A Cost Calculation of EVAR and FEVAR Procedures at an European Academic Hospital

Enhancing Arterial Closure in Endovascular Aortic Procedures: The Efficacy of Echo-Guided ProGlide Technique

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic surgery is increasingly becoming the standard treatment. Percutaneous access preclosing systems appear to be effective and notably the Proglide (PG). We aimed to prospectively assess the clinical effectiveness of combining ultrasound-guided femoral puncture with ultrasound-guided PG deployment.

METHODS

Our single-center study consecutively included patients managed at a tertiary center from May to September 2023, undergoing endovascular aortic surgery. The placement of PG was performed under ultrasound guidance. Preoperative patient characteristics were evaluated using preoperative computed tomography scans. Clinical and technical success were defined, respectively, as the ability to achieve complete hemostasis confirmed by ultrasound 48 hr postprocedure and as the successful placement of a PG under ultrasound guidance contributing to final hemostasis.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included over a 6-month period, totaling 34 common femoral arteries (CFAs). Fourteen were male, with an average age of 72.8 ± 8.2 years. Among the 34 CFA, CFA had diameter of 12.05 ± 2.4 mm and a depth of 38.0 ± 13.4 mm. The mean introducer sheath diameter was 6.2 ± 1.5 mm with a sheath to femoral artery ratio of 0.54 ± 0.18. Successful Proglide placement under ultrasound guidance was achieved in 100% of cases. No PG failure occurred. Clinical and technical success were, respectively, of 95% and 100%. One small pseudoaneurysm was observed at 48 hr treated medically. No CFA access reintervention was required.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique of ultrasound-guided PG deployment in aortic surgery is a safe and effective method for achieving hemostasis. It effectively prevents PG failures at a lower cost.

Trends in hospitalization of patients undergoing endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms based on cerebrospinal fluid drainage strategy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify trends in hospital length of stay (HLOS) and intensive care unit length of stay (ICULOS), and the relationship with cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) protocols in patients undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent elective FB-EVAR for extent I to IV TAAAs between 2008 and 2023 at a single aortic center of excellence was conducted. Patient demographics, cardiovascular comorbidities, surgical risk, technical details, CSFD strategy (prophylactic or therapeutic), procedural success, and perioperative outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into two groups based on CSFD protocol. Group 1 included patients treated before 2020 when prophylactic CSFD was performed widely, and Group 2 consisted of patients treated since 2020 with therapeutic CSFD. Primary end points were HLOS, ICULOS, major adverse events, and perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

FB-EVAR was performed in 702 patients; 412 underwent elective TAAA repair and were included in the analysis. Mean age was 73 ± 8 years and 68% were male. Patient-specific manufactured devices were used in 252 patients (61%), physician-modified endografts in 110 (27%), and 50 patients (12%) were treated with off-the-shelf devices. Demographics, aneurysm extent, major adverse events (including spinal cord ischemia [SCI]), and mortality were similar in both groups. A significant reduction in mean HLOS between the groups (9 ± 9 vs 6 ± 5 days; P = .02) coincided with decreased use of prophylactic CSFD (70% vs 1.2%; P < .001), with similar rates of SCI (7.6% vs 4.9%; P = .627) and ICULOS (3 ± 3 vs 2.5 ± 3; P = .19). Patients in the therapeutic drainage cohort (group 2) had a higher incidence of congestive heart failure (24% vs 11%; P = .003), hypercholesterolemia (91% vs 80%; P = .015), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55% vs 37%; P = .004), and peripheral artery disease (39% vs 19%; P < .001) compared with group 1, suggesting treatment of a more complex patient cohort. On adjusted multivariable analysis accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, comorbidities, and device type, the difference in HLOS remained statistically significant (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

HLOS decreased over time in patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAA after transition from a prophylactic to a therapeutic CSFD protocol. This transition was the only modifiable, independent risk factor for a shorter HLOS, without an increase in SCI, albeit with similar ICULOS.

The financial burden associated with endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms using physician-modified fenestrated-branched endografts

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysm repair is more complex and requires more devices than infrarenal aneurysm repair. It is unclear if current reimbursement covers the cost of delivering this more advanced form of vascular care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics of fenestrated-branched (FB-EVAR) physician-modified endograft (PMEG) repairs.

METHODS

We obtained technical and professional cost and revenue data for four consecutive fiscal years (July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2021) at our quaternary referral institution. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent PMEG FB-EVAR in a uniform fashion by a single surgeon for thoracoabdominal/pararenal aortic aneurysms. Patients in industry-sponsored clinical trials or receiving Cook Zenith Fenestrated grafts were excluded. Financial data were analyzed for the index operation. Technical costs were divided into direct costs that included devices and billable supplies and indirect costs including overhead.

RESULTS

62 patients (79% male, mean age: 74 years, 66% thoracoabdominal aneurysms) met inclusion criteria. The mean aneurysm size was 6.0 cm, the mean total operating time was 219 minutes, and the median hospital length of stay was 2 days. PMEGs were created with a mean number of 3.7 fenestrations, using a mean of 8.6 implantable devices per case. The average technical cost per case was $71,198, and the average technical reimbursement was $57,642, providing a net negative technical margin of $13,556 per case. Of this cohort, 31 patients (50%) were insured by Medicare remunerated under diagnosis-related group code 268/269. Their respective average technical reimbursement was $41,293, with a mean negative margin of $22,989 per case, with similar findings for professional costs. The primary driver of technical cost was implantable devices, accounting for 77% of total technical cost per case over the study period. The total operating margin, including technical and professional cost and revenue, for the cohort during the study period was negative $1,560,422.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEG FB-EVAR for pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms produces a substantially negative operating margin for the index operation driven largely by device costs. Device cost alone already exceeds total technical revenue and presents an opportunity for cost reduction. In addition, increased reimbursement for FB-EVAR, especially among Medicare beneficiaries, will be important to facilitate patient access to such innovative technology.

Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of in-hospital serious adverse events in patients ≥75 years of age undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study sought to identify the factors associated with the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events after elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in older patients within the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients ages ≥75 years who received GORE EXCLUDER AAA Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, AZ) for elective EVAR. Based on the age at index elective EVAR, patients were categorized into 3 groups for subsequent analyses: those ages 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and ≥85 years. The primary end points for this study were the incidence of serious adverse events and all-cause mortality. In-hospital complications were defined according to the International Organization for Standardization 14155 standard (https://www.iso.org/standard/71690.html) and considered serious adverse events if they led to any of the following: (1) a life-threatening illness or injury, (2) a permanent impairment of a body structure or a body function, (3) in-patient or prolonged hospitalization, or (4) medical or surgical intervention to prevent life-threatening illness or injury or permanent impairment to a body structure or a body function.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,333 older patients (ages 75-79: n = 601; 80-84: n = 474; and ≥85: n = 258) underwent elective EVAR in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment data set and were included in the present analysis. In total, 12 patients (0.9%) died perioperatively, and 103 patients (7.7%) experienced ≥1 in-hospital serious adverse event, with 18 patients (1.3%) experiencing >1 in-hospital complications. No significant differences were seen between the age groups in the rates of in-hospital serious adverse events (7.3% vs 8.2% vs 7.8%; P = .86). In logistic regression analysis, a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio = 2.014; 95% confidence interval, 1.215-3.340; P = .006) and prior requirement for dialysis (odds ratio = 4.655; 95% confidence interval, 1.087-19.928; P = .038) resulted as predictors for occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events. In the whole cohort, the 5-year survival was 63% for patients who did not experience any in-hospital serious adverse events compared with 51% for those who experienced any complications (P = .003). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, it was found that the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events (hazard ratio = 6.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-21.317; P = .003) and being underweight (hazard ratio = 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.371-35.783; P = .019) were the only independent predictors of death in ≤30 days from the initial intervention. Although age did not independently affect the risk for all-cause mortality in ≤180 days after the initial intervention, increasing age was associated with a higher risk for long-term death (ie, ≥181 days from index elective EVAR) in the multivariable analysis (ages 75-79: hazard ratio = 0.379; 95% confidence interval, 0.281-0.512; P < .001; and 80-84: hazard ratio = 0.562; 95% confidence interval, 0.419-0.754; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

After elective EVAR in older patients (ie, ≥75 years), the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events appears to increase the risk of death, particularly in ≤180 days after the initial elective EVAR intervention, and might be related to patient baseline characteristics, including history of pulmonary and renal disease.

Peri-Operative Management of Patients Undergoing Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Juxtarenal, Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Preventing, Recognizing and Treating Complications to Improve Clinical Outcomes

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient's quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

Utility of 3D printed abdominal aortic aneurysm phantoms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

3D printed (3DP) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) phantoms are emerging in the literature as an adjunct for the visualization of complex anatomy, particularly for presurgical device selection and simulation. This is the first systematic review to provide a comprehensive overview of 3DP for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) planning and intervention, evaluating the readiness of current levels of technology for mainstream implementation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE was performed as per PRISMA guidelines using the terms '3D Printing', 'AAA' OR 'EVAR' and related index terms, and further relevant articles were appraised via a snowballing approach. Our last search was conducted on 14 November 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles were identified for critical analysis, with 14 cases or technical reports. Nineteen publications utilized 3DP AAA phantoms to aid presurgical decision making, device selection and design. Four publications explored the utility of 3DP phantoms as EVAR trainers, and one publication examined the technology as a tool for patient education. Flexible, transparent phantoms were deemed most useful; however, the cost and availability of higher end machines limited accessibility.

CONCLUSION

3DP phantoms have been used in EVAR to facilitate visualization of complex patient anatomy, appropriate device selection, in predicting navigational difficulties and the shape and position of endograft after deployment. These phantoms show promise in reducing known complications such as endoleak, stent graft occlusion and migration; however, larger scale prospective studies are required to validate its impacts on patient outcomes and cost savings to the healthcare system.

A systematic review of three-dimensional printed template-assisted physician-modified stent grafts for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair has yet to gain widespread adoption owing to the technical complexity and increased risk of complications. Three-dimensional (3D) printed templates to guide fenestrated physician-modified stent grafts (PMSGs) are a novel technique that may have the potential to increase the accuracy of fenestration alignment, and to disrupt both the cost and timing of the current commercial fenestrated endograft supply chain. We have conducted a critical appraisal of the emerging literature to assess this.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and OVID Medline as guided by the PRISMA statement on April 30, 2020. We used "3D printing" and "physician modified" or "surgeon modified" and all related search terms. We identified 50 articles which met our search criteria. None articles were included as being of direct relevance to 3D-printed template-assisted PMSGs for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair. Abstracts were screened individually by each investigator to ensure relevance.

RESULTS

Nine relevant articles were identified for critical analysis. These included one technical report, five case reports or series, two prospective trials, and one letter to the editor.

CONCLUSIONS

These 3D-printed templates are a promising new avenue to assist with the placement of fenestrations in PMSGs, particularly in urgent or emergent cases where custom fenestrated endografts are unavailable, with larger scale studies warranted. Further work to validate the key stages of the template workflow are required, as well as further investigation into the most suitable manufacturing and distribution methods before the mainstream implementation of this novel technique.

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.

A scoping review of the rationale and evidence for cost-effectiveness analysis of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for intact complex aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new interventions is increasingly required by policymakers. For intact complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs), fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative option for patients who are physically ineligible for open surgical repair (OSR). Thus, F/B-EVAR is increasingly used, but whether it represents a cost-effective treatment option remains unknown.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted from the PubMed, Ovid Embase, and Scopus databases. They were searched to identify relevant English-language articles published from inception to December 31, 2019. All costs in the identified literature were transformed to U.S. dollar values by the following exchange rate: 1 GBP = 1.3 USD; 1 EUR = 1.1 USD.

RESULTS

At this literature search, no randomized clinical trials assessing cost-effectiveness of F/B-EVAR vs OSR for intact CAAs were found. Also, no health economic evaluation studies were found regarding use of F/B-EVAR in patients unfit for OSR. A Markov model analysis based on seven observational center- or registry-based studies published from 2006 to 2014 found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for F/B-EVAR vs OSR was $96,954/quality-adjusted life-year. In the multicenter French Medical and Economical Evaluation of Fenestrated and Branched Stent-grafts to Treat Complex Aortic Aneurysms (WINDOW) registry (2010-2012), F/B-EVAR had a higher cost than OSR for a similar clinical outcome and was therefore economically dominated. At 2 years, costs were higher with F/B-EVAR for juxtarenal/pararenal aneurysms and infradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms but similar for supradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms. The higher costs were related to a $24,278 cost difference of the initial admission (95% of the difference at 2 years) due to stent graft costs. Both these studies, however, included a highly varying center experience with complex endovascular aortic repair, and their retrospective design is subject to selection bias for chosen treatment, which could affect the studied outcome. In contrast, in a more recent U.S. database analysis (879 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, 45% OSRs), the unadjusted total hospitalization cost of OSR was significantly higher compared with F/B-EVAR (median, $44,355 vs $36,612; P = .004). In-hospital mortality as well as major complications were two to three times higher after OSR, indicating that endovascular repair might be the economically dominant strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of F/B-EVAR for intact CAAs is scarce and ambiguous. Based on the limited nonrandomized available evidence, stent grafts are the main driver for F/B-EVAR expenses, whereas cost-effectiveness in relation to OSR may vary by health care setting and selection of patients.

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.