Faculty Collaboration Database

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Endovascular Aortic Repair With Open Femoral Exposure. J Surg Res 2019 Aug;240:124-129

Date

04/01/2019

Pubmed ID

30928769

DOI

10.1016/j.jss.2019.02.011

Scopus ID

2-s2.0-85063397304 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site)   10 Citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess cost differences between patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) and open surgical femoral exposure in elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An IRB-approved single center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2009 to 2016 was performed. One hundred patients were selected with 50 patients who underwent PEVAR and 50 patients who underwent open surgical femoral exposure. Patient demographics, procedural variables, and hospital outcomes were collected and compared. Primary outcomes assessed used in cost calculations included operating time (OR time), hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit stay (ICU LOS). Extrapolated cost differences were based on known, published cost multipliers for the primary outcomes observed.

RESULTS: Patients undergoing PEVAR had significant reduction in mean OR time (113.9 min versus 144.9 min, P < 0.001), mean ICU LOS (19.7 h versus 28.9 h, P = 0.094), and overall LOS (28.3 h versus 33.1 h, P = 0.020). There was no statistically significant difference in access related complications, although there was a trend toward less complication rates with PEVAR (0% versus 5%, P = 0.056). Calculated cost of procedures based on mean ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and OR time, showed significant reduction in mean hospital costs with PEVAR ($16,628.5 versus $21,705.8, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated an overall 23% cost reduction with PEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS: Prior reports comparing PEVAR versus EVAR with open femoral exposures have shown improvement in overall patient time to ambulation and other hospital metrics such as LOS with PEVAR. There is, however, a paucity of overall cost comparison data regarding PEVAR. In this study, adoption of PEVAR was seen to significantly reduce OR times (19%) and overall hospital LOS (50%). The outcomes observed ultimately translated into significant reduction in hospital costs.

Author List

Thurston JS, Camara A, Alcasid N, White SB, Patel PJ, Rossi PJ, Hieb RE, Lee CJ

Authors

Robert A. Hieb MD, RVT, FSIR Professor in the Radiology department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Peter J. Rossi MD Chief, Professor in the Surgery department at Medical College of Wisconsin

MESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold

Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Elective Surgical Procedures
Endovascular Procedures
Female
Femoral Artery
Hospital Costs
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Male
Middle Aged
Operative Time
Postoperative Complications
Retrospective Studies
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Vascular Closure Devices