Disposable grasper-integrated flexible cystoscope for ureteral stent removal in transplanted patients; focus on feasibility, safety, and patient experience. Results and micro-cost analysis from a tertiary referral center.

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: To evaluate ureteral stent removal (SR) using a grasper-integrated disposable flexible cystoscope (giFC-Isiris ®, Coloplast ®) after kidney transplantation (KT), with a focus on feasibility, safety, patient experience, and costs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All consecutive KT undergoing SR through giFC were prospectively enrolled from January 2020 to June 2023. Patient characteristics, KT and SR details, urine culture results, antimicrobial prescriptions, and the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI) within 1 month were recorded. A micro-cost analysis was conducted, making a comparison with the costs of SR with a reusable FC and grasper. RESULTS: A total of 136 KT patients were enrolled, including both single and double KT, with 148 stents removed in total. The median indwelling time was 34 days [26, 47]. SR was successfully performed in all cases. The median preparation and procedure times were 4 min [3,5]. and 45 s[30, 60], respectively. The median Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was 3 [1, 5], and 98.2% of patients expressed willingness to undergo the procedure again. Only one episode of UTI involving the graft (0.7%) was recorded. Overall, the estimated cost per SR procedure with Isiris ® and the reusable FC was 289.2€ and 151,4€, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective series evaluated the use of Isiris ® for SR in a cohort of KT patients, demonstrating feasibility and high tolerance. The UTI incidence was 0.7% within 1 month. Based on the micro-cost analysis, estimated cost per procedure favored the reusable FC.

The clinical and economic impact of chronic venous insufficiency-associated lymphedema and the prevalence of persistent edema after venous intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the demographics, outcomes, and healthcare utilization of patients with chronic venous insufficiency-associated lymphedema (CVI-LED) and the prevalence of lymphedema-specific therapy use after venous intervention. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Claims Databases were examined for patients with CVI-LED. Patient demographics and the use of lymphedema-specific therapy before and after venous intervention were collected. RESULTS: Of 85,601 LED patients identified, 8,406 also had a diagnosis of CVI. In the CVI-LED group, 1051 underwent endovenous ablation or venous stent placement. The use of lymphedema-specific therapy before and after venous intervention was 52% and 39%, respectively (p < .05). The mean time of initiation of LED-specific therapy following venous intervention was 265 days after ablation and 347 days after stent placement. CONCLUSION: Treating venous hypertension improves certain venous-related signs and symptoms of CVI. However, a significant proportion of patients have persistent edema which may reflect underlying, sub-optimally treated LED.

How real can we get in generating real world evidence? Exploring the opportunities of routinely collected administrative data for evaluation of medical devices.

Real-world data are considered a potentially valuable source of evidence for assessing medical technologies in clinical practice, but their widespread use is hampered by numerous challenges. Using the case of coronary stents in Italy, we investigate the potential of administrative databases for estimating costs and health outcomes associated with the use of medical devices in real world conditions. An administrative dataset was created ad hoc by merging hospital records from patients admitted between 2013 and 2019 for stent implantations with ambulatory records, pharmaceutical use data and vital statistics. Health outcomes were multifold: all-cause and cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction, within 30 days, 1, 2, 5 years. Costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. We used multivariable Cox models and propensity score (PS) methods (PS matching; stratification on PS; inverse probability of treatment weighting using PS; PS adjustment). 257,907 coronary stents were implanted in 113,912 patients. For all health outcomes and follow-up times, and across all methods, patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) presented lower risk. For all-cause mortality, the DES patient advantage over bare-metal stent (BMS) patients declined over time but remained significant even at 5 years. For myocardial infarction, results remained quite stable. The DES group presented lower cumulative total costs (ranging from 3264 to 2363 Euros less depending on methods). Our results confirm the consolidated evidence of the benefits of DES compared to BMS. The consistency of results across methods suggests internal validity of the study, while highlighting strengths and limitations of each depending on research context. Administrative data yield great potential to perform comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of medical devices provided certain conditions are met.

Economic Evaluation of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke has been proven clinically effective, but evidence of the cost-effectiveness based on real-world data is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether endovascular therapy plus usual care is cost-effective in comparison to usual care alone in acute ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Empirical data on health outcomes and the use of resources following endovascular treatment were gathered parallel to the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) and its 2-year follow-up study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the extra costs per additional patient with functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and the extra cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: The mean costs per patient in the intervention group were $126 494 versus $143 331 in the control group (mean difference, -$16 839 [95% CI, -$38 113 to $5456]). Compared with patients in the control group, more patients in the intervention group achieved functional independence, 37.2% versus 23.9% (absolute difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 4.0%-22.0%]) and they generated more quality-adjusted life years, 0.99 versus 0.83 (mean difference of 0.16 [95% CI, 0.04-0.29]). Endovascular treatment dominated standard treatment with $18 233 saved per extra patient with a good outcome and $105 869 saved per additional quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment added to usual care is clinically effective, and cost saving in comparison to usual care alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Registration: URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/695; Unique identifier: NL695. URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

