Comparative analysis of hospital costs of open and endovascular thoracic aortic repair

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Case report: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a non-touch exclusion technique with a custom-made device for the treatment of a large patent ductus arteriosus

Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a common congenital heart disease affecting roughly one in every 2,000 term births. Although most of the patients are diagnosed and treated during childhood, few cases may persist into adulthood. We presented a 27-year-old male patient with a 20.2 mm diameter PDA who was referred to our hospital with progressive fatigue and exertional dyspnea. Given the potential complications, usual techniques such as coil occlusion and duct occluders were deemed inappropriate for this patient. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using a non-touch exclusion technique was successfully performed for this patient. The patient was discharged with no major post-surgical complications. TEVAR could be a new, safe, and effective alternative treatment to other transcatheter procedures for complicated PDAs in some patients.

Real-world comparative claims analysis of a novel single-branched aortic stent graft device versus thoracic endograft placement with extra-anatomic debranching/revascularization in zone 2 aortic disease

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving landing zone 2 can require extra-anatomic debranching (SR-TEVAR) to ensure left subclavian artery perfusion, resulting in increased costs. A single-branch device (Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis [TBE], WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ) provides a total endovascular solution. Comparative cost analysis of patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR requiring left subclavian artery preservation with TBE versus SR-TEVAR is presented.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cost analysis was performed for aortic diseases requiring a zone 2 landing zone (TBE vs. SR-TEVAR) from 2014 to 2019. Facility charges were collected from the universal billing form UB-04 (form CMS 1450).

Results

Twenty-four patients were included in each arm. There were no significant differences in the overall mean procedural charges between the two groups: TBE, $209,736 ($57,761) vs. SR-TEVAR $209,025 ($93,943), P = 0.94. TBE resulted in reduced operating room charges ($36,849 [$8750] vs. $48,073 [$10,825], P = 0.02) and reduced intensive care unit and telemetry room charges, which did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.23 and 0.12, respectively). Device/implant charges were the primary cost driver in both groups. Charges associated with TBE were significantly higher: $105,525 ($36,137) vs. $51,605 ($31,326), P > 0.01.

Conclusions

TBE had similar overall procedural charges despite higher device/implant-related expenses and reduced facility resource utilization (lower operating room, intensive care unit, telemetry, and pharmacy charges).

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

A canine model of aortic arch aneurysm created with autologous pericardium

Background

To establish a canine model of aortic arch aneurysm that is suitable for research on new devices and techniques applied to the aortic arch.

Materials and methods

Fifteen mongrel dogs underwent surgery. The autologous pericardial patch was sewn on the aortotomy site in the anterior wall of the aortic arch. The animals were followed up for 3 months postoperatively. Computed tomography angiography was used to visualize and measure the aneurysm model. Hematoxylin and eosin staining was used to observe the histological characteristics of the aneurysm model. Changes in aneurysm diameter over time were analyzed using analysis of variance.

Results

One dog died of hemorrhage during surgery. Fourteen dogs survived the surgical procedure. Two of them died on the first postoperative day because of ruptures at the suturing margin. The diameter of the aneurysm model was twice as large as that of the aortic arch. There was no significant change in the maximum diameter of the aneurysm model during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

We established a controllable and stable aortic arch aneurysm model created with an autologous pericardium patch. The aneurysm model can be used to research endoleaks after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and new endovascular techniques can be applied to the aortic arch.

Hospitalization Cost and In-hospital Outcomes Following Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection Repair

