Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM). RESULTS: Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

[Cost-revenue aspects of endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies with respect to the introduction of a new thoracic side-branch prosthesis]. / Kosten-Erlös-Aspekte der endovaskulären Versorgung distaler Aortenbogenpathologien im Hinblick auf die Einführung einer neuen thorakalen Seitenarmprothese.

BACKGROUND: The standard vascular surgical procedure (SV) for the treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies involves a hybrid approach using a left carotid-subclavian bypass and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Considering the introduction of a thoracic side branch prosthesis (TBE), the aim of this study was to analyze the cost-revenue aspects of both procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cases treated by SV from 2017 to 2022. To draw conclusions regarding the use of TBE, the main diagnoses and procedures of SV were recoded based on current classifications (ICD/OPS 2023) for revenue calculations and regrouped according to aG-DRG 2023. An OPS modification and regrouping were performed for modeling TBE revenues. RESULTS: A total of 13 cases were identified (mean age 62.5 ± 13.8 years; 10 males). After regrouping, the following DRGs were obtained: F42Z in N = 5, F51A in N = 4, F08B in N = 2, and F07A and F36B each in N = 1. The total revenue after regrouping was €â€¯666,514.13, including an additional payment (ZE) of €â€¯132,729.14. With the modeled application of TBE, a total revenue of €â€¯659,212.19 was achieved. Compared to SV, this represents a revenue decrease of €â€¯16,886.71 (changed DRG), but with an increase in ZE revenue by €â€¯65,559.78 (different ZE). The use of TBE resulted in a saving of 74 occupancy days, including 13.5 days in intensive care. CONCLUSION: A cost coverage seems probable with a change in the procedure, despite the yet to be determined pricing of TBE. This is highly dependent on the coding quality and the future development of ZE, given the annually changing DRG relative weights. Precise and transparent performance and cost documentation are essential for determining the pricing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus standard grafts for hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate-access arteriovenous grafts (IAAVGs), or early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (AVGs), are more expensive than standard grafts (sAVGs) but can be used immediately after placement, reducing the need for a tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC). We hypothesized that a decrease in TDC-related complications would make IAAVGs a cost-effective alternative to sAVGs. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state-transition model in which patients initially received either an IAAVG or an sAVG and a TDC until graft usability; patients were followed through multiple subsequent access procedures for a 60-month time horizon. The model simulated mortality and typical graft- and TDC-related complications, with parameter estimates including probabilities, costs, and utilities derived from previous literature. A key parameter was median time to TDC removal after graft placement, which was studied under both real-world (7 days for IAAVG and 70 days for sAVG) and ideal (no TDC placed with IAAVG and 1 month for sAVG) conditions. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement rates and reflect a payer perspective. Both microsimulation (10,000 trials) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 samples) were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: IAAVG placement is a dominant strategy under both real-world ($1201.16 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) and ideal ($1457.97 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) conditions. Under real-world parameters, the result was most sensitive to the time to TDC removal; IAAVGs are cost-effective if a TDC is maintained for ≥23 days after sAVG placement. The mean catheter time was lower with IAAVG (3.9 vs 8.7 months; P < .0001), as was the mean number of access-related infections (0.55 vs 0.74; P < .0001). Median survival in the model was 29 months. Overall mortality was similar between groups (76.3% vs 76.7% at 5 years; P = .33), but access-related mortality trended toward improvement with IAAVG (6.1% vs 6.8% at 5 years; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: The Markov decision analysis model supported our hypothesis that IAAVGs come with added initial cost but are ultimately cost-saving and more effective. This apparent benefit is due to our prediction that a decreased number of catheter days per patient would lead to a decreased number of access-related infections.

Financial viability of endovascular aortic repair in the modern era.

