OBJECTIVES: To perform cost evaluation and economic modeling of percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI) compared to surgical revision. BACKGROUND: While, PPVI appears to be a viable alternative to surgical conduit revision in select patients with right ventricular outflow tract anomalies, its overall economic burden has yet to be determined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the first 17 patients who underwent PPVI at our institution and compared them with the most-recently placed surgical valves. Economic data were obtained from the actual procedural and in-hospital charges and used as the base estimates for 5- and 10-year future modeling with appropriate sensitivity analysis. Median total hospital and procedural charges incurred by the patient were significantly higher for the surgical valve compared with PPVI ($126,406 ± $38,772 vs. $80,328 ± $17,387, P < 0.001). Median total societal charges were also higher for the surgical valve ($129,519 ± $39,021 vs. $80,939 ± $17,334, P < 0.001) owing to an average wage loss of $3,113 for surgical patients, contrasted to $611 who underwent PPVI, and a shorter length of stay (1.0 ± 0 vs. 5.7 ± 2.2, P <0.001) for PPVI. Sensitivity analysis determined that PPVI would need to fail at a rate of 17% per year (or 93% at 10 years) to lose its cost advantage. CONCLUSIONS: PPVI holds a significant cost advantage over the surgical approach, fewer hospital days, and incurs less patient wage loss. Furthermore, it would need to have a very high failure rate at 10 years to lose its cost advantage.
OBJECTIVES: To perform cost evaluation and economic modeling of percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI) compared to surgical revision. BACKGROUND: While, PPVI appears to be a viable alternative to surgical conduit revision in select patients with right ventricular outflow tract anomalies, its overall economic burden has yet to be determined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the first 17 patients who underwent PPVI at our institution and compared them with the most-recently placed surgical valves. Economic data were obtained from the actual procedural and in-hospital charges and used as the base estimates for 5- and 10-year future modeling with appropriate sensitivity analysis. Median total hospital and procedural charges incurred by the patient were significantly higher for the surgical valve compared with PPVI ($126,406 ± $38,772 vs. $80,328 ± $17,387, P < 0.001). Median total societal charges were also higher for the surgical valve ($129,519 ± $39,021 vs. $80,939 ± $17,334, P < 0.001) owing to an average wage loss of $3,113 for surgical patients, contrasted to $611 who underwent PPVI, and a shorter length of stay (1.0 ± 0 vs. 5.7 ± 2.2, P <0.001) for PPVI. Sensitivity analysis determined that PPVI would need to fail at a rate of 17% per year (or 93% at 10 years) to lose its cost advantage. CONCLUSIONS:PPVI holds a significant cost advantage over the surgical approach, fewer hospital days, and incurs less patient wage loss. Furthermore, it would need to have a very high failure rate at 10 years to lose its cost advantage.
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Andrew C Glatz; Laura Mercer-Rosa; Matthew J Gillespie; Yoav Dori; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Steven Kawut; Jonathan J Rome Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Matthew J Gillespie; Russell T Shinohara; Yoav Dori; Jonathan J Rome; Andrew C Glatz Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-10-17 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Bart W Driesen; Evangeline G Warmerdam; Gert-Jan Sieswerda; Folkert J Meijboom; Mirella M C Molenschot; Pieter A Doevendans; Gregor J Krings; Arie P J van Dijk; Michiel Voskuil Journal: Curr Cardiol Rev Date: 2019
Authors: Bjorn Cools; Werner Budts; Ruth Heying; Derize Boshoff; Benedicte Eyskens; Stefan Frerich; Els Troost; Marc Gewillig Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2015-03-06
Authors: Brith Andresen; Vinod Mishra; Milena Lewandowska; Jack Gunnar Andersen; Marit Helen Andersen; Harald Lindberg; Gaute Døhlen; Erik Fosse Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.191