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported lower mortality and morbidity after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TbAD). However, there are few studies in the literature on the cost of both treatment options. Thus, the aim of this study is to focus on in-hospital outcomes and cost associated with TbAD repair procedures in a national database in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) between June 2009 and March 2015 was performed. ICD-9-CM codes were used to identify patients who underwent OSR or TEVAR for TbAD. Endpoints included in-hospital adverse events, in-hospital mortality and hospitalization cost. Logistic regression models and generalized linear models were used to assess the impact of treatment type on the main outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 1752 patients with TbAD, 54.3% underwent OSR and 45.7% underwent TEVAR. Patients in the TEVAR group were older [median age, 64 (IQR 54-73) vs. 59 (IQR 49-70), P < 1] and more likely to have preexisting comorbidities. IAE rates were 78.6% for the OSR group compared to 43.1% for the TEVAR group, P < 0.001. Patients in the OSR group showed significantly higher in-hospital mortality (15.3% vs. 5.9%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, OSR was associated with a 5-fold increase in IAE [aOR(95%CI): 4.8 (3.8-6.1), P < 0.001] and a 3-fold increase in in-hospital mortality [aOR(95%CI): 3.3 (2.1-5.1), P < 0.001]. In regards to charges related to the hospital stay, total cost was significantly higher among patients undergoing OSR $53,371 ($39,029-$80,471) vs. TEVAR $45,311 ($31,479-$67,960), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that TEVAR presents an advantage in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost when compared to OSR in the treatment of TbAD. However, long-term cost-effectiveness of both procedures remains unknown. Further research is warranted to see whether the superiority of TEVAR is maintained over time.

Epidemiological Analysis of 5,595 Procedures of Endovascular Correction of Isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Disease Over 12 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil

OBJECTIVES

In Brazil, descending thoracic aorta disease, including aneurysms and dissections, is managed preferentially by endovascular treatment, owing to its feasibility and good results. In this study, we analyzed endovascular treatment of isolated descending thoracic aortic disease cases in the Brazilian public health system over a 12-year period.

METHODS

Public data from procedures performed from 2008 to 2019 were extracted using web scraping techniques to assess procedure type frequency (elective or urgency), mortality, and governmental costs.

RESULTS

A total of 5,595 procedures were analyzed, the vast majority of which were urgent procedures (61.82% vs. 38.18%). In-hospital mortality was lower for elective than for urgent surgeries (4.96 vs.10.32% p=0.008). An average of R$16,845.86 and R$20,012.04 was paid per elective and emergency procedure, respectively, with no statistical difference (p=0.095).

CONCLUSION

Elective procedures were associated with lower mortality than urgent procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between elective and urgent procedures regarding costs.

Endovascular Graft Repair for Blunt Traumatic Disruption of the Thoracic Aorta: Experience at a Nonuniversity Hospital

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BAI) represents the second leading cause of death from blunt trauma. Admission rates for BAI are extremely low because instant fatality occurs in nearly 75 per cent of patients. Management strategies have transitioned from the more invasive immediate thoracotomy to delayed endograft repair with strict hemodynamic management. In this study, we assess outcomes and complications of open versus endograft repair for BAI at a nonuniversity hospital. Retrospective chart review was conducted on 49 patients admitted to a Level I trauma center who incurred BAI from 2004 to 2011. Collected data points included demographics, mortality, complication rates, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (LOS). Twenty-one patients underwent open thoracotomy (OPEN), whereas 28 patients were managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The overall 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower comparing TEVAR to OPEN (7.1 vs 50%, P = 0.028); seven deaths occurred in the OPEN group versus two with TEVAR. Overall complications, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and cardiac arrest, were fewer after TEVAR (32.1 vs 81.0%, P < 0.001) despite similar injury severity. Survivor hospital LOS (26.0 ± 15.3 vs 27.7 ± 18.7 days, P = 0.79), intensive care unit LOS (13.5 ± 10.9 vs 12.7 ± 8.8 days, P = 0.94), and ventilator days (11.4 ± 13.4 vs 16.4 ± 14.5 days, P = 0.25) were similar. Early nonoperative management with TEVAR for BAIs is a feasible and effective management strategy. Improved patient outcomes over traditional open thoracotomy in the presence of similar injury severity can be seen after TEVAR in the nonuniversity hospital setting.

National Study of Index and Readmission Mortality and Costs for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Renal Disease

BACKGROUND

In the current era of value-based health care delivery, an understanding of patient populations at greatest risk for mortality, complications, and readmissions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is warranted. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate outcomes after TEVAR for patients with varying degrees of renal dysfunction.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TEVAR from 2010 to 2015 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database were identified. These patients were further stratified into four groups: no chronic kidney disease (NCKD), chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1 to 3 (CKD1-3), CKD 4 to 5 (CKD4-5), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis. Multivariable regression analysis was used to study index mortality, early (30 days) and intermediate (31-90 days) readmissions, costs, and length of stay. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to compare readmission performance among all four groups.

