Cost and effectiveness comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a single-center experience.
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR NURSING 2008;
26:15-21. [PMID:
18295163 DOI:
10.1016/j.jvn.2007.10.003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2007] [Revised: 10/25/2007] [Accepted: 10/29/2007] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
The study objective was to compare the cost and effectiveness of two surgical techniques: open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We assessed 58 surgical operations of AAA repair conducted in 54 men and 4 women (aged 49-94 years) during 2003 and 2004. Open surgical repair was performed in 21 patients, and EVAR was performed in 37 patients. The evaluation of the effectiveness of both methods was based on the following factors: mortality within 30 days, surgery duration, total hospitalization time, and intensive care unit stay duration. The segmental costs of grafts, anesthesia, and extra materials were included in the calculations for the comparison of the costs of the two methods. A 30-day mortality of 5.17% and 0% was demonstrated for open surgical repair and EVAR, respectively. In regard to the operation's mean duration, this was calculated to 279.52 minutes for open repair and 193.57 minutes for EVAR. The mean duration of the in-hospital stay was 11.3 and 4.09 days for open repair and EVAR, respectively. Accordingly, the mean duration of intensive care unit stay was 2.81 and 0.23 days, respectively. The cost evaluation revealed a mean cost of 5374.3euro ($7,643.49) and 20,592.52euro ($29,287.50) for open repair and EVAR, respectively. Open repair is a "tested method" of its own time. EVAR seems to have the advantage on aspects of effectiveness, yet its major hallmark is its significant cost, as indicated in the relevant part of the current study.
Collapse