Comparison of arterial wall integration of different flow diverters in rabbits: The CICAFLOW study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: New coated flow diverters (FDs) claim antithrombotic properties and increased arterial wall integration. The aim of this study is to compare in vivo endothelial coverage of coated and uncoated FD in the context of different antiplatelet regimens. METHODS: Different FDs (Silk Vista - SV, Pipeline with Shield technology - PED shield and Surpass Evolve - SE) were implanted in the aorta of rabbits, all 3 in each animal with 3 different antiplatelet regimens: no antiplatelet therapy, aspirin alone, or aspirin and ticagrelor. Four weeks after FD implantation, angiography, flat-panel CT, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed before harvesting the aorta. Extensive histopathology analyses were performed including environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM), multiphoton microscopy (MPM) and histological staining with qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of device coverage. RESULTS: All 23 FDs that were implanted remained patent without hyperplasia. Qualitative stent coverage assessment revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between the FD groups (p = 0.19, p = 0.45, p = 0.40, and p = 0.84 for OCT, ESEM, MPM and histology, respectively). Quantitative neointimal measurement of histological sections also showed similar results in all 3 FD groups (p = 0.70). However, there were significant differences between the 3 groups of antiplatelet regimens (p = 0.07) with a higher rate in the no antiplatelet group (p = 0.05 versus aspirin alone and p = 0.03 versus aspirin and ticagrelor). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that FD integration into the arterial wall is similar with coated (PED shield) and uncoated devices (SV, SE), regardless of the antiplatelet regimen. FD integration with specific surface coverage should be promoted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: APAFIS #2022011215518538.

The use of single-use ancillaries does not increase the cost of osteosynthesis in orthopaedic surgery: A case study of plate osteosynthesis for distal radius fractures.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of using single-use instruments (SUIs) and conventional ancillary instruments (CAIs) during osteosynthesis for distal radius fracture (DRF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, monocentric study of ancillary instruments, including a cost minimisation analysis by micro-costing. DRF reduction and postoperative complications were monitored for 3 months. RESULTS: In 103 procedures, the overall cost and operating times were similar between the two groups. The costs of using unit screws, sterilisation, and operating room and pharmacy staff were superior when using SUIs, compared with CAIs. The postoperative outcomes were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In our centre, SUI use was associated with logistical advantages, but it was not associated with increased costs. However, the SUI kit should be optimised in the future.

What is the cost of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)? A medico-economic study.

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe. Material and methods: A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.