RESULTS

An estimated 121,046 patients underwent TEVAR with 26,653 (22.1%) being elective. Patients with ESRD comprised 2.7% of elective and 5.4% of nonelective TEVAR operations. Patients with CKD4-5 (17.8%; P = .01) and with ESRD (21.1%; P < .001), but not with CKD1-3 (14.1%; P = .12), had remarkably higher early readmission rate than the NCKD cohort (9.2%). Patients with ESRD had remarkably higher hospitalization costs than the NCKD group ($7456; 95% confidence interval, $2629-$12,283). Cardiovascular, infectious, and vascular complications were the most prevalent diagnoses on readmission, with no remarkable difference among the NCKD and CKD4-5/ESRD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 10% of all patients with TEVAR have evidence of chronic kidney disease of varying severity. Only patients with ESRD are at risk of substantially higher odds of mortality, readmissions, index length of stay, and costs compared with the non-CKD cohort.

National Trends of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Versus Open Repair in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury

BACKGROUND

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) occurs in <1% of all trauma admissions. Considering the advent of multiple thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) devices over the past decade, improved outcomes of TEVAR supported in the literature, rapid diagnosis, and improved preoperative planning of BTAI using computed tomography imaging, we hypothesized that the national incidence of TEVAR in BTAI has increased while open repair has decreased. In addition, we hypothesized that the mortality risk in BTAI patients undergoing TEVAR would be lower than open repair.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2015. The primary end points of interest included the incidence of TEVAR and open repair, as well as mortality in BTAI patients undergoing intervention. Covariates were included in a multivariable analysis to determine risk for mortality in BTAI patients undergoing open repair versus TEVAR.

RESULTS

We identified 3,628 BTAI patients undergoing intervention. Of these, 3,226 underwent TEVAR (87.9%), and 445 (12.1%) underwent open repair. Compared with open repair, TEVAR had a shorter mean length of stay (LOS) (19.8 vs. 21.3 days, P < 0.05) and lower rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) (5.6% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.05) and mortality (8.8% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.05). Open repair had greater risk for mortality than TEVAR (odds ratio = 1.63, confidence intervals = 1.19-2.23, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of open repair decreased from 7.4% in 2007 to 1.9% in 2015, whereas TEVAR increased from 12.1 to 25.7% during the same time period. We confirmed previous findings that endovascular repair is associated with decreased mortality, LOS, and major complications, including AKI. Future investigations should focus on identifying the ideal patient candidate for TEVAR and elucidate precise indications for TEVAR in BTAI.

A Feasibility Study of a New Unibody Branched Stent Graft Applied to Reconstruct the Canine Aortic Arch

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new unibody branched stent graft for the reconstruction of the canine aortic arch.

METHODS

The unibody branched stent grafts included single branched stent grafts and double branched stent grafts. The main stent graft and branched limbs were sutured together. The branched stent grafts were folded into the introducer system, which consisted of a double channel catheter, a detachable sleeve, and an introducer sheath. The branched stent grafts were introduced and deployed into the aortic arch by the delivery system. Twenty adult mongrel dogs were used for the experiments. Ten dogs were implanted with single branched stent grafts; the other 10 were implanted with double branched stent grafts. The surviving animals were followed up for 3 months. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) was performed to observe the status of the branched stent grafts.

RESULTS

All the unibody branched stent grafts were successfully implanted into the canine aortic arches. The technical success rate was 100%. There was no cerebral infarction, paraplegia or incision infection. CTA showed that all the branched stent grafts were patent; there was no endoleak or stent migration.

CONCLUSIONS

The unibody branched stent graft system could be used to reconstruct the aortic arch. The animal experimental procedures demonstrated the safety and feasibility of the unibody branched stent graft system.

