The effects of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein on the clinical outcomes in obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), and their respective impact on the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing off-pump cardiac artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). METHODS: We enrolled consecutive eligible patients listed for elective OPCABG who underwent cardiorespiratory polygraphy before surgery between January 2019 and December 2019 in this prospective observational single-center study. Baseline, intraoperative, and postoperative clinical data were compared between absent-mild and moderate-severe OSA groups. Regression analysis investigated the relationship between Hs-CRP level and severity of OSA, and further assessed the factors influencing postoperative atrial fibrillation, duration of hospitalization, and hospital cost. RESULTS: Patients with moderate-severe OSA accounted for 42.3% (52/123) of the cohort. Partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2), Hs-CRP, apnea hypopnea index (AHI), mean apnea time, maximum apnea time, and oxygen desaturation index ODI ≥ 3% were significantly higher in the moderate-severe OSA group than in the absent-mild OSA group. Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), lowest arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), and mean SaO2 were significantly lower in the moderate-severe OSA group. Moderate-severe OSA was associated with elevated Hs-CRP level (OR = 2.356, 95% CI 1.101-5.041, P = 0.027). Hs-CRP was an independent risk factor for post-CABG atrial fibrillation (POAF) (OR = 1.212, P = 0.01). Hs-CRP level independently correlated with duration of hospitalization (B = 0.456, P = 0.001) and hospital cost (B = 1.111, P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Hs-CRP level was closely related to OSA severity and have potential utility in predicting POAF, duration of hospitalization, and hospital costs in patients undergoing OPCABG.

Economic Analysis of Surgical and Interventional Treatments for Patients with Complex Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from a One-Year Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND Surgical treatment methods for patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) who have undergone vascular reconstruction mainly include coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of the study aimed to compare a 1-year follow-up for the patient clinical outcomes and costs between PCI and CABG treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 840 patients enrolled in this study from July 2015 to September 2016. Among the study participants, 420 patients underwent PCI treatment and 420 patients underwent off-pump CABG. Patients costs were assessed from the perspective of the China healthcare and medical insurance system. EuroQOL 5-dimension 3 levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire was used to evaluate the general health status, and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to assess the disease-specific health status. RESULTS After a 1-year follow-up, the all-cause mortality (P=0.0337), the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (P<0.001), and additional revascularization (P<0.001) in PCI group were significantly higher than those in CABG group. Both groups have significant sustained benefits in the SAQ subscale. The CABG group had a higher score on the frequency of angina than the PCI group. In addition, the quality-adjusted life year value of PCI and CABG resulted was 0.8. The average total cost for PCI was $14 643 versus CABG cost of $13 842 (P=0.0492). CONCLUSIONS In the short-term, among the CAD patients with stable triple-vessel or left-main, costs and clinical outcomes are substantially higher for CABG than PCI. Long-term, economic, and health benefits analysis, is warranted.

Costs Five Years After Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a common surgical treatment for ischemic heart disease. Little is known about the long-term costs of conducting the surgery on-pump or off-pump. METHODS: As part of the Randomized On/Off Bypass follow-up study, we followed 2,203 participants randomized to on-pump (n = 1,099) and off-pump (n = 1,104) CABG for 5 years using Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare administrative data. We examined annual costs through 5 years, standardized to 2016 dollars, using multivariate regression models, controlling for site and baseline patient factors. RESULTS: In the first year, including the CABG surgery, annual average costs were $66,599 (SE, $1,946) for the on-pump group and $70,552 (SE, $1,954) for the off-pump group. In years 2 to 5, average costs ranged from $15,000 to $20,000 per year. There was no significant difference between on-pump and off-pump across the 5 years. We explored differences among high-risk subgroups (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal dysfunction, ejection fraction < 35%, over age 70 years), and found no treatment assignment by time interactions, except for a nonsignificant trend in patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the average costs of off-pump and on-pump CABG patients did not statistically differ. Costs do not favor one approach and the decision should be based on clinical risks, especially in subgroups. Future research is warranted to examine post-CABG costs and outcomes for diabetic patients over time.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of intraoperative blood salvage in OPCABG with different amount of bleeding: a single-center, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) surgery with different amount of bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 321 patients who underwent OPCABG between December 2012 and December 2016 at our hospital. Patients treated with IBS or allogeneic blood (AB) transfusions were divided into three groups depending on the amount of bleeding respectively: IBS1 or AB1 group (400-600 ml); IBS2 or AB2 group (600-1000 ml); IBS3 or AB3 group (1000-1500 ml). The intraoperative and postoperative conditions, blood transfusion volume, clinical and hematological outcomes, and total blood transfusion cost were examined. RESULTS: The amount of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in the IBSs groups were significantly lower than that in the ABs groups (P < 0.01). Furthermore, drainage volume 24 h post-surgery (P < 0.05) and white blood cell count (WBC) 2 day post-surgery (P < 0.01) in IBS3 group were significantly higher compared with the AB3 group. Additionally, when IBS cost was 230 USD per set, the total blood transfusion cost in the IBSs groups was significantly higher than that in the ABs groups (P < 0.01); however, when 199 or 184 USD, only the IBS1 group, rather than IBS2 or IBS3, showed significantly higher cost of the total blood transfusion compared with the AB1 group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When the amount of bleeding was 600-1000 ml, IBS can significantly reduce the demand for allogeneic blood, and has no direct adverse effects on coagulation function and recuperation, and is cost-effective in OPCABG.

