CDU) as compared with computed tomography (CT), based on the current literature, for post-EVAR surveillance. The post-EVAR follow-up modalities, CDU versus CT, are evaluated questioning three parameters: (1) accuracy of aneurysm size, (2) detection and classification of endoleaks, and (3) detection of stent-graft deformation. Studies comparing CDU with CT scan for investigation of post-EVAR complications have produced mixed results. Further and long-term research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of CDU versus CT, before CDU can be recommended as the primary imaging modality for EVAR surveillance, in place of CT for stable aneurysms.

A limited and customized follow-up seems justified after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair in octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is justified in octogenarians.

METHODS

Between September 1996 and October 2011, all patients, including octogenarians, treated for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by EVAR were included in a prospective database. Patients older than 80 years and with a nonruptured infrarenal aneurysm treated electively or urgently were included in the study (study group [SG]). Patients with ruptured aneurysms and patients who died during surgery or within the first postoperative month were excluded from further analysis. The control group (CG) consisted of patients younger than 80 years, matched for gender and AAA diameter. All patients were evaluated 4 to 8 weeks after EVAR and then annually thereafter. Follow-up data were complemented by review of the computerized hospital registry and charts and by contact of the patient's general practitioner or referring hospital. Primary outcomes were stent- or aneurysm-related complications and interventions. Secondary outcomes were additional surgical complications and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total number of 193 patients (SG, n = 97; CG, n = 96) were included for analysis. Median age was 80 years, and 88.6% were male. Median follow-up time was 33.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12.9-68.3). Stent- and procedure-related postoperative complications were comparable between groups (SG, 41.2%; CG, 39.6%; P = .82). Median time to complication was 2.3 months (IQR, 0.2-19.4) in the SG compared with 18.1 months (IQR, 6.8-50.5) in the CG. The 2-year complication-free survival rates were 58% (SG) and 60% (CG). Interventions were performed significantly less frequently in octogenarians (SG, 8.2%; CG, 19.8%; P < .05). Median time to intervention was 11.1 months (IQR, 2.0-31.0) in the SG compared with 54.3 months (IQR, 15.0-93.2) in the CG. The 2-year intervention-free survival rates were 90% (SG) and 92% (CG). During follow-up, 98 patients died (SG, n = 54; CG, n = 44); median time to death was 31.8 months (IQR, 13.3-66.0) in the SG compared with 44.4 months (IQR, 15.0-77.7) in the CG. One aneurysm-related death occurred in the CG. The 2- and 5-year survival rates were 71% and 32% for the SG compared with 77% and 66% for the CG (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low incidence of secondary procedures and AAA-related deaths in octogenarians, long-term and frequent follow-up after EVAR seems questionable. An adapted and shortened follow-up seems warranted in this patient group.

Hospitalization rates and post-operative mortality for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Italy over the period 2000-2011

Background

Recent studies have reported declines in incidence, prevalence and mortality for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in various countries, but evidence from Mediterranean countries is lacking. The aim of this study is to examine the trend of hospitalization and post-operative mortality rates for AAAs in Italy during the period 2000–2011, taking into account the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in 1990s.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was carried out in Emilia-Romagna, an Italian region with 4.5 million inhabitants. A total of 19,673 patients hospitalized for AAAs between 2000 and 2011, were identified from the hospital discharge records (HDR) database. Hospitalization rates, percentage of OSR and EVAR and 30-day mortality rates were calculated for unruptured (uAAAs) and ruptured AAAs (rAAAs).

Results

Adjusted hospitalization rates decreased on average by 2.9% per year for uAAAs and 3.2% for rAAAs (p<0.001). The temporal trend of 30-day mortality rates remained stable for both groups. The percentage of EVAR for uAAAs increased significantly from 2006 to 2011 (42.7 versus 60.9% respectively, mean change of 3.9% per year, p<0.001). No significant difference in mortality was found between OSR and EVAR for uAAAs and rAAAs.

