S E Birch1, D R Stary, A R Scott. 1. Department of Surgery, Launceston General Hospital, Tasmania, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health-care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. METHODS: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow-up costs. RESULTS: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P < 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15092, P < 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P < 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P < 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure-related complications were higher for EVR ($26909 vs $17650). CONCLUSION: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.
BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health-care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. METHODS: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow-up costs. RESULTS: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P < 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15092, P < 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P < 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P < 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure-related complications were higher for EVR ($26909 vs $17650). CONCLUSION: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.
Authors: David H Stone; Alexander J Horvath; Philip P Goodney; Eva M Rzucidlo; Brian W Nolan; Daniel B Walsh; Robert M Zwolak; Richard J Powell Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Robert Hopkins; James Bowen; Kaitryn Campbell; Gord Blackhouse; Guy De Rose; Teresa Novick; Daria O'Reilly; Ron Goeree; Jean-Eric Tarride Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2008