A Brazilian cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass with iStent inject® for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma / Análise de custo-utilidade do implante trabecular iStent inject® para o tratamento do glaucoma de ângulo aberto no Brasil

ABSTRACT Purpose To evaluate the cost-utility of the iStent inject® for the treatment of mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma (OAG) within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). Methods A Markov model was developed, in which the effectiveness outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: R$ / QALY quality-adjusted life-year). Direct medical costs were obtained from the SUS perspective. The base case comprised of a hypothetical cohort of patients with OAG using topical medication and being managed according to the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines (PCDT) and a real-world setting based on data from Datasus. The model's robustness through sensitivity analyses was tested. Results In the PCDT base case setting, the trabecular micro-bypass implant provided gains of 0.47 QALYs and an ICER of R$7,996.66/QALY compared to treatment with topical medication. In the real-world setting based on data from Datasus, the trabecular micro-bypass implant, provided gains of 0.47 QALYs and an ICER of R$4,485.68/QALY compared to treatment with topical medication. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Incorporating iStent inject® to SUS provides an improvement in the patient's quality of life with an additional cost that warrants the benefit provided to patients. Results may be considered cost-effective compared to topical medication.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a relação custo-utilidade do iStent inject® para o tratamento do glaucoma de ângulo aberto leve a moderado no Sistema Único de Saúde. Métodos Foi desenvolvido um modelo de Markov, no qual a medida de resultado de efetividade foi a razão custo-efetividade incremental (razão de custo-efetividade incremental: R$/ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade). Os custos médicos diretos foram obtidos por meio da perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. O caso base foi composto de uma coorte hipotética de pacientes com glaucoma de ângulo aberto em uso de medicação tópica tratados de acordo com o Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas e um cenário do mundo real baseado em dados do Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde. Foi testada a robustez do modelo por meio de análises de sensibilidade. Resultados No cenário base do Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas, o implante trabecular micro-bypass proporcionou ganhos de 0,47 ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade e razão de custo-efetividade incremental de R$7.996,66/ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade em relação ao tratamento com medicação tópica. No cenário real baseado em dados do Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde, o implante trabecular proporcionou ganhos de 0,47 ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade e razão de custo-efetividade incremental de R$ 4.485,68/ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade em relação ao tratamento com medicação tópica. Os resultados foram robustos para análises de sensibilidade. Conclusão A incorporação do iStent inject® ao Sistema Único de Saúde proporciona melhora na qualidade de vida do paciente com um custo adicional que garante o benefício proporcionado a eles. Os resultados podem ser considerados custo-efetivos em comparação com a medicação tópica.

Determining Variable Costs in the Acute Urolithiasis Cycle of Care Through Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing. METHODS: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway. RESULTS: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement.

Editor's Choice - Cost Effectiveness of Primary Stenting in the Superficial Femoral Artery for Intermittent Claudication: Two Year Results of a Randomised Multicentre Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Invasive treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) is commonly performed, despite limited evidence of its cost effectiveness. IC symptoms are mainly caused by atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA), and endovascular treatment is performed frequently. The aim of this study was to investigate its cost effectiveness vs. non-invasive treatment. METHODS: One hundred patients with IC due to lesions in the SFA were randomised to treatment with primary stenting, best medical treatment (BMT) and exercise advice (stent group), or to BMT and exercise advice alone (control group). Patients were recruited at seven hospitals in Sweden. For this analysis of cost effectiveness after 24 months, 84 patients with data on quality adjusted life years (QALY; based on the EuroQol Five Dimensions EQ-5D 3L™ questionnaire) were analysed. Patient registry and imputed cost data were used for accumulated costs regarding hospitalisation and outpatient visits. RESULTS: The mean cost per patient was €11 060 in the stent group and €4 787 in the control group, resulting in a difference of €6 273 per patient between the groups. The difference in mean QALYs between the groups was 0.26, in favour of the stent group, which resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 23 785 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The costs associated with primary stenting in the SFA for the treatment of IC were higher than for exercise advice and BMT alone. With concurrent improvement in health related quality of life, primary stenting was a cost effective treatment option according to the Swedish national guidelines (ICER < €50 000 - €70 000) and approaching the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for willingness to pay (ICER < £20 000 - £30 000). From a cost effectiveness standpoint, primary stenting of the SFA can, in many countries, be used as an adjunct to exercise training advice, but it must be considered that successful implementation of structured exercise programmes and longer follow up may alter these findings.

Epidemiological Analysis of 37,424 Carotid Artery Stenosis Intervention Procedures During 11 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil: Stenting has Been More Common Than Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil. METHODS: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS.