BACKGROUND: In the current era of cost containment, the financial impact of high-cost procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains an area of intensive interest. Previous reports suggested slim to negative operating margins with EVAR, prompting widespread initiatives to reduce cost and to improve reimbursement. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the reclassification of EVAR to more specific diagnosis-related group (DRG) coding and predicted an overall increase in hospital reimbursement. The potential impact of this change has not been described. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective EVAR at a single institution between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified retrospectively, then stratified by date. Group 1 patients underwent EVAR before DRG change in 2015 and were classified with DRG 237/238, major cardiovascular procedure. Group 2 patients underwent EVAR after the change and were classified as DRG 268/269, aortic/heart assist procedures. The total direct cost included implant cost, operating room (OR) labor, room and board, and other supply costs. Net revenue reflected real payer mix values without extrapolation based on standard Medicare rates. Hospital profit was defined as the contribution to indirect (CTI), subtracting total direct cost from net revenue. RESULTS: A total of 188 encounters were included, 67 (36%) in group 1 and 121 (64%) in group 2. Medicare patients composed 84% of group 1 and 81% of group 2. CTI (profit) increased by $4447 (+123%) from $3615 in group 1 to $8062 in group 2. Net revenue per encounter increased by $2054 (+7.1%). In group 1, the higher reimbursement DRG code 237 was applied in 5 of 67 (7.5%) patients, whereas DRG code 268 was assigned in 19 of 121 (15.1%) patients in group 2. Total direct cost per encounter decreased by $2012 (-7.9%). This decrease in cost was driven by a reduction in implant cost, from a mean $16,914 per encounter in group 1 to a mean $15,655 in group 2 (-$1259 or -7.4% per encounter) and by a decrease in OR labor cost, $2838 in group 1 to $2361 in group 2 (-$477 or -17.0% per encounter). CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in hospital CTI was observed for elective EVAR during the course of the study. The increased DRG reimbursement after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coding changes in 2015 was a major driver of this salutary change. Notably, efforts to reduce implant and OR cost as well as to improve coding and documentation accuracy over time had an equally important impact on financial return.

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.

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.

Versatile use of catheter systems for deployment of the Pipeline embolization device: a comparison of biaxial and triaxial catheter systems.

