Search

Objective: To report the cost of target lesion revascularisation procedures (TLR) for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD) following stenting, from a healthcare payer's perspective., Methods: European multicentre study involving consecutive patients requiring femoropopliteal TLR (January 2017 - December 2021). The primary outcome was overall cost (euros) associated with a TLR procedure from presentation to discharge. Exact costs per constituent, clinical characteristics, and early outcomes were reported., Results: This study included 482 TLR procedures (retrospectively, 13 hospitals, six countries): 56% were female, mean age was 75 ± 2 years, 61% were Rutherford class 5 or 6, 67% had Tosaka class 3 disease, and 16% had common femoral or iliac involvement. A total of 52% were hybrid procedures and 6% involved open surgery only. Technical success was 70%, 30 day mortality rate was 1%, and the 30 day major amputation rate was 4%. Most costs were for operating time during the TLR (healthcare professionals' salaries, indirect and estate costs), with a mean of: €21 917 ± €2 110 for all procedures; €23 337 ± €8 920 for open procedures; €12 903 ± €3 108 for endovascular procedures; and €22 806 ± €3 977 for hybrid procedures. In a regression analysis, procedure duration was the main parameter associated with higher overall TLR costs (coefficient, 2.77; standard error, 0.88; p < .001). The mean cost per operating minute of TLR (indirect, estate costs, all salaried staff present included) was €177 and the mean cost per night stay in hospital (outside intensive care unit) was €356. The mean cost per overnight intensive care unit stay (minimum of 8 hours per night) was €1 193., Conclusion: The main driver of the considerable peri-procedure costs associated with femoropopliteal TLR was procedure time., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vascular access is the lifeline for patients on hemodialysis. The average survival rates of dialysis dependent patients have been improving over the last 5 years and hence their dialysis access needs longevity for uninterrupted optimal dialysis. With the lack of genomic vascular access failure predictors, there is an unmet need for predicting an event and the appropriate approach to mitigate recurrence of the event that could have cost and outcome implications., Methods: We performed a single center experience that extracted relevant clinical (access flow, laboratory data and CKD details), access intervention (prior interventions, type & location of lesion, type of balloon used, use of stents etc.) and demographic (age, vintage on dialysis, sex, social determinants, other medical conditions) data in real time and feeds it into validated ML algorithms to predict risk of reintervention. (Plexus EMR LLC)., Results: About 200 prevalent hemodialysis patients with a AV graft or AV fistula were included for this analysis. Need for re-intervention and use of stent/ flow reduction/new access creation were the outcomes analyzed. Plexus EMR is a licensed Azure based platform. R software was used to develop the ML algorithms. Regression factors were developed to assess and test the validity of individual attributes across all the data attributes. Each patient had a real time risk calculator available to the interventionalist on risk of reintervention/ year. Of the 200 patients, 148 had a AV fistula and the remaining 52 had a AV graft. Mean interventions in the year prior to analysis was 1.8 in patients with AV fistulas and 3.4 in AV grafts which decreased to 1.1 in AV fistulas and to 2.4 in AV grafts ( p  < 0.01) post tool deployment. There were 62 AV graft thrombectomies done in the observation year and 62% of those were repeat thrombectomies. Stent utilization increased to 37 (22 in AV grafts and 15 in AV fistulas) and 2 patients had AV access flow reduction surgery. The cumulative cost (predicted) preintervention was $712,609 and decreased to $512,172 post intervention. Stent utilization increased by 68% in the evaluation year and 89% of the stents used were PTFE coated stents., Conclusion: Utilizing AI with ML based algorithms that includes clinical, demographic and patency maintenance variables could become new standards of care to optimally manage AV accesses and lower cost of care., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether the national centralised volume-based procurement policy and the Shanghai government's supportive measures (coronary stent policies) implemented in Shanghai, China, on 20 January 2021 affected the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the year after surgery., Design: A retrospective cohort study based on real-world data and propensity score (PS)-matched data was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness of PCI before and after policy implementation., Patients and Setting: Patients with ACS who had undergone first-time PCI over 1 year previously in hospitals in Shanghai and were discharged between 1 March 2019 and 30 April 2022 were included in the study., Outcome Measures: In the present study, cost was defined as total direct medical expenses, and effectiveness was defined as the prevention of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to measure the cost-effectiveness of PCI in patients with ACS 1 year after surgery., Results: The study included 31 760 patients. According to real-world and PS-matched data, the implementation of coronary stent policies in Shanghai reduced the total medical cost of patients with ACS 1 year after PCI by 24.39% (p<0.0001) and 22.26% (p<0.0001), respectively. The ICERs were ¥-1131.72 and ¥-842.00 thousand per MACE avoided, respectively. The ICERs were robust to parameter uncertainty, and there was a substantial chance for policy implementation to improve the cost-effectiveness of PCI among patients with ACS in the short term., Conclusions: The implementation of coronary stent policies has improved the cost-effectiveness of PCI for patients with ACS in the short term. The long-term impact of coronary stent policies on the cost-effectiveness of PCI in patients with ACS or other coronary heart diseases should be assessed in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To determine the demographics, outcomes, and healthcare utilization of