Conclusions

The incidence and trend of hospitalization rates for rAAAs and uAAAs decreased significantly in the last decade, while 30-day mortality rates in operated patients remained stable. OSR continued to be the most common surgery in rAAAs, although the gap between OSR and EVAR recently declined. The EVAR technique became the preferred surgery for uAAAs since 2008.

The financial implications of endovascular aneurysm repair in the cost containment era

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with significant direct device costs. Such costs place EVAR at odds with efforts to constrain healthcare expenditures. This study examines the procedure-associated costs and operating margins associated with EVAR at a tertiary care academic medical center.

METHODS

All infrarenal EVARs performed from April 2011 to March 2012 were identified (n = 127). Among this cohort, 49 patients met standard commercial instruction for use guidelines, were treated using a single manufacturer device, and billed to Medicare diagnosis-related group (DRG) 238. Of these 49 patients, net technical operating margins (technical revenue minus technical cost) were calculated in conjunction with the hospital finance department. EVAR implant costs were determined for each procedure. DRG 238-associated costs and length of stay were benchmarked against other academic medical centers using University Health System Consortium 2012 data.

RESULTS

Among the studied EVAR cohort (age 75, 82% male, mean length of stay, 1.7 days), mean technical costs totaled $31,672. Graft implants accounted for 52% of the allocated technical costs. Institutional overhead was 17% ($5495) of total technical costs. Net mean total technical EVAR-associated operating margins were -$4015 per procedure. Our institutional costs and length of stay, when benchmarked against comparable centers, remained in the lowest quartile nationally using University Health System Consortium costs for DRG 238. Stent graft price did not correlate with total EVAR market share.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR is currently associated with significant negative operating margins among Medicare beneficiaries. Currently, device costs account for over 50% of EVAR-associated technical costs and did not impact EVAR market share, reflecting an unawareness of cost differential among surgeons. These data indicate that EVAR must undergo dramatic care delivery redesign for this practice to remain sustainable.

An update on the 'fast-track' abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Patients who have unfavourable anatomy for endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm require open repair. This is particularly the case for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms, or those patients with small or occluded iliac access vessels.An experience of 'fast-track' abdominal aortic aneurysm repair that was previously reported is updated in the present case. A retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is taken, using a small incision, and is followed by a patient care pathway protocol that demonstrated excellent results and a shortened length of stay. The present update on 56 patients is approximately double the previously reported experience.

Comparison of costs of endovascular repair versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Korea

This study was designed to compare the hospital-related costs of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment and cost structure between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in Korean health care system. One hundred five primary elective AAA repairs (79 OSRs and 26 EVARs) performed in the Seoul National University Hospital from 2005 to 2009 were included. Patient characteristics were similar between two groups except for older age (P = 0.004) and more frequent history of malignancy (P = 0.031) in EVAR group. Thirty-day mortality rate was similar between two groups and there was no AAA-related mortality in both groups for 5 yr after repair. The total in-hospital costs for the index admission were significantly higher in EVAR patients (mean, KRW19,857,119) than OSR patients (mean KRW12,395,507) (P < 0.001). The reimbursement was also significantly higher in EVAR patients than OSR patients (mean, KRW14,071,081 vs KRW6,238,895, P < 0.001) while patients payments was comparable between two groups. EVAR patients showed higher follow-up cost up to 2 yr due to more frequent imaging studies and reinterventions for type II endoleaks (15.4%). In the perspective of cost-effectiveness, this study suggests that the determination of which method to be used in AAA treatment be more finely trimmed and be individualized.

Comparative analysis of hospital costs of open and endovascular thoracic aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular technologies represent major advancements in treating descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAA). We compared hospital charges of open thoracic aortic replacement (OTAR) with endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TEVAR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of hospital charges related to repair of DTAA (2000-2009). Charges were inflation adjusted for dollars in 2009.

