Dataset Information

Costs of Endoscopic vs Open Vein Harvesting for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Secondary Analysis of the REGROUP Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Value-based purchasing creates pressure to examine whether newer technologies and care processes, including new surgical techniques, yield any economic advantage.

Objective

To compare health care costs and utilization between participants randomized to receive endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) or open vein harvesting (OVH) during a coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure.

Design, setting, and participants

This secondary economic analysis was conducted alongside the 16-site Randomized Endo-Vein Graft Prospective (REGROUP) clinical trial funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program. Adults scheduled for urgent or elective bypass involving a vein graft were eligible. The first participant was enrolled in September 2013, with most sites completing enrollment by March 2014. The last participant was enrolled in April 2017. A total of 1150 participants were randomized, with 574 participants receiving OVH and 576 receiving EVH. For this secondary analysis, cost and utilization data were extracted through September 30, 2020. Participants were linked to administrative data in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and activity-based cost data starting with the index procedure.

Interventions

EVH vs OVH, with comparisons based on intention to treat.

Main outcomes and measures

Discharge costs for the index procedure as well as follow-up costs (including intended and unintended events; mean [SD] follow-up time, 33.0 [19.9] months) were analyzed, with results from different statistical models compared to test for robustness (ie, lack of variation across models). All costs represented care provided or paid by the VA, standardized to 2020 US dollars.

Results

Among 1150 participants, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (6.9) years; most participants (1144 [99.5%] were male. With regard to race and ethnicity, 6 participants (0.5%) self-reported as American Indian or Alaska Native, 10 (0.9%) as Asian or Pacific Islander, 91 (7.9%) as Black, 62 (5.4%) as Hispanic, 974 (84.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 6 (0.5%) as other race and/or ethnicity; data were missing for 1 participant (0.1%). The unadjusted mean (SD) costs for the index CABG procedure were $76 607 ($43 883) among patients who received EVH and $75 368 ($45 900) among those who received OVH, including facility costs, insurance costs, and physician-related costs (commonly referred to as provider costs in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and insurance data). No significant differences were found in follow-up costs; per 90-day follow-up period, EVH was associated with a mean (SE) added cost of $302 ($225) per patient. The results were highly robust to the statistical model.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, EVH was not associated with a reduction in costs for the index CABG procedure or follow-up care. Therefore, the choice to provide EVH may be based on surgeon and patient preferences.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01850082.

SUBMITTER: Wagner TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9214587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current consensus statements maintain that endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) should be standard care in coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but vein quality and clinical outcomes have been questioned. The VICO trial (Vein Integrity and Clinical Outcomes) was designed to assess the impact of different vein harvesting methods on vessel damage and whether this contributes to clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting.In this single-center, randomized clinical trial, patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with an internal mammary artery and with 1 to 4 vein grafts were recruited. All veins were harvested by a single experienced practitioner. We randomly allocated 300 patients into closed tunnel CO2 EVH (n=100), open tunnel CO2 EVH (n=100), and traditional open vein harvesting (n=100) groups. The primary end point was endothelial integrity and muscular damage of the harvested vein. Secondary end points included clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiac events), use of healthcare resources, and impact on health status (quality-adjusted life-years).The open vein harvesting group demonstrated marginally better endothelial integrity in random samples (85% versus 88% versus 93% for closed tunnel EVH, open tunnel EVH, and open vein harvesting; P<0.001). Closed tunnel EVH displayed the lowest longitudinal hypertrophy (1% versus 13.5% versus 3%; P=0.001). However, no differences in endothelial stretching were observed between groups (37% versus 37% versus 31%; P=0.62). Secondary clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant differences in composite major adverse cardiac event scores at each time point up to 48 months. The quality-adjusted life-year gain per patient was 0.11 (P<0.001) for closed tunnel EVH and 0.07 (P=0.003) for open tunnel EVH compared with open vein harvesting. The likelihood of being cost-effective, at a predefined threshold of £20?000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, was 75% for closed tunnel EVH, 19% for open tunnel EVH, and 6% for open vein harvesting.Our study demonstrates that harvesting techniques affect the integrity of different vein layers, albeit only slightly. Secondary outcomes suggest that histological findings do not directly contribute to major adverse cardiac event outcomes. Gains in health status were observed, and cost-effectiveness was better with closed tunnel EVH. High-level experience with endoscopic harvesting performed by a dedicated specialist practitioner gives optimal results comparable to those of open vein harvesting.URL: https://www.isrctn.com. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry Number: 91485426.

Project description:In coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, arterial conduits are preferred because of more favourable long-term patency and outcome. Anyway the greater saphenous vein continues to be the most commonly used bypass conduit. Minimally invasive endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting is increasingly being investigated in order to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open vein harvesting, includes postoperative leg wound complications, pain and patient satisfaction. However, to date the short and the long-term benefits of the endoscopic technique remain controversial. This study provides an interesting opportunity to address this gap in the literature.Endoscopic Saphenous harvesting with an Open CO2 System trial includes two parallel vein harvesting arms in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. It is an interventional, single centre, prospective, randomized, safety/efficacy, cost/effectiveness study, in adult patients with elective planned and first isolated coronary artery disease. A simple size of 100 patients for each arm will be required to achieve 80% statistical power, with a significant level of 0.05, for detecting most of the formulated hypotheses. A six-weeks leg wound complications rate was assumed to be 20% in the conventional arm and less of 4% in the endoscopic arm. Previously quoted studies suggest a first-year vein-graft failure rate of about 20% with an annual occlusion rate of 1% to 2% in the first six years, with practically no difference between the endoscopic and conventional approaches. Similarly, the results on event-free survival rates for the two arms have barely a 2-3% gap. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate and a 5% cross-over rate, the goal is to enrol 230 patients from a single Italian cardiac surgery centre.The goal of this prospective randomized trial is to compare and to test improvement in wound healing, quality of life, safety/efficacy, cost-effectiveness, short and long-term outcomes and vein-graft patency after endoscopic open CO2 harvesting system versus conventional vein harvesting.The expected results are of high clinical relevance and will show the safety/efficacy or non-inferiority of one treatment approach in terms of vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.www.clinicalTrials.gov NCT01121341.