patients with chronic venous insufficiency-associated lymphedema (CVI-LED) and the prevalence of lymphedema-specific therapy use after venous intervention., Methods: The IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Claims Databases were examined for patients with CVI-LED. Patient demographics and the use of lymphedema-specific therapy before and after venous intervention were collected., Results: Of 85,601 LED patients identified, 8,406 also had a diagnosis of CVI. In the CVI-LED group, 1051 underwent endovenous ablation or venous stent placement. The use of lymphedema-specific therapy before and after venous intervention was 52% and 39%, respectively ( p < .05). The mean time of initiation of LED-specific therapy following venous intervention was 265 days after ablation and 347 days after stent placement., Conclusion: Treating venous hypertension improves certain venous-related signs and symptoms of CVI. However, a significant proportion of patients have persistent edema which may reflect underlying, sub-optimally treated LED., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MG: none. NL: Medical Advisory Board of Philips and consultant to BARD and Boston Scientific. AG: Chair Advisory Board of Tactile Medical and consultant to Medtronic, BD Bard, and Boston Scientific. TO: Consultant to Tactile Medical. KD: Speaker’s Bureau/Consultant to Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, Becton Dickinson/CR Bard, Medtronic, Penumbra, Tactile Medical, and Philips and consultant to W.L. Gore, Shockwave Medical, Asahi Intecc, Veryan, Cordis, and Surmodics.

Introduction & Objectives: To evaluate ureteral stent removal (SR) using a grasper-integrated disposable flexible cystoscope (giFC-Isiris ®, Coloplast ®) after kidney transplantation (KT), with a focus on feasibility, safety, patient experience, and costs., Material and Methods: All consecutive KT undergoing SR through giFC were prospectively enrolled from January 2020 to June 2023. Patient characteristics, KT and SR details, urine culture results, antimicrobial prescriptions, and the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI) within 1 month were recorded. A micro-cost analysis was conducted, making a comparison with the costs of SR with a reusable FC and grasper., Results: A total of 136 KT patients were enrolled, including both single and double KT, with 148 stents removed in total. The median indwelling time was 34 days [26, 47]. SR was successfully performed in all cases. The median preparation and procedure times were 4 min [3,5]. and 45 s[30, 60], respectively. The median Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was 3 [1, 5], and 98.2% of patients expressed willingness to undergo the procedure again. Only one episode of UTI involving the graft (0.7%) was recorded. Overall, the estimated cost per SR procedure with Isiris ® and the reusable FC was 289.2€ and 151,4€, respectively., Conclusions: This prospective series evaluated the use of Isiris ® for SR in a cohort of KT patients, demonstrating feasibility and high tolerance. The UTI incidence was 0.7% within 1 month. Based on the micro-cost analysis, estimated cost per procedure favored the reusable FC., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Real-world data are considered a potentially valuable source of evidence for assessing medical technologies in clinical practice, but their widespread use is hampered by numerous challenges. Using the case of coronary stents in Italy, we investigate the potential of administrative databases for estimating costs and health outcomes associated with the use of medical devices in real world conditions. An administrative dataset was created ad hoc by merging hospital records from patients admitted between 2013 and 2019 for stent implantations with ambulatory records, pharmaceutical use data and vital statistics. Health outcomes were multifold: all-cause and cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction, within 30 days, 1, 2, 5 years. Costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. We used multivariable Cox models and propensity score (PS) methods (PS matching; stratification on PS; inverse probability of treatment weighting using PS; PS adjustment). 257,907 coronary stents were implanted in 113,912 patients. For all health outcomes and follow-up times, and across all methods, patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) presented lower risk. For all-cause mortality, the DES patient advantage over bare-metal stent (BMS) patients declined over time but remained significant even at 5 years. For myocardial infarction, results remained quite stable. The DES group presented lower cumulative total costs (ranging from 3264 to 2363 Euros less depending on methods). Our results confirm the consolidated evidence of the benefits of DES compared to BMS. The consistency of results across methods suggests internal validity of the study, while highlighting strengths and limitations of each depending on research context. Administrative data yield great potential to perform comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of medical devices provided certain conditions are met., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Purpose: Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke has been proven clinically effective, but evidence of the cost-effectiveness based on real-world data is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether endovascular therapy plus usual care is cost-effective in comparison to usual care alone in acute ischemic stroke patients., Methods: An economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Empirical data on health outcomes and the use of resources following endovascular treatment were gathered parallel to the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) and its 2-year follow-up study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the extra costs per additional patient with functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and the extra cost per quality-adjusted life year gained., Results: The mean costs per patient in the intervention group were $126 494 versus $143 331 in the control group (mean difference, -$16 839 [95% CI, -$38 113 to $5456]). Compared with patients in the control group, more patients in the