Cohort comparison of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with open thoracic aortic repair using modern end-organ preservation strategies

BACKGROUND

Pivotal trials showed that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has improved outcomes compared with open surgery for treating descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, those trials included historical open controls in which modern end-organ preservation strategies were not routinely employed. To create a more level assessment, we compared our outcomes of elective TEVAR with modern open thoracic aortic repair (OTAR) controls.

METHODS

A retrospective review of thoracic aortic aneurysm patients undergoing TEVAR was compared with a contemporaneous cohort of OTAR patients. Partial bypass or hypothermic circulatory arrest was used in all OTAR patients. Cerebrospinal fluid drain placement was attempted in all patients. Preoperative characteristics, operative variables, and outcomes were recorded, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival estimates.

RESULTS

The main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative spinal cord ischemia (SCI) or stroke, and any persistent neurologic deficit 30 days following the operation. During the study period, 62 patients underwent TEVAR and 56 underwent OTAR with median follow-up of 23.7 months and 36.4 months, respectively. No difference existed between the TEVAR and OTAR with respect to overall neurologic complications (8.1% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.55) as well as any residual neurologic deficit at 30 days (0% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.10). TEVAR patients had fewer complications including pneumonia (P = 0.02), rebleeding (P = 0.02), and acute kidney injury (P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (1.6% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.10), 1-year mortality (12.2% vs. 14%, P = 0.80), or 5-year mortality (53.9% vs. 44%, P = 0.48) between TEVAR and OTAR, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR continues to show improved perioperative outcomes with a trend toward decreased 30-day mortality and fewer major adverse events compared with OTAR. However, with the routine use of end-organ preservation strategies during OTAR, neurologic deficits, particularly SCI, can be safely reduced to comparable levels with those of TEVAR and 1-year all-cause mortality rates are similar between the groups. These OTAR results may serve as a benchmark as TEVAR is increasingly applied for other aortic pathologies, such as chronic dissection, wherein long-term efficacy is not proven.

Cost analysis of endovascular versus open repair in the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

For descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), it is generally considered that thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVARs) reduce operative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair. However, long-term differences in survival of patients have not been demonstrated, and an increased need for aortic reintervention has been observed. Many assume that TEVAR becomes less cost-effective through time because of higher rates of reintervention and surveillance imaging. This study investigated midterm outcomes and hospital costs of TEVAR compared with open TAA repair.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-institution review of elective TAA repairs between 2005 and 2012. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, reintervention rates, and hospital costs were assessed. The literature was also reviewed to determine commonly observed complication and reintervention rates for TEVAR and open repair. Monte Carlo simulation was used to model and to forecast hospital costs for TEVAR and open TAA repair up to 3 years after intervention.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 131 TEVARs and 27 open repairs. TEVAR patients were significantly older (67.2 vs 58.7 years old; P = .02) and trended toward a more severe comorbidity profile. Operative mortality for TEVAR and open repair was 5.3% and 3.7%, respectively (P = 1.0). There was a trend toward more complications in the TEVAR group, although not statistically significant (all P > .05). In-hospital costs were significantly greater in the TEVAR group ($52,008 vs $37,172; P = .001). However, cost modeling by use of reported complication and reintervention rates from the literature overlaid with our cost data produced a higher cost for the open group in-hospital ($55,109 vs $48,006) and at 3 years ($58,426 vs $52,825). Interestingly, TEVAR hospital costs, not reintervention rates, were the most significant driver of cost in the TEVAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our institutional data showed a trend toward lower mortality and complication rates with open TAA repair, with significantly lower costs within this cohort compared with TEVAR. These findings were likely, at least in part, to be due to the milder comorbidity profile of these patients. In contrast, cost modeling by Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated lower costs with TEVAR compared with open repair at all time points up to 3 years after intervention. Our institutional data show that with appropriate selection of patients, open repair can be performed safely with low complication rates comparable to those of TEVAR. The cost model argues that despite the costs associated with more frequent surveillance imaging and reinterventions, TEVAR remains the more cost-effective option even years after TAA repair.

Reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of complicated aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed predictive factors for reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for complicated aortic dissection (C-AD).

METHODS

An institutional review of consecutive TEVAR for C-AD was performed.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2011, 41 patients underwent TEVAR for a C-AD involving the descending thoracic aorta. Primary indications included aneurysm >55 mm in 24, rapid aneurysmal enlargement or impending rupture in 6, saccular aneurysm >20 mm in 1, malperfusion in 1, intractable chest pain in 3, and rupture in 6. Technical success was achieved in 100%. The 30-day mortality rate was 5% (n = 2). Fourteen secondary procedures were performed in 13 patients (32%) for indications of device migration in 2, proximal type I endoleak in 5, distal type I endoleak in 2, type II endoleak in 1, aneurysmal evolution of the descending thoracic aorta in 2, aneurysmal expansion of the dissected abdominal aorta in 1, and retrograde dissection in 1. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that oversizing ≥20% (odds ratio [OR], 16; P = .011), bare-spring stent in the proximal landing zone of the stent graft (OR, 12; P = .032), and anticoagulant therapy (OR, 78; P = .03) were significant factors for reintervention. On univariate analysis, large aneurysm was a risk factor for reintervention (P = .002), whereas complete false lumen thrombosis at the stent graft level was protective (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the feasibility of TEVAR for C-AD, although the rate of reintervention is high. Excessive oversizing, a bare-spring stent graft in the proximal landing zone, large aortic dilatation, and anticoagulant therapy were factors associated with reintervention. Complete false lumen thrombosis at the stent graft level was protective.

Association of race and socioeconomic status with the use of endovascular repair to treat thoracic aortic diseases

OBJECTIVE

Descending thoracic aortic diseases may be treated with either open thoracic aortic repair or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Previous studies have demonstrated that race and socioeconomic status (SES) affect access to care and treatment allocation in vascular surgery. We hypothesized that racial minorities and lower SES patients have decreased propensity to have their thoracic aortic disease treated with TEVAR.

METHODS

Weighted discharge records for patients who underwent either open thoracic aortic repair or TEVAR between 2005 and 2008 were evaluated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patient records were stratified by therapeutic intervention (open repair vs TEVAR). Differences in baseline comorbidities, race, and SES were compared. To account for the effects of comorbidities and other factors, hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to determine the likelihood for TEVAR performance based on differences in patients' race and SES.

RESULTS

A total of 60,784 thoracic repairs were analyzed, the majority (79.4%) of which were open repairs. The most common race was white (78.2%), followed by black (9.1%), Hispanic (5.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander (2.9%), and Native American (0.7%). Patients were divided into quartiles according to SES with 20.6% of patients in the lowest SES quartile, 24.3% in the second quartile, 26.4% in the third quartile, and 28.8% in the highest SES quartile. Indications for treatment were similar for both treatment groups. After adjusting for multiple patient and hospital factors, race and SES were significantly associated with treatment modality for thoracic aortic disease. Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations had increased adjusted odds ratios of TEVAR performance compared with white patients. Similarly, lower SES correlated with increased use of TEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our initial hypothesis, racial minorities (Black, Hispanic, and Native American) and patients with lower median household incomes have a greater association with the performance for TEVAR after accounting for patient comorbid disease, indication for treatment, payer status, and hospital volume. These results indicate that traditional racial disparities do not persist in TEVAR allocation.

National trends and regional variation of open and endovascular repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysms in contemporary practice

OBJECTIVES

Successful surgical management of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) has historically relied upon open surgical repair (OSR). More recently, the advent and application of thoracic endovascular stent graft aneurysm repair (TEVAR) permutations have become increasingly performed in contemporary practice. To better determine the effect of TEVAR techniques on OSR, we examined national and regional trends in treatment use.

METHODS

All Medicare patients from 1998 through 2007 undergoing isolated TAA and TAAA repair were analyzed using a clinically validated algorithm using diagnostic International Classification of Disease 9th revision (ICD-9; 441.1, 441.2, 441.6, 441.7, 441.9) codes and procedural (ICD-9 OSR: 38.35, 38.45 and TEVAR: 39.73, 39.79) codes. Differential rates of OSR and TEVAR were compared across census tract regions during the study interval.