RESULTS

There were 50 OTAR and 50 TEVAR patients. Open thoracic aortic replacement charges were $64 531 (interquartile range [IQR]: 49 000-108 515) versus $61 909 (IQR: 41 307-92 109) for TEVAR(P = .4). A total of 10 patients (10%) died before discharge, with 0 TEVAR deaths (P < .05). For OTAR, supply charges ($9167) accounted for 13% of total charges versus 56% for TEVAR ($40 468), P < .01. Open thoracic aortic replacement length of stay (LOS) was 12 days (6 days intensive care unit [ICU] stay); bed charges comprised 40% of the total charges. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair had lower LOS (5days with 2 days ICU stay, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair remains a formidable operation with significant resource utilization. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair does not significantly reduce overall hospital charges due to device costs but demonstrates improved mortality, ICU, and total LOS.

Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: a methodological and empirical review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation as an integral part of health technology assessment is today mostly applied to established technologies. Evaluating healthcare innovations in their early states of development has recently attracted attention. Although it offers several benefits, it also holds methodological challenges.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to investigate the possible contributions of economic evaluation to industry's decision making early in product development and to confront the results with the actual use of early data in economic assessments.

METHODS

We conducted a literature research to detect methodological contributions as well as economic evaluations that used data from early phases of product development.

RESULTS

Economic analysis can be beneficially used in early phases of product development for various purposes including early market assessment, R&D portfolio management, and first estimations of pricing and reimbursement scenarios. Analytical tools available for these purposes have been identified. Numerous empirical works were detected, but most do not disclose any concrete decision context and could not be directly matched with the suggested applications.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry can benefit from starting economic evaluation early in product development in several ways. Empirical evidence suggests that there is still potential left unused.

Cost and effectiveness comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a single-center experience

The study objective was to compare the cost and effectiveness of two surgical techniques: open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We assessed 58 surgical operations of AAA repair conducted in 54 men and 4 women (aged 49-94 years) during 2003 and 2004. Open surgical repair was performed in 21 patients, and EVAR was performed in 37 patients. The evaluation of the effectiveness of both methods was based on the following factors: mortality within 30 days, surgery duration, total hospitalization time, and intensive care unit stay duration. The segmental costs of grafts, anesthesia, and extra materials were included in the calculations for the comparison of the costs of the two methods. A 30-day mortality of 5.17% and 0% was demonstrated for open surgical repair and EVAR, respectively. In regard to the operation's mean duration, this was calculated to 279.52 minutes for open repair and 193.57 minutes for EVAR. The mean duration of the in-hospital stay was 11.3 and 4.09 days for open repair and EVAR, respectively. Accordingly, the mean duration of intensive care unit stay was 2.81 and 0.23 days, respectively. The cost evaluation revealed a mean cost of 5374.3euro ($7,643.49) and 20,592.52euro ($29,287.50) for open repair and EVAR, respectively. Open repair is a "tested method" of its own time. EVAR seems to have the advantage on aspects of effectiveness, yet its major hallmark is its significant cost, as indicated in the relevant part of the current study.

Long-term postplacement cost after endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that the initial hospital cost associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is approximately $20,000. However, the cost of long-term surveillance and secondary procedures is poorly characterized.

METHODS

Between December 1998 and June 2006, 259 patients underwent EVAR for infrarenal aneurysms at a single institution. Follow-up costs were calculated using a relative value unit based hospital cost accounting system, which incorporates departmental direct and indirect costs. Institutional overhead costs were included using a conversion factor. Costs for professional services were determined by a cost-to-charge ratio, and outpatient visits were calculated with a time-based formula. Year 2006 costs were applied to prior years. To minimize costs associated with the early learning curve, the initial 50 EVAR patients between December 1995 and 1998 were excluded. Patients with <1 year follow-up were also excluded. Data are expressed as mean +/- standard error.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up after EVAR for 136 patients was 34.7 +/- 1.8 months. The cumulative 5-year postplacement cost per patient was $11,351. The 27 patients (19.9%) who required secondary procedures had a 5-year cumulative cost of $31,696 compared with $3668 for 109 patients without secondary procedures (8.6-fold increase, P < .05). The 5-year cost for patients with endoleak was $26,739 compared with $5706 for those without endoleak (4.7-fold increase, P < .05). Overall, major cost components were 57.4% for secondary procedures and 32.5% for radiologic studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During a 5-year period, the postplacement cost of EVAR increases the global cost by 44%. The subgroups of patients with endoleaks and those requiring secondary procedures generate a disproportionate share of postplacement costs. Efforts at minimizing cost should emphasize technical and device modifications aimed at reducing endoleaks and the need for secondary procedures.