BACKGROUND: A Pipeline embolization device (PED; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) can be deployed using either a biaxial or a triaxial catheter delivery system. OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of these two catheter delivery systems for intracranial aneurysm treatment with the PED. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients undergoing PED deployment with biaxial or triaxial catheter systems between 2014 and 2016 was conducted. Experienced neurointerventionalists performed the procedures. Patients who received multiple PEDs or adjunctive coils were excluded. The two groups were compared for PED deployment time, total fluoroscopy time, patient radiation exposure, complications, and cost. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients with 89 intracranial aneurysms were treated with one PED each. In 49 cases, PEDs were deployed using biaxial access; triaxial access was used in 33 cases. Time (min) from guide catheter run to PED deployment was significantly shorter in the biaxial group (24.0±18.7 vs 38.4±31.1, P=0.006) as was fluoroscopy time (28.8±23.0 vs 50.3±27.1, P=0.001). Peak radiation skin exposure (mGy) in the biaxial group was less than in the triaxial group (1243.7±808.2 vs 2074.6±1505.6, P=0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in transient and permanent complication rates or modified Rankin Scale scores at 30 days. The triaxial access system cost more than the biaxial access system (average $3285 vs $1790, respectively). Occlusion rates at last follow-up (mean 6 months) were similar between the two systems (average 88.1%: biaxial, 89.2%: triaxial). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate near-equivalent safety and effectiveness between biaxial and triaxial approaches. Some reductions in cost and procedure time were noted with the biaxial system.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is financially viable at a high-volume medical center with positive hospital contribution margins and physician payment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine hospital finances and physician payment associated with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) for complex aortic disease at a high-volume center and to compare the costs and reimbursements for FEVAR with open repair, and their trends over time. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical and administrative records. Data for each patient included inpatient and outpatient encounters 3 months before and 12 months after the primary aneurysm operation. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, 157 and 71 patients were treated with physician-modified endograft (PMEG) and Cook Zenith Fenestrated (ZFEN) repair, respectively. Twenty-one patients who were evaluated for FEVAR underwent open repair instead. The 228 FEVAR patients provided a total positive contribution margin (reimbursements minus direct costs) of $2.65 million. The index encounter (the primary aneurysm operation and hospitalization) accounted for the majority (90.6%) of the total contribution margin. The largest component (50.3%) of direct cost for FEVAR from the index encounter was implant/graft expenses. The average direct costs for FEVAR and for open repair from the index encounter were $34,688 and $35,020, respectively. The average contribution margins for FEVAR and for open repair were approximately $10,548 and $21,349, respectively, attributable to differences in reimbursement. The average direct cost for FEVAR trended down over time as cumulative experience increased. Average reimbursement for FEVAR increased after Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved payments with the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial for PMEG in 2011, and a new technology add-on payment for ZFEN in 2012. These factors transitioned the average contribution margin from negative to positive in 2012. The average physician payments for PMEG increased from $128 to $5848 after the start of the IDE trial. The average physician payments for ZFEN and for open repair between 2011 and 2017 were $7597 and $7781, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR can be performed at a high-volume medical center with positive contribution margins and with comparable physician payments to open repair. At this institution, hospital reimbursement and physician payments improved for PMEG with participation in an IDE trial, while hospital direct costs decreased for both PMEG and ZFEN with accumulated experience.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chimney/snorkel versus fenestrated endovascular repair for high-risk patients with complex abdominal aortic pathologies.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chimney (ch-EVAR) vs. fenestrated aneurysm repair (f-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic pathologies. Endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic pathologies with involvement of renal arteries includes use of f-EVAR as first line treatment. However, lack of availability and suitability has necessitated an alternative strategy employing parallel or snorkel/chimney grafts (ch-EVAR). METHODS: Between January 2013 and January 2017, prospectively collected data of elective and symptomatic patients with complex aortic pathologies treated by single or double ch-EVAR (N.=111) or by f-EVAR with three fenestrations (N.=37) were evaluated. The primary endpoint was cost-effectiveness analysis defined as the summary of material costs, in-hospital costs and additional costs due to procedure-related reinterventions during a follow-up period averaging 37.2 months. RESULTS: No differences between both groups were found in terms of demographics (P=0.32), age (P=0.058) and hospital stay at initial procedure (P=0.956). Index procedure and hospitalization median costs were € 22,171 for ch-EVAR and € 42,116 for f-EVAR, respectively (P<0.001). The median overall costs including costs after reinterventions during follow-up were € 22,872 for ch-EVAR and € 42,128 for f-EVAR (P<0.001). Six patients (5.4%) in the ch-EVAR group required readmission compared to three patients (8.1%) required readmission for reinterventions in the f-EVAR group (P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Ch-EVAR is significantly more cost-effective compared to f-EVAR. The two procedures have comparable readmission rates for reinterventions.

The evolution of stent grafts for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: how design changes affect clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by the ballooning of the patient's aortic wall. One treatment for this condition, Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR), has demonstrated a greater degree of safety in the short term and has the potential to be more cost-effective than its open surgical counterpart.Areas covered: EVAR comes with the added risks of late-term failure, however, as the endografts are subject to displacement, loss of seal against the aortic wall, or failure to serve as a means of bypassing the aneurysm. Device manufacturers have made constant iterations to the endoprostheses available on the market to reduce these complications, expand the pool of suitable patients, and reduce cost of endovascular repair while ensuring patient safety and strong clinical outcomes.Expert opinion: Short and midterm clinical outcomes have improved markedly over 20 years and the number of patients who qualify for EVAR has increased dramatically. Late-term failures and the need for life-long monitoring for complications remain the Achille's heel for this treatment paradigm. Differences in short- and long-term outcomes, as well as overall costs related to lifelong monitoring and late-term complications and reinterventions, still require continuous comparison to previous devices and the historically proven open surgical repair.