intervention group achieved functional independence, 37.2% versus 23.9% (absolute difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 4.0%-22.0%]) and they generated more quality-adjusted life years, 0.99 versus 0.83 (mean difference of 0.16 [95% CI, 0.04-0.29]). Endovascular treatment dominated standard treatment with $18 233 saved per extra patient with a good outcome and $105 869 saved per additional quality-adjusted life year., Conclusions: Endovascular treatment added to usual care is clinically effective, and cost saving in comparison to usual care alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Registration: URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/695; Unique identifier: NL695. URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Objective: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing., Methods: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway., Results: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS., Conclusion: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Invasive treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) is commonly performed, despite limited evidence of its cost effectiveness. IC symptoms are mainly caused by atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA), and endovascular treatment is performed frequently. The aim of this study was to investigate its cost effectiveness vs. non-invasive treatment., Methods: One hundred patients with IC due to lesions in the SFA were randomised to treatment with primary stenting, best medical treatment (BMT) and exercise advice (stent group), or to BMT and exercise advice alone (control group). Patients were recruited at seven hospitals in Sweden. For this analysis of cost effectiveness after 24 months, 84 patients with data on quality adjusted life years (QALY; based on the EuroQol Five Dimensions EQ-5D 3L™ questionnaire) were analysed. Patient registry and imputed cost data were used for accumulated costs regarding hospitalisation and outpatient visits., Results: The mean cost per patient was €11 060 in the stent group and €4 787 in the control group, resulting in a difference of €6 273 per patient between the groups. The difference in mean QALYs between the groups was 0.26, in favour of the stent group, which resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 23 785 per QALY., Conclusion: The costs associated with primary stenting in the SFA for the treatment of IC were higher than for exercise advice and BMT alone. With concurrent improvement in health related quality of life, primary stenting was a cost effective treatment option according to the Swedish national guidelines (ICER < €50 000 - €70 000) and approaching the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for willingness to pay (ICER < £20 000 - £30 000). From a cost effectiveness standpoint, primary stenting of the SFA can, in many countries, be used as an adjunct to exercise training advice, but it must be considered that successful implementation of structured exercise programmes and longer follow up may alter these findings., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil., Methods: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases., Results: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008)., Conclusions: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose of Review: To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris)., Recent Findings: Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.

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., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period., Methods: Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement., Results: From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million)., Conclusions: Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Endoscopic pancreatic stenting is used to prevent main pancreatic duct obstruction and relieve painful symptoms of chronic pancreatitis. However, the stent typically needs to be exchanged and the rate of adverse events is high. Few studies have evaluated the effect of stent shape on those outcomes. We evaluated the adverse events, stent patency, and total medical cost within 90 days of patients who received an 8.5 French (Fr) physiologically shaped pancreatic stent by comparing these features with those associated with a conventional straight-type stent for ≥ 90 days. The total stent-related adverse event rate was significantly lower for the physiologically shaped pancreatic stent (physiologically shaped, 6.7% [2/30]; straight-type, 50.6% [44/87]; P < 0.001). Stent occlusion was significantly less frequent (P < 0.001) and the total medical costs were significantly lower (P = 0.002) for the physiologically shaped stent. The stent-related adverse event rate was significantly higher for the 10 Fr straight type stent than for the 8.5 Fr physiologically shaped stent (10 Fr, straight-type vs. 8.5 Fr, physiologically shaped: 36.1% [13/36] vs. 6.7% [2/30]; P = 0.007). In conclusion, a physiologically shaped pancreatic stent was superior to a straight-type stent in terms of the patency rate and medical costs.

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., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased risk of both ischemic events and bleeding complications resulting from antithrombotic therapy. These events are particularly common in patients with a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation, such as those with atrial fibrillation, and are associated with a substantial healthcare resource burden. Advances in procedural aspects of PCI have led to marked improvements in outcomes and a consequent reduction in the costs resulting from PCI-associated complications. Furthermore, recent randomized clinical trials have investigated the optimal antithrombotic strategy in the specific case of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, leading to a shift toward the tailoring of antithrombotic therapy according to the patient's individual stroke and bleeding risks. Here we review these recent advances, with a particular focus on the improvements in antithrombotic strategies offered by the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To perform cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing stenting to standard