Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era. METHODS: Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates. RESULTS: A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

Industry Payments for Vibegron and Prescribing Patterns Among Urologic Clinicians.

This cross-sectional study compares the prescribing practices among urologists and advanced practice clinicians who received vs did not receive payment from drug manufacturers.

Outcomes of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Single-Center Experience.

Background Data on urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as rescue therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) due to severe aortic stenosis (AS) are limited. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients who underwent urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a single institution. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of 602 patients with a history of heart failure (HF) due to AS who underwent TAVR between April 2012 and July 2017. We stratified patient cohort into urgent (n=139) and elective (n=463) TAVR. Urgent TAVR was defined as patients who were admitted for ADHF and underwent TAVR during the same hospitalization. Patients that underwent urgent TAVR for other reasons were excluded. Results Rates of postoperative intra-aortic balloon pump requirement, atrial fibrillation, dialysis requirement, vascular complications, and stroke were similar between the two groups. Compared with elective TAVR, patients undergoing urgent TAVR had a higher rate of cardiac arrest (5.7% vs 1.3%, p=0.005), longer length of stay (LOS) (11 vs. 5, p<0.001), and significant 30-day mortality (8.6% vs 4.1%, HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.04-4.22). Patients who underwent urgent TAVR were also associated with long-term mortality (Log-rank p = 0.0162). Conclusions In our study, urgent TAVR for ADHF was associated with both short-term and long-term mortality as compared to elective TAVR. Further randomized studies are needed to investigate the appropriate management of this population.

Early Experience With Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been employed to combat the risk of cerebrovascular events during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The use of EPD has been shown in some studies to decrease periprocedural stroke incidence when compared with non-EPD TAVR. Our study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of TAVR with versus without EPD. METHODS: Thirty-three patients who underwent TAVR with EPD at our institution between October 2018 and February 2019 were compared with a contemporaneous control group of 50 patients who underwent TAVR during the same time period without EPD. Baseline characteristics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Exclusion criteria for utilization of EPD included arch vessel tortuosity, calcified arch branches, and size discrepancy between the device and host arteries. RESULTS: The non-EPD group had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (6.8% vs 3.3% in the EPD group; P<.01) and more frequently had a prior diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (52% vs 21% in EPD patients; P<.01). Intraoperative characteristics were comparable, without significant differences in access site used, valve type (Sapien 3 vs Evolut), utilization of rapid pacing, or utilization of balloon aortic valvuloplasty. CONCLUSION: EPD was used in lower-risk patients, possibly related to lower incidence of vessel calcification in those patients that may preclude EPD use. Although postoperative outcomes between groups were comparable, current EPD design use precludes its utilization in higher-risk patients.