Comparison of perioperative costs with fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative health care utilization and costs in patients undergoing elective fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain unclear. METHODS: The fast-track EVAR group included patients treated with a 14 Fr stent graft, bilateral percutaneous access, no general anesthesia or intensive care monitoring, and next-day hospital discharge. The standard EVAR group was identified from Medicare administrative claims using a matching algorithm to adjust for imbalances in patient characteristics. Hospital outcomes included operating room time, intensive care monitoring, hospital stay, secondary interventions, and major adverse events (MAEs). Perioperative outcomes occurring from hospital discharge to 30 days postdischarge included MAE, secondary interventions, and unrelated readmissions. RESULTS: Among 1000 matched patients (250 fast-track; 750 standard), hospital outcomes favored the fast-track EVAR group, including shorter operating room time (2.30 vs 2.83 hrs, P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.16 vs 1.69 d, P<0.001), less need for intensive care monitoring (4.4% vs 48.0%, P<0.001), and lower secondary intervention rate (0% vs 2.4%, P=0.01). Postdischarge outcomes also favored fast-track EVAR with a lower rate of MAE (0% vs 7.2%, P<0.001) and all-cause readmission (1.6% vs 6.8%, P=0.001). The total cost to the health care system during the perioperative period was $26,730 with fast-track EVAR vs $30,730 with standard EVAR. Total perioperative health care costs were $4000 (95% CI: $3130-$4830) lower with fast-track EVAR vs standard EVAR, with $2980 in savings to hospitals and $1030 savings to health care payers. CONCLUSION: A fast-track EVAR protocol using a 14 Fr stent graft resulted in shorter procedure time, lower intensive care utilization, faster discharge, lower incidence of MAE, lower readmission rates, and lower perioperative costs compared to standard EVAR.

Impact of Early Cannulation Grafts on Quality and Cost of Care for Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: The annual cost of care associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) per patient on hemodialysis is approaching $100,000, with nearly $42 billion in national spend per year. Early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ECAVGs) help decrease the use of central venous catheters (CVCs), thus potentially decreasing the cost of care. However, a formal financial analysis that also includes the cost of CVC-related complications and secondary interventions has not been completed. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the overall financial costs associated with ECAVGs on patients with ESRD during a one-year period. METHODS: Access modality, complications, secondary interventions, hospital outcomes, and cost of care were determined for 397 sequential patients who underwent access creation between July 2014 and October 2018. A detailed financial analysis was completed, including an evaluation of implant, supplies, medications, laboratories, labor, and other direct costs. All variables were measured at the time of the index procedure, 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, 270 days, and one year. RESULTS: There were 131 patients who underwent arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and 266 who underwent ECAVG for dialysis access. The average cost of care was $17,523 for AVF and $5,894 for ECAVG at one year (P < 0.01). Fewer CVC-related complications and secondary interventions associated with ECAVGs saved $11,630 per patient with ESRD, primarily in the form of supply costs. Fewer CVCs in the patients receiving ECAVGs led to an additional $1,083 decrease in cost associated with sepsis reduction at one year. A subsequent decrease in length of stay and ICU utilization led to an additional $2.0 million decrease in annual cost of care for patients with ESRD. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECAVGs has significant cost savings over using an AVF and CVC for urgent-start dialysis in patients with ESRD. This cost savings is secondary to decreased CVC-related complications and fewer secondary interventions. Significant national savings are possible with appropriate use of ECAVGs in patients with ESRD.

Clinical and Economic Benefits of Stent Grafts in Dysfunctional and Thrombosed Hemodialysis Access Graft Circuits in the REVISE Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare reinterventions and associated costs to maintain arteriovenous graft hemodialysis access circuits after rescue with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), with or without concurrent Viabahn stent grafts, over 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter (n = 30 sites) study evaluated reintervention number, type, and cost in 269 patients randomized to undergo placement of stent grafts or PTA alone. Outcomes were 24-month average cumulative number of reinterventions, associated costs, and total costs for all patients and in 4 groups based on index treatment and clinical presentation (thrombosed or dysfunctional). RESULTS: Over 24 months, the patients in the stent graft arm had a 27% significant reduction in the average number of reinterventions within the circuit compared to the PTA arm (3.7 stent graft vs 5.1 PTA; P = .005) and similar total costs ($27,483 vs $28,664; P = .49). In thrombosed grafts, stent grafts significantly reduced the number of reinterventions (3.7 stent graft vs 6.2 PTA; P = .022) and had significantly lower total costs compared to the PTA arm ($30,329 vs $37,206; P = .027). In dysfunctional grafts, no statistical difference was observed in the number of reinterventions or total costs (3.7 stent graft vs 4.4 PTA; P = .12, and $25,421 stent graft and $22,610 PTA; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 months, the use of stent grafts significantly reduced the number of reinterventions for all patients, driven by patients presenting with thrombosed grafts. Compared to PTA, stent grafts reduced overall treatment costs for patients presenting with thrombosed grafts and had similar costs for stenotic grafts.