Placement of aortic endoprostheses

Endovascular stent-grafting has found its place in the elective treatment of 60% of abdominal or thoracic aortic lesions. The morbidity and mortality rates are clearly lower than those of classical repair but the results are suboptimal with 9% residual endoleaks at 6 months. Anesthetic management with extensive monitoring even under local anesthesia remains mandatory and tends to reduce the postoperative care requirements. Future development will allow emergent endovascular treatment of ruptured aorta and further improvement will decrease the rate of late endoleaks.

Cost-effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review

Objectives: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair was conducted. Although open surgery has been considered the gold standard for prevention of AAA rupture, emerging less-invasive endovascular treatments have led to increased interest in evaluating the cost and cost-effectiveness of treatment options.

Methods: A systematic review of studies published in MEDLINE between 1999 and 2005 reporting the cost and/or cost-effectiveness of endovascular and/or open surgical repair of nonruptured AAAs was conducted. Case series studies with less than fifty patients per treatment were excluded.

Results: Of twenty eligible articles, three were randomized controlled trials, twelve case series, four Markov models, and one systematic review. Regardless of time frame, all studies found that endovascular repair costs more than open surgery. Although the high cost of the endovascular prosthesis was partially offset by reduced intensive care, hospital length of stay, operating time, blood transfusions, and perioperative complications, hospital costs were still greater for endovascular than open surgical repair. For patients medically fit for open surgery, mid-term costs were greater for endovascular repair with no difference in overall survival or quality of life. For patients medically unfit for open surgery, endovascular repair costs more than no intervention with no difference in survival.

Conclusions: Although conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of AAA treatment options are time dependent and vary by institutional perspective, from a societal perspective, endovascular repair is not currently cost-effective for patients with large AAA regardless of medical fitness.

Technology Penetration of Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Southern California

Our objective was to investigate the penetration of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the large, diverse health-care market of southern California over 3 years and to study variability in the pattern of distribution of EVAR in southern California counties by analyzing available demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic data from California state health-care databases. Information abstracted from the inpatient hospital discharge data for patients undergoing AAA repair for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, derived from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, included age, gender, race, hospitals performing EVAR, and payors for the service. Per-capita income (PCI) for the year 1999 and the population size of each county for the respective years were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Data pertaining to members of the Southern California Vascular Surgical Society (SCVSS) serving the southern California region were obtained from the SCVSS membership directory. Data were categorized based on 10 counties in southern California. All the above variables were analyzed using the chi-squared test, with p < 0.05 considered significant. The proportions of EVAR for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were 15.4% (n = 409), 20.2% (n = 492), and 25.9% (n = 566), respectively. This is a 67.8% (p < 0.0001) increase in EVAR application in southern California since 2001. However, the proportion of EVAR varied among counties (p < 0.0001), with 457 EVARs performed in Los Angeles County and eight in Imperial County during the study period. EVAR proportion was higher in patients aged > or =65 years (p < 0.0001) and male patients (p < 0.0001). The proportion of EVAR was significantly higher in counties with more than 20 vascular surgeons available (p < 0.0001) and PCI >21,000 US$ (p < 0.0001) and in Medicare, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, and private insurance holders (p < 0.0001). There was a trend toward increased EVARs in counties with more than eight hospitals that performed EVAR (p = 0.0545). However, no significant difference in EVAR proportion was observed among subgroups based on race (p = 0.535) and population size (p = 0.84). Although the number and proportion of EVAR increased significantly in southern California over 3 years, the penetration of the procedure varied among counties. County affluence, payor mix, and the number of vascular surgeons/county influenced the variability. These observations suggest that economic barriers may limit access to new biomedical technology. This has implications for health-care public policy directed toward providing equal access to medical care without regard to economic status.