Cost-effectiveness of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with coronary artery disease: Results from the MASS III trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have reported similar clinical outcomes between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). However, long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS: A prespecified economic study was performed based on the MASS III trial. Costs were estimated for all patients based on observed healthcare resource usage over a 5-year follow-up. Health state utilities were evaluated with the SF-6D questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using a Markov model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with the Monte-Carlo simulation and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were used to address uncertainty. RESULTS: Quality of life improved significantly in both groups during follow-up compared with baseline. At 5 years, when comparing on-pump and off-pump CABG groups, no differences were found in cumulative life-years (4.851 and 4.766 years, P = .319) and QALY gained (4.150 and 4.105 QALYs, P = .332). Mean cost in US dollars per patient during the trial did not differ significantly between the on-pump and off-pump groups ($5890.29 and $5674.75, respectively, P = .409). Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of on-pump versus off-pump CABG was $12,576 per QALY gained, which is above the suggested cost-effectiveness threshold range (from $3210 to 10,122). In the sensitivity analysis, the probability that on-pump CABG is cost-effective compared to off-pump surgery for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $3212 per QALY gained was <1%. For the $10,122 per QALY threshold, the same probability was 35%. CONCLUSION: This decision-analytic model suggests that on-pump CABG is not cost-effective when compared to off-pump CABG from a public health system perspective.

Preoperative factors affecting cost and length of stay for isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: hierarchical linear model analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of preoperative patient and hospital factors on resource use, cost and length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). DESIGN: Observational retrospective study. SETTINGS: Data from the Japanese Administrative Database. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent isolated, elective OPCAB between April 2011 and March 2012. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of this study were inpatient cost and LOS associated with OPCAB. A two-level hierarchical linear model was used to examine the effects of patient and hospital characteristics on inpatient costs and LOS. The independent variables were patient and hospital factors. RESULTS: We identified 2491 patients who underwent OPCAB at 268 hospitals. The mean cost of OPCAB was $40 665 ±7774, and the mean LOS was 23.4±8.2 days. The study found that select patient factors and certain comorbidities were associated with a high cost and long LOS. A high hospital OPCAB volume was associated with a low cost (-6.6%; p=0.024) as well as a short LOS (-17.6%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The hospital OPCAB volume is associated with efficient resource use. The findings of the present study indicate the need to focus on hospital elective OPCAB volume in Japan in order to improve cost and LOS.

Short-term clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) are both feasible, less invasive techniques for coronary revascularization. Although both techniques utilize the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft, HCR uses drug-eluting stents instead of saphenous vein bypass. It remains unclear whether HCR is equal to, better or worse than OPCABG. METHODS AND RESULTS: A meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Seven observational studies were included. There was no significant difference either in in-hospital mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-2.59, P=0.47] or in the MACCE rate (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24-1.64, P=0.34) between the HCR group and the OPCABG group. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the length of hospitalization (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13-0.97, P=0.01), length of ICU stay (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10-0.80, P<0.05), intubation time (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13-0.84, P<0.01), need for red blood transfusion (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56-0.82, P<0.001), and total in-hospital costs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39-1.42, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared with OPCABG, HCR did not improve early survival but decreased the length of hospitalization, length of ICU stay, intubation time, and need for red blood transfusion, and increased total in-hospitalcosts.