Outcomes and cost of fenestrated versus standard endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has expanded the indications of this minimally invasive procedure to include patients with pararenal aneurysms. The actual cost of this relatively newer technology compared with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has not been studied before. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze in-hospital costs and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing FEVAR vs EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare Database (2012-2015), we identified all patients who underwent elective EVAR and FEVAR. Univariable (χ2 test, Student t-test, median test) and multivariable (logistic regression and generalized linear modeling) analyses were implemented to examine in-hospital cost and adverse outcomes adjusting for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 17,689 elective endovascular AAA repairs were performed; 1641 patients underwent FEVAR (9%), and the remaining 16,048 patients underwent standard EVAR (91%). Patients undergoing FEVAR were more likely to be white (86.3% vs 84.3%; P = .03). Both groups had similar comorbidities except for cerebrovascular disease, which was higher among patients undergoing FEVAR (8.4% vs 6.7%; P = .01). The total length of hospital stay was slightly higher in patients undergoing FEVAR compared with EVAR (mean [standard deviation], 2.40 [3.39] days vs 2.23 [3.10] days; P = .03). The rates of any complication (11.3% vs 9.6%), renal injury (5.8% vs 4.3%), and neurologic injury (0.7% vs 0.4%) were significantly higher in the FEVAR group (all P < .05). No differences were seen in mortality (0.8% vs 0.5%) or cardiac (4.9% vs 4.4%), pulmonary (2.4% vs 2.2%), and bowel (1.5% vs 1.2%) complications between the two groups (all P > .05). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, FEVAR was associated with 40% increased odds of renal failure (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.76; P = .004) and 91% increased odds of neurologic injury (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.57; P = .04). The median total cost of the treatment was also significantly higher among patients undergoing FEVAR ($28,227 vs $26,781; P < .001). After adjustment, generalized linear modeling analysis showed that the cost of FEVAR was on average $1612 higher than the cost of EVAR (adjusted cost, $1612; 95% CI, $1123-$2101; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of elective endovascular AAA repairs, compared with standard EVAR, FEVAR is associated with significantly increased odds of renal and neurologic injury. In addition, despite adjusting for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and major complications, total cost of FEVAR was significantly higher compared with standard EVAR. This is likely driven by the additional cost of fenestrated endografts and by the increased rate of complications related to FEVAR.

Financial implications of coding inaccuracies in patients undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective, single university hospital review of all elective, infrarenal EVARs performed from 2010 to 2015 was completed. Index procedure hospitalizations were reviewed for MS-DRG classification, comorbidities, complications, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Patients' comorbidities and postoperative complications were tabulated to verify accuracy of MS-DRG classification. Misclassified patients were audited and reclassified as "standard" or "complex" on the basis of a corrected MS-DRG: standard for 238 (major cardiovascular procedure without MCC) and complex for 237 (major cardiovascular procedure with MCC). RESULTS: There were 104 EVARs identified, including 91 standard (original MS-DRG 238, n = 85; MS-DRG 254, n = 6) and 13 complex hospitalizations (original MS-DRG 237, n = 9; MS-DRG 238, n = 3; MS-DRG 253, n = 1). On review, 3% (n = 3) of the originally assigned MS-DRG 238 patients were undercoded while actually meeting MCC criteria for a 237 designation. Hospitalizations coded with MS-DRG 253 and 254 were considered billing errors because MS-DRG 237 and 238 are more appropriate and specific classifications as major cardiovascular procedures. Overall, there was a 9.6% miscoding rate (n = 10), representing a total lost billing opportunity of $587,799. Mean LOS for standard and complex hospitalizations was 3.0 ± 1.5 days vs 7.8 ± 6.0 days (P < .001), with respective intensive care unit LOS of 0.4 ± 0.7 day vs 2.6 ± 3.1 days (P < .001). Postoperative complications occurred in 23% of patients; however, not all met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria as MCC. Miscoded complexity was found to be due to postoperative events in all patients rather than to missed comorbidities. Mean hospitalization cost for standard and complex patients was $28,833 ± $5597 vs $41,543 ± $12,943 (P < .001). Based on institutional reimbursement data, this translates to a mean loss of $5407 per correctly coded patient. Miscoded patients represent an additional overall reimbursement loss of $140,102. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a large lost billing opportunity with miscoding of elective EVARs from 2010 to 2015, with errors in categorization of the procedure as well as miscoding of complexity. The revenue impact is potentially significant in this population, and additional reviews of coding practices should be considered.

