Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Krajcer Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6731968 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Krajcer Zvonimir Z Ramaiah Venkatesh G VG Henao Esteban A EA Nelson Wayne K WK Moursi Mohammed M MM Rajasinghe Hiranya A HA Anderson Louise H LH Miller Larry E LE

Vascular health and risk management 20190903

<h4>Background</h4>Perioperative health care utilization and costs in patients undergoing elective fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>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 i ...[more]

PMID: 31564888

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR.MethodsWe compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.ResultsAfter weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46).ConclusionsWithin the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.

Project description:Concomitant procedures during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm are performed to facilitate endograft delivery, to simultaneously treat unrelated conditions, or to resolve intraoperative pitfalls. The frequency and perioperative impact of these procedures are not well described. This study aimed to assess the frequency and perioperative impact of various concomitant procedures performed at the time of EVAR.We included all elective EVARs in the Vascular Study Group of New England between January 2003 and November 2014 and identified those with and those without concomitant procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to establish the independent association between concomitant procedures and perioperative outcomes.The study included 4033 patients, with 1168 (29.0%) patients undergoing one or more additional procedures. Independent risk factors for 30-day mortality were concomitant femoral endarterectomy (odds ratio [OR], 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-11.2) and renal angioplasty or stenting (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-8.3). Postoperative bowel ischemia was associated with hypogastric embolization (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.4) and iliac angioplasty or stenting (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.3-9.6). Leg ischemia was associated with unplanned graft extension (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.02-5.0), other artery reconstruction (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.1), thromboembolectomy (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.3-20.8), and repair of arterial injury (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.2-18.3). Risk factors for deterioration of renal function were iliofemoral bypass (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-12.2), other artery reconstruction (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.8), renal angioplasty or stenting (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.6), and repair of arterial injury (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6-12.2). Myocardial infarction was associated with femorofemoral bypass (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7-8.7), other artery reconstruction (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.2), and repair of arterial injury (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.8-21.0). Wound complications were predicted by femorofemoral bypass (OR, 13.4; 95% CI, 5.8-31.1).Concomitant procedures during EVAR are associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. The need for performing concomitant procedures should be carefully considered. The morbidity associated with intraoperative complications highlights the importance of avoidance of arterial injury and thromboembolic events where possible.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets