Endovascular aneurysm repair delivery redesign leads to quality improvement and cost reduction

Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Ambulatory Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

We sought to compare the costs of ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair (a-EVAR) and inpatient EVAR (i-EVAR) at up to 1-year of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing elective EVAR between April 2016 and December 2018 at two academic centers. Patients planned for a-EVAR were compared with i-EVAR. Costs at 30 days and 1 year were extracted. These included operating room (OR) use, bed occupancy, laboratory and imaging, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reinterventions. Baseline characteristics were compared. Multiple regression model was used to identify predictors of increased EVAR costs. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare cost differences at 30 days and 1 year via an intention-to-treat analysis. Bonferroni post hoc test compared between-group differences. A p value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy patients were included. Most underwent percutaneous EVAR (>94%) under spinal anesthesia (>84%). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair was successful in 84% (84/100). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair patients (76±8 years) were younger than i-EVAR (78±9 years). They also had a smaller mean aneurysm diameter (56±6 mm) compared with i-EVAR (59±6 mm). Emergency department visits, readmissions, and reinterventions were similar up to 1 year (all p=NS). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair costs showed a non-statistically significant reduction in total costs at 30 days and 1 year by 27% and 21%, respectively. Patients younger than 85 years and males had a 30-day cost reduction by 34% (p=0.027) and 33% (p=0.035), respectively with a-EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day discharge is feasible and successful in selected patients. Patients younger than 85 years and males have a short-term cost benefit with EVAR done in the ambulatory setting without increased complications or reinterventions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study shows the overall safety of ambulatory EVAR with proper patient selection. These patient had similar post-intervention complications to inpatients. Same day discharge also resulted in short-term reduction in costs in male patients and patients younger than 85 years.

Size thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms warrant reconsideration

BACKGROUND

The historical size threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is widely accepted to be 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, contemporary AAA rupture risks may be lower than historical benchmarks, which has implications for when AAAs should be repaired. Our objective was to use contemporary AAA rupture rates to inform optimal size thresholds for AAA repair.

METHODS

We used a Markov chain analysis to estimate life expectancy for patients with AAA. The primary outcome was AAA-related mortality. We estimated survival using Social Security Administration life tables and published contemporary AAA rupture estimates. For those undergoing repair, we modified survival estimates using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative and Medicare on complications, late rupture, and open conversion. We used this model to estimate the AAA repair size threshold that minimizes AAA-related mortality for 60-year-old average-health men and women. We performed a sensitivity analysis of poor-health patients and 70- and 80-year-old base cases.

RESULTS

The annual risk of all-cause mortality under surveillance for a 60-year-old woman presenting with a 5.0 cm AAA using repair thresholds of 5.5 cm, 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, and 7.0 cm was 1.7%, 2.3%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding risk for a man was 2.3%, 2.9%, 3.3%, and 3.4% for the same repair thresholds, respectively. For a 60-year-old average-health woman, an AAA repair size of 6.1 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 5.7 cm to 7.1 cm. For a 60-year-old average-health man, an AAA repair size of 6.9 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 6.0 cm to 7.4 cm. Women in poor health, at various age strata, had optimal AAA repair size thresholds that were >6.5 cm, whereas men in poor health, at all ages, had optimal repair size thresholds that were >8.0 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal threshold for AAA repair is more nuanced than a discrete size. Specifically, there appears to be a range of AAA sizes for which repair is reasonable to minmized AAA-related mortality. Notably, they all are greater than current guideline recommendations. These findings would suggest that contemporary AAA size thresholds for repair should be reconsidered.

Locoregional Anesthesia's Association With Reduced Intensive Care Unit Stay After Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Impact of Temporal Changes in Practice Patterns

BACKGROUND

Elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed via local anesthetics and/or regional (epidural or spinal) anesthesia (locoregional [LR]), versus general anesthesia (GA), conferring reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. Current analyses fail to account for temporal changes in vascular practice. Therefore, this study aimed to confirm reductions in ICU and hospital stays among LR patients while accounting for changes in practice patterns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Quality Initiative, elective EVARs from August 2003 to June 2021 were grouped into LR or GA. Outcomes included ICU admission and prolonged hospital stay (>2 d). Procedures were stratified into groups of 2 y periods, and outcomes were analyzed within each time period. Univariable and multivariate analyses were used to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

LR was associated with reduced ICU admissions (22.3% versus 32.1%, P < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stays (14.3% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001) overall. When stratified by year, LR maintained its association with reduced ICU admissions in 2014-2015 (21.8% versus 34.0%, P < 0.001), 2016-2017 (23.6% versus 31.6%, P < 0.001), 2018-2019 (18.5% versus 30.2%, P < 0.001), and 2020-2021 (15.8% versus 28.8%, P < 0.001), although this was highly facility dependent. LR was associated with fewer prolonged hospital stays in 2014-2015 (15.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.001) and 2016-2017 (13.3% versus 16.6%, P = 0.006) but not after 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

GA and LR have similar rates of prolonged hospital stays after 2017, while LR anesthesia was associated with reduced rates of ICU admissions, although this is facility-dependent, providing a potential avenue for resource preservation in patients suitable for LR.