Outcomes and Cost Evaluation Related to a Single-Use, Disposable Ureteric Stent Removal System: a Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris). RECENT FINDINGS: Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.

Impact of physiologically shaped pancreatic stent for chronic pancreatitis.

Endoscopic pancreatic stenting is used to prevent main pancreatic duct obstruction and relieve painful symptoms of chronic pancreatitis. However, the stent typically needs to be exchanged and the rate of adverse events is high. Few studies have evaluated the effect of stent shape on those outcomes. We evaluated the adverse events, stent patency, and total medical cost within 90 days of patients who received an 8.5 French (Fr) physiologically shaped pancreatic stent by comparing these features with those associated with a conventional straight-type stent for ≥ 90 days. The total stent-related adverse event rate was significantly lower for the physiologically shaped pancreatic stent (physiologically shaped, 6.7% [2/30]; straight-type, 50.6% [44/87]; P < 0.001). Stent occlusion was significantly less frequent (P < 0.001) and the total medical costs were significantly lower (P = 0.002) for the physiologically shaped stent. The stent-related adverse event rate was significantly higher for the 10 Fr straight type stent than for the 8.5 Fr physiologically shaped stent (10 Fr, straight-type vs. 8.5 Fr, physiologically shaped: 36.1% [13/36] vs. 6.7% [2/30]; P = 0.007). In conclusion, a physiologically shaped pancreatic stent was superior to a straight-type stent in terms of the patency rate and medical costs.

Vascular Surgeons Are Not Adequately Valued by Traditional Productivity Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period. METHODS: Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons.

Reducing the cost of managing patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting.

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased risk of both ischemic events and bleeding complications resulting from antithrombotic therapy. These events are particularly common in patients with a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation, such as those with atrial fibrillation, and are associated with a substantial healthcare resource burden. Advances in procedural aspects of PCI have led to marked improvements in outcomes and a consequent reduction in the costs resulting from PCI-associated complications. Furthermore, recent randomized clinical trials have investigated the optimal antithrombotic strategy in the specific case of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, leading to a shift toward the tailoring of antithrombotic therapy according to the patient's individual stroke and bleeding risks. Here we review these recent advances, with a particular focus on the improvements in antithrombotic strategies offered by the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change. METHODS: All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18). CONCLUSIONS: Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

Health care costs of endovascular compared with open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year health care costs between endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). METHODS: Population-based administrative health databases were used to capture TAAA repairs performed in Ontario, Canada, between January 2006 and February 2017. All health care costs incurred by the Ministry of Health from a single-payer universal health care system were included. Costs of the aortic endografts and ancillary devices for the index procedure were estimated as C$44,000 per endovascular case vs C$1000 for open cases, based on previous reports. Costs (2017 Canadian dollars) were calculated in phases (1, 1-3, 3-6, and 6-12 months from surgery) with censoring for death. For each phase, propensity score matching of endovascular and open cases based on preoperative patient and hospital characteristics was used. The association between preoperative characteristics (including repair approach) and the first month postprocedure cost was characterized through multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall 664 TAAA repairs were identified (open, n = 361 [54.5%] and endovascular, n = 303 [45.6%]). At 1 month, the median cost was higher for endovascular TAAA repair in the prematching cohort (C$64,892 vs C$36,647; P < .01). Similarly, in 241 well-balanced endovascular/open patient pairs after propensity score matching, the median health care costs were higher in endovascular TAAA cases during the first month (C$62,802 vs C$33,605; P < .01). The 1- to 3-month median cost was not statistically different between endovascular and open TAAA cases either before matching (C$2781 vs C$2618; P = .71) or after matching (C$2762 vs C$2092; P = .58). Likewise, in the 3- to 6-month and 6- to 12-month postprocedure intervals, there were no significant differences in the median health care costs between groups. On multivariable analysis, older age (5-year increments) (relative change [RC] in mean cost, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.06; P = .01), urgent procedures (RC, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.52; P < .01), and history of stroke (RC, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.00-1.78; P = .05) were associated with higher costs in the first postoperative month, whereas open relative to endovascular TAAA repair was associated with a decreased 1-month cost (RC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: TAAA repair is expensive regardless of technique. Compared with open TAAA repair, endovascular repair was associated with a higher early cost, owing to the upfront cost of the endograft and aortic ancillary devices. There was no difference in cost from 1 to 12 months after repair. A decrease in the cost of endovascular devices might allow equivalent costs between endovascular and open TAAA repair.

Editor's Choice - A Systemic Evaluation of the Costs of Elective EVAR and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Implies Cost Equivalence.