Episode-based cost reduction for endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Effective strategies to reduce costs associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain elusive for many medical centers. In this study, targeted interventions to reduce inpatient EVAR costs were identified and implemented. METHODS: From June 2015 to February 2016, we analyzed the EVAR practice at a high-volume academic medical center to identify, to rank, and ultimately to reduce procedure-related costs. In this analysis, per-patient direct costs to the hospital were compared before (September 2013-May 2015) and after (March 2016-January 2017) interventions were implemented. Improvement efforts concentrated on three categories that accounted for a majority of costs: implants, rooming costs, and computed tomography scans performed during the index hospitalization. RESULTS: Costs were compared between 141 EVAR procedures before implementation (PRE period) and 47 EVAR procedures after implementation (POST period). Based on data obtained through the Society for Vascular Surgery EVAR Cost Demonstration Project, it was determined that implantable device costs were higher than those at peer institutions. New purchasing strategies were implemented, resulting in a 30.8% decrease in per-case device costs between the PRE and POST periods. Care pathways were modified to reduce use of and costs for computed tomography scans obtained during the index hospitalization. Compared with baseline, per-case imaging costs decreased by 92.9% (P < .001), including a 99.0% (P = .001) reduction in postprocessing costs. Care pathways were also implemented to reduce preprocedural rooming for patients traveling long distances the day before surgery, resulting in a 50% decrease in utilization rate (35.4% PRE to 17.0% POST; P = .021), without having a significant impact on median postprocedural length of stay (PRE, 2 days [interquartile range, 1-11 days]; POST, 2 days [1-7 days]; P = .185). Medication costs also decreased by 38.2% (P < .001) as a hospital-wide effort. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive costs associated with EVAR threaten the sustainability of these procedures in health care organizations. Targeted cost reduction efforts can effectively reduce expenses without compromising quality or limiting patients' access.

Current treatment status and medical costs for hemodialysis vascular access based on analysis of the Korean Health Insurance Database.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Republic of Korea is a country where the hemodialysis population is growing rapidly. It is believed that the numbers of treatments related to vascular access-related complications are also increasing. This study investigated the current status of treatment and medical expenses for vascular access in Korean patients on hemodialysis. METHODS: This was a descriptive observational study. We inspected the insurance claims of patients with chronic kidney disease who underwent hemodialysis between January 2008 and December 2016. We calculated descriptive statistics of the frequencies and medical expenses of procedures for vascular access. RESULTS: The national medical expenses for access-related treatment were 7.12 billion KRW (equivalent to 6.36 million USD) in 2008, and these expenses increased to 42.12 billion KRW (equivalent to 37.67 million USD) in 2016. The population of hemodialysis patients, the annual frequency of access-related procedures, and the total medical cost for access-related procedures increased by 1.6-, 2.6-, and 5.9-fold, respectively, over the past 9 years. The frequency and costs of access care increased as the number of patients on hemodialysis increased. The increase in vascular access-related costs has largely been driven by increased numbers of percutaneous angioplasty. CONCLUSION: The increasing proportion of medical costs for percutaneous angioplasty represents a challenge in the management of end-stage renal disease in Korea. It is essential to identify the clinical and physiological aspects as well as anatomical abnormalities before planning angioplasty. A timely surgical correction could be a viable option to control the rapid growth of access-related medical expenses.