The fate at mid-term follow-up of the on-pump vs. off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

AIMS: To evaluate the fate of on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ON-pump CABG) vs. off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OP-CABG) surgery at mid-term follow-up. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2010, 369 patients underwent surgical myocardial revascularization by means of OP-CABG techniques (n = 166) or with ON-pump CABG (n = 203). Data of the two groups of patients were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: As compared with OP-CABG, in the ON-pump CABG patients, mean value of Logistic EuroSCORE (8.1 ± 7.8% vs. 6.2 ± 5.9%, P = 0.04), more extended coronary disease (2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.7 diseased vessels/patient, P < 0.001) consequently requiring greater number of grafts/patient (2.9 ± 0.9 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, P < 0.0001), and emergency surgery (12 vs. 6%, P = 0.03) were more frequently observed. Operative mortality was 1.9% in ON-pump CABG vs. 1.2% in OP-CABG (P = 0.6) and incidence of stroke 2.46 vs. 1.81% (P = 0.7). The incidence of stroke was reduced at 1.2% when OP-CABG PAS-Port 'clamp-less' technique was used.Intraoperatively, costs per patient were higher for OP-CABG vs. ON-pump CABG (1.930,00 +1.050,00 €, if PAS-port system was included, vs. 1.060,00 € for ON-pump surgery). ICU stay (1.9 ± 1.0 days vs. 1.4 ± 0.7 days) and total postoperative in-hospital stay (5.3 ± 3.3 days vs. 5.5 ± 3.5 days) were similar in both groups.At 4 years, survival (91 ± 13% in the ON-pump CABG vs. 84 ± 19% in the OP-CABG), freedom from major adverse cardiac events (composite end-point of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and repeat coronary revascularization of the target lesion) (82 ± 9% vs. 76 ± 14%), and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (80 ± 11% vs. 72 ± 16%) were not significantly different. Freedom from late cardiac death was slightly significant higher after ON-pump CABG (98 ± 4% vs. 90 ± 10%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Mid-term freedom from composite end-points is similar after ON-pump CABG and OP-CABG. Freedom from cardiac death appears to be better after ON-pump CABG. OP-CABG needs for more expensive surgical technique. OP-CABG performed by an experienced surgical team using 'clamp-less' techniques can be an effective strategy in reducing postoperative stroke.

The cost implications of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery at one year.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost implications of the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Off or On Pump Revascularization Study (CORONARY) at 1 year. METHODS: Country-specific healthcare costs were obtained from public databases or local experts from each country in the CORONARY trial. Purchasing power parities were applied to these costs of consumed healthcare resources. Analyses of subgroups included in the CORONARY clinical trial were also conducted. Costs are reported in US dollars. RESULTS: After 1 year, the total cost per patient in the off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) arm was $9,650 ($9,216 to $10,285) compared with $9,583 ($9,239 to $9,988) for the on-pump CABG arm; that resulted in a nonsignificant increase of $68 (-$575 to $710). Similar findings were noted for various subgroups. There were also no differences due to late conversions. CONCLUSIONS: The CORONARY trial demonstrated that off-pump CABG was clinically as safe and effective as on-pump CABG with no difference in costs. Thus, the decision as to which method to choose is free from costs considerations and should be based on patient preference and surgeon expertise (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft [CABG] Off or On Pump Revascularization Study [CORONARY]; clinicaltrials.gov NCT00463294).

The impact of hybrid coronary revascularization on hospital costs and reimbursements.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive, left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels for patients with multivessel coronary disease. The financial implications of HCR have not been compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) through sternotomy. METHODS: The contribution margin is a fiduciary calculation (best hospital payment estimate--total variable costs) used by hospitals to determine fiscal viability of services. From 2010 to 2011, 26 Medicare patients underwent HCR at a single United States institution and were compared with 28 randomly selected, contemporaneous Medicare patients undergoing multivessel OPCAB. All HCR patients underwent a robotic-assisted, sternal-sparing, off-pump, left internal mammary artery-LAD anastomosis plus percutaneous intervention to non-LAD vessels. A linear regression model was used to compare fiscal and utilization outcomes of HCR to OPCAB adjusted for hospital length of stay and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. RESULTS: On regression analysis controlling for overall length of stay and Predicted Risk of Mortality score, the contribution margin (+$8,771, p<0.0001) was greater for HCR than for OPCAB. Despite higher total cost for HCR compared with OPCAB (+$7,026, p=0.001), the total variable cost (+$2,281, p=0.07) was not significantly different. Best payment estimates (+11,031, p<0.0001) and Medicare reimbursements (+$8,992, p=0.002) were higher for HCR than for OPCAB, and there was a reduction in blood transfusion (-1.5 units, p<0.0001), ventilator time (-10 hours, p=0.001), and postoperative length of stay (-1.2 days, p=0.002) for the HCR group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OPCAB, HCR results in a greater contribution margin for hospitals. This may result from higher reimbursement as well as improved resource utilization postoperatively, which may offset more expensive procedural costs associated with HCR.