RESULTS

Total complex aortic repairs increased by 60%, from 10.8 to 17.8/100,000, between 1998 and 2007 (P < .001). A dramatic increase occurred in TEVAR (not performed in 1998, 5.8/100,000 in 2007) during the study period, but OSR rates remained stable during the same interval (10.7 to 12.0/100,000 in 2007, P = NS). There was substantial regional variation for both OSR and TEVAR. This regional variation was greater in OSR (range, 8.8-16.7/100,000) than in TEVAR (range, 4.5-6.9/100,000).

CONCLUSIONS

Degenerative TAA and TAAA aneurysms are being repaired in the United States at an increasing rate. This reflects the rapid acceptance of TEVAR, which apparently supplements rather than supplants OSR. There appears to be greater regional variation in OSR compared with TEVAR. These data may have significant implications for those interested in the effect of new technologies on health care and cost containment.

Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score predicts hospital charges and resource use after aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

The impact of Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted mortality risk score on resource use has not been previously studied. We hypothesize that increasing Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement are associated with greater hospital charges.

METHODS

Clinical and financial data for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement at The Johns Hopkins Hospital over a 10-year period (January 2000 to December 2009) were reviewed. The current Society of Thoracic Surgeons formula (v2.61) for in-hospital mortality was used for all patients. After stratification into risk quartiles, index admission hospital charges were compared across risk strata with rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Linear regression and Spearman's coefficient assessed correlation and goodness of fit. Multivariable analysis assessed relative contributions of individual variables on overall charges.

RESULTS

A total of 553 patients underwent aortic valve replacement during the study period. Average predicted mortality was 2.9% (±3.4) and actual mortality was 3.4% for aortic valve replacement. Median charges were greater in the upper quartile of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (quartiles 1-3, $39,949 [interquartile range, 32,708-51,323] vs quartile 4, $62,301 [interquartile range, 45,952-97,103], P < .01]. On univariate linear regression, there was a positive correlation between Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score and log-transformed charges (coefficient, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.07; P < .01). Spearman's correlation R-value was 0.51. This positive correlation persisted in risk-adjusted multivariable linear regression. Each 1% increase in Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was associated with an added $3000 in hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to show that increasing Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score predicts greater charges after aortic valve replacement. As competing therapies, such as percutaneous valve replacement, emerge to treat high-risk patients, these results serve as a benchmark to compare resource use.

Have thoracic endografting outcomes improved since US Food and Drug Administration approval?

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) is gaining acceptance since Food and Drug Administration approval in 2005. We hypothesize that, compared with open repair (OPEN), mortality and complication rate after TEVAR have continued to improve.

METHODS

All patients who underwent thoracic and (or) thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair from 2005 to 2007 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample were examined. Patients were stratified by TEVAR or OPEN. Demographics, hospital characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression models for complications and in-hospital mortality were developed.

RESULTS

A weighted total of 7,644 had TEVAR, while 32,948 patients underwent OPEN. The TEVAR utilization increased from 5.5% (2005) to 24.1% (2007). Mortality for all patients undergoing thoracic aneurysm repair decreased yearly (p<0.001). Mortality (TEVAR: 7.3%, OPEN: 9.8%, p<0.001) and complication rate (TEVAR: 24.3%, OPEN: 42.1%, p<0.001) were superior with TEVAR. The unadjusted annual mortality (7%) and complication rate (24%) after TEVAR did not improve each year; however, after risk adjustment, mortality after TEVAR steadily decreased annually. Moreover, risk-adjusted mortality for OPEN has improved since 2005. Multivariate analysis revealed age and ruptured aneurysm were highly predictive of death (p<0.001, respectively), while TEVAR lowered the adjusted odds of death by 18% (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality in patients undergoing repair of thoracic aneurysms has decreased in the United States since Food and Drug Administration approval of stent grafts in 2005. This is due to wider adoption of TEVAR and improved mortality in patients undergoing TEVAR or open repair.