The financial implications of cardiac stress testing prior to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

The utilization and cost-effectiveness of stress testing before abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains insufficiently studied. We examined the variation and financial implications of stress testing, and their association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

We studied patients who underwent elective endovascular (EVAR) or open AAA repair (OAR) at Vascular Quality Initiative centers from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles of preoperative stress testing frequency. We calculated the risk of postoperative MACE, a composite of in-hospital myocardial infarction, heart failure, or death, for each center-quintile. We obtained charges for stress tests locally and applied these to the cohort to estimate charges per 1000 patients.

RESULTS

We studied 32,459 patients (EVAR: 27,978; OAR: 4481; 283 centers). Stress test utilization varied across quintiles from 13.0% to 68.6% (median: 36.8%) before EVAR and 15.9% to 85.0% (median: 59.4%) before OAR. The risk of MACE was 1.4% after EVAR and 10.2% after OAR. There was a trend towards more common MACE after EVAR among centers with higher utilization of stress testing: 0.9% among centers in the lowest quintile, versus 1.7% in the highest quintile (p-trend = 0.068). There was no association between MACE and stress testing frequency for OAR (p-trend = 0.223). The estimated financial charges for stress testing before EVAR ranged from $125,806 per 1000 patients at 1^st-quintile centers, to $665,975 at 5^th-quintile centers. Charges before OAR ranged from $153,861 at 1^st-quintile centers, to $825,473 at 5^th-quintile centers.

CONCLUSION

Stress test use before AAA repair is highly variable and associated with substantial cost, with an unclear association with postoperative MACE. This highlights the need for improved stress testing paradigms prior to surgery.

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.

Medicare costs for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

Reintervention after endovascular repair (EVR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms is common. However, the cumulative financial impact of reintervention after EVR on a national scale is poorly defined. Our objective was to describe the cost to Medicare for aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) among a cohort of patients with known follow-up for 5 years after repair.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent EVR within the Vascular Quality Initiative who were linked to their respective Medicare claims file (n = 13,995). We excluded patients who underwent EVR after September 30, 2010, and those who had incomplete Medicare coverage (n = 12,788). The remaining cohort (n = 1207) had complete follow-up until death or 5 years (Medicare data available through September 30, 2015). We then obtained and compiled the corresponding Medicare reimbursement data for the index EVR hospitalization and all subsequent reinterventions.

RESULTS

We studied 1207 Medicare patients who underwent EVR and had known follow-up for reinterventions for 5 years. The mean age was 76.2 years (±7.1 years), 21.6% of patients were female, and 91.1% of procedures were elective. The Kaplan-Meier reintervention rate at 5 years was 18%. Among patients who underwent reintervention, 154 (73.7%) had a single reintervention, 40 (19.1%) had two reinterventions, and 15 (7.2%) had three or more reinterventions. The median cost to Medicare for the index EVR hospitalization was $25,745 (interquartile range, $21,131-$28,774). The median cost for subsequent reinterventions was $22,165 (interquartile range, $17,152-$29,605). The cumulative cost to Medicare of aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) increased in a stepwise fashion among patients who underwent multiple reinterventions, with each reintervention being similar in cost to the index EVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall cost incurred by Medicare to reimburse for each reintervention after EVR is roughly the same as for the initial procedure itself, meaning that Medicare cost projections would be greater than $100,000 for any individual who undergoes an EVR with three reinterventions. The long-term financial impact of EVR must be considered by surgeons, patients, and healthcare systems alike as these cumulative costs may hinder the fiscal viability of an EVR-first therapeutic approach and highlight the need for judicious patient selection paradigms.

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.

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.

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.

A systematic review of intraoperative process mapping in surgery

Process mapping has been identified as a strategy to improve surgical efficiency but has been inconsistently applied in the literature and underutilised in surgical practice. In this journal, we recently described our utilisation of these approaches when applied to breast reconstruction. We showed that in surgery as complex as autologous breast reconstruction, process mapping can improve efficiency, and may improve surgical teaching, education and audit. The intraoperative period specifically is an area that can be applied not only to breast reconstruction, but to a much broader range of surgical procedures. A systematic review was undertaken of the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Embase and PsychINFO. Manual searching of the references from articles identified was also conducted. Data items relating to the review aims were extracted from articles' methods, applications, and outcomes. A descriptive analysis was carried out to synthesise the information on the current usage of process mapping in the intraoperative period. Seventeen of 1,488 studies were eligible for review, with all of non-randomised study design. Studies had overlap in components of the intraoperative period to which process mapping was applied. Common areas of improvement were identified. Outcome measures were assessed in ten studies that implemented interventions based on the improvement areas to increase surgical efficiency. As such, process mapping has been used as part of larger quality improvement methods, albeit with inconsistent nomenclature, to improve surgical efficiency. While it has been applied to a range of surgical specialties, there is a lack of application to the surgical component of the intraoperative period. Greater consistency in the reporting and description of process mapping will enable further research for evidence of its benefits.