On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multisite trial.

BACKGROUND: Questions have been raised about the costs and outcomes for patients receiving on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery. As part of the Department of Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) multisite trial, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare on-pump versus off-pump patients' quality-adjusted life-years and costs at 1 year. METHODS: One-year outcomes and costs (standardized to 2010 dollars) were estimated in multivariate regression models, controlling for site and baseline patient factors. The 1-year incremental cost-effectiveness analysis ratio with 95% confidence intervals was calculated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Eighteen centers randomly assigned 2,203 participants to on-pump (n=1,099) versus off-pump (n=1,104) coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Both groups' quality of life improved significantly after surgery (p<0.01) compared with baseline, but no differences were found between treatment groups. Adjusted cost of the index coronary artery bypass graft surgery hospitalization was $36,046 on-pump and $36,536 off-pump (p=0.16). At 1 year, on-pump adjusted cost was $56,023 versus $59,623 off-pump (p=0.046). Off-pump-to-on-pump conversions after first distal anastomosis (4.8%) had significantly higher 1-year costs. Excluding conversions, there were no significant differences between treatments for index hospitalization or 1-year total costs. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery was more expensive than on-pump when late off-pump-to-on-pump conversions were included. Excluding late conversions, there was no difference in quality-adjusted life-years or costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00032630; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00032630.

The cost of open heart surgery in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: Open Heart Surgery (OHS) is not commonly practiced in Nigeria and most patients who require OHS are referred abroad. There has recently been a resurgence of interest in establishing OHS services in Nigeria but the cost is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the direct cost of OHS procedures in Nigeria. METHODS: The study was performed prospectively from November to December 2011. Three concurrent operations were selected as being representative of the scope of surgery offered at our institution. These procedures were Atrial Septal Defect (ASD) Repair, Off Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (OPCAB) and Mitral Valve Replacement (MVR). Cost categories contributing to direct costs of OHS (Investigations, Drugs, Perfusion, Theatre, Intensive Care, Honorarium and Hospital Stay) were tracked to determine the total direct cost for the 3 selected OHS procedures. RESULTS: ASD repair cost $ 6,230 (Drugs $600, Intensive Care $410, Investigations $955, Perfusion $1080, Theatre $1360, Honorarium $925, Hospital Stay $900). OPCAB cost $8,430 (Drugs $740, Intensive Care $625, Investigations $3,020, Perfusion $915, Theatre $1305, Honorarium $925, Hospital Stay $900). MVR with a bioprosthetic valve cost $11,200 (Drugs $1200, Intensive Care $500, Investigations $3040, Perfusion $1100, Theatre $3,535, Honorarium $925, Hospital Stay $900). CONCLUSION: The direct cost of OHS in Nigeria currently ranges between $6,230 and $11,200. These costs compare favorably with the cost of OHS abroad and can serve as a financial incentive to patients, sponsors and stakeholders to have OHS procedures done in Nigeria.

OPCAB surgery is cost-effective for elderly patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effective operative strategy for coronary artery bypass surgery in patients above 70 years. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial of 900 patients above 70 years of age subjected to coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients were randomized to either on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Data on direct and indirect costs were prospectively collected. Preoperatively and six months postoperatively, quality of life was assessed using EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Perioperative in-hospital costs and costs of re-intervention were included. RESULTS: The Summary Score of EuroQol-5D increased in both groups between preoperatively and postoperatively. In the on-pump group, it increased from 0.75 (0.16) (mean (SD)) to 0.84 (0.17), while the increase in the off-pump group was from 0.75 (0.15) to 0.84 (0.18). The difference between the groups was 0.0016 QALY and not significantly different. The mean costs were 148.940 D.Kr (CI, 130.623 D.Kr-167.252 D.Kr) for an on-pump patient and 138.693 D.Kr (CI, 123.167 D.Kr-154.220 D.Kr) for an off-pump patient. The ICER base-case point estimate was 6,829,999 D.Kr/QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed 89% probability of off-pump being cost-effective at a threshold value of 269,400 D.Kr/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump surgery tends to be more cost-effective than on-pump surgery. Long-term comparisons are warranted.