Percutaneous Versus Surgical Pulmonic Valve Implantation for Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Percutaneous pulmonic valve implantation (PPVI) is an alternative treatment strategy to surgical pulmonic valve implantation (SPVI) for right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. This study sought to compare outcomes of both treatment strategies. METHODS: The study population was extracted from the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for PPVI and SPVI. Study outcomes included all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of index hospital stay (LOS), post-procedural bleeding, mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis, vascular complications (VC), infective endocarditis (IE), total hospitalization charges, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 975 patient discharges (176 in PPVI and 799 in SPVI group) were identified (average age 25.7 years; 57.5% male). PPVI was associated with significantly shorter median LOS (1 versus 5 days, p < 0.01), lower risk of bleeding (4.6% versus 26.4%, p < 0.01), and lower total hospitalization charges ($169,551.7 versus $210,681.8, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of all-cause in-hospital mortality (0% versus 1.4%, p = 0.12), mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis (1.7% versus 2.0%, p = 0.78), VC (2.3% versus 2.0%, p = 0.82), IE (1.7% versus 3.1%, p = 0.31), or 30-day readmission rates (4.4% versus 7.6%, p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Compared with SPVI, PPVI was associated with shorter LOS, lower bleeding, and lower total charges. There was no significant difference between the two strategies in terms of all-cause in-hospital mortality, mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis, VC, IE, or 30-day readmission rates.

In-hospital cost comparison between percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation and surgery.

Objectives: Today, both surgical and percutaneous techniques are available for pulmonary valve implantation in patients with right ventricle outflow tract obstruction or insufficiency. In this controlled, non-randomized study the hospital costs per patient of the two treatment options were identified and compared. Methods: During the period of June 2011 until October 2014 cost data in 20 patients treated with the percutaneous technique and 14 patients treated with open surgery were consecutively included. Two methods for cost analysis were used, a retrospective average cost estimate (overhead costs) and a direct prospective detailed cost acquisition related to each individual patient (patient-specific costs). Results: The equipment cost, particularly the stents and valve itself was by far the main cost-driving factor in the percutaneous pulmonary valve group, representing 96% of the direct costs, whereas in the open surgery group the main costs derived from the postoperative care and particularly the stay in the intensive care department. The device-related cost in this group represented 13.5% of the direct costs. Length-of-stay-related costs in the percutaneous group were mean $3885 (1618) and mean $17 848 (5060) in the open surgery group. The difference in postoperative stay between the groups was statistically significant ( P ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: Given the high postoperative cost in open surgery, the percutaneous procedure could be cost saving even with a device cost of more than five times the cost of the surgical device.