OBJECTIVE: The suggested high costs of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) hamper the choice of insurance companies and financial regulators for EVAR as the primary option for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, arguments used in this debate are impeded by time related aspects such as effect modification and the introduction of confounding by indication, and by asymmetric evaluation of outcomes. Therefore, a re-evaluation minimising the impact of these interferences was considered. METHODS: A comparative analysis was performed evaluating a period of exclusive open repair (OR; 1998-2000) and a period of established EVAR (2010-2012). Data from four hospitals in The Netherlands were collected to estimate resource use. Actual costs were estimated by benchmark cost prices and a literature review. Costs are reported at 2019 prices. A break even approach, defining the costs for an endovascular device at which cost equivalence for EVAR and OR is achieved, was applied to cope with the large variation in endovascular device costs. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six patients who underwent elective AAA repair between 1998 and 2000 (OR period) and 195 patients between 2010 and 2012 (EVAR period) were compared. Cost equivalence for OR and EVAR was reached at a break even price for an endovascular device of €13 190. The main cost difference reflected the longer duration of hospital stay (ward and Intensive Care Unit) of OR (€11 644). Re-intervention rates were similar for OR (24.2%) and EVAR (24.6%) (p = .92). CONCLUSION: Cost equivalence for EVAR and OR occurs at a device cost of €13 000 for EVAR. Hence, for most routine repairs, EVAR is not costlier than OR until at least the five year follow up.

Venous stenting for patients with outflow obstruction and leg ulcers: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses.

Aim: To perform cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing stenting to standard medical treatment (SMT) for the management of deep venous outflow obstruction and leg ulcers from the Italian Healthcare Service perspective. Materials & methods: A Markov model was developed to project costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 3 years, based on data from literature combined with real-world data. Moreover, a BIA was performed comparing the current scenario (100% SMT) with increasing utilization rates of stenting over SMT from 0.5 to 5%, in the next 5 years. Results: Stenting is a cost-effective (incremental cost-utility ratio €12,388/QALY) or dominant option versus SMT, according to in-patient or day-hospital settings, respectively. Increasing use of stenting over SMT, in the next 5 years, is expected to yield additional costs of 39.5 million Euros (in-patient) or savings of 5.1 million Euros (day-hospital). Conclusion: Stenting is a cost-effective option compared with SMT for patients with deep vein occlusion and ulceration in Italy.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.

Cost and Mortality Implications of Lower Event Rates After Implantation of an Ultrathin-Strut Coronary Stent Compared With a Thin-Strut Stent Over Four Years.

BACKGROUND: The recent BIOFLOW V trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02389946) showed that revascularization with an ultrathin strut, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) was associated with lower rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TVMI) at 24-month follow-up than that with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES). We simulated the impact on cost and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We projected the impact of the lower adverse event rates from a U.S. health system perspective over a 48-month horizon with a Markov model using event data from the BIOFLOW V trial and estimates for costs and excess mortality due to adverse events from published sources. All cost estimates were CPI-adjusted to 2018 US$ and future cost discounted by 3%. We estimated that use of BP SES compared to DP EES was associated with cumulative net reductions in medical cost of $2429 per patient over 48 months. Peri-procedural TVMI contributed $124 (5%), TLR in patients without TVMI $810 (33%) and spontaneous TVMI $1496 (62%) of cost. Use of BP SES compared to DP EES was associated with 2603 fewer deaths in one million patients over four years, corresponding to a relative risk reduction of 6%. CONCLUSIONS: Lower adverse event rates associated with revascularization using BP SES translate into reductions in direct medical cost and mortality. Most of the cost reduction is attributed to reduction in spontaneous TVMI. Given the high volume of coronary procedures, such results are an important consideration for patients, clinicians and payers.

Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure-defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube-was measured. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1-3.8], p 0.028). CONCLUSION: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion strokes of the anterior circulation: Analysis from the French societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) added to standard of care (SOC) in large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes, adopting the French societal perspective given the lack of published studies with such perspective. METHODS: We developed an hybrid model (decision tree until one year post-stroke followed by a Markov model from one year onward). The time horizon was 20 years. We calculated transition probabilities across the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) based on a published meta-analysis. The main outcome measure was quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Resources and input costs were derived from a literature search. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/QALY. We used 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case, adding SRT to SOC resulted in increased effectiveness of 0.73 QALY while total costs were reduced by 3,874€ (ICER of -5,400€/QALY). In the scenario analysis adopting the French healthcare system perspective, the ICER was 4,901€/QALY. Parameters the most influential were the relative risks of SRT over SOC for 90-days mortality and for 90-days mRS 0-2, and the time horizon. PSA showed the 95% confidence interval of the ICER was -21,324 to 4,591€/QALY, with SRT having 85.5% chance to be dominant and 100% to be cost-effective at a threshold of 50,000€/QALY. CONCLUSION: SRT was dominant from a French societal perspective, from 9 years post-stroke onwards. Cost-effectiveness of SRT added to SOC becomes undisputable with evidences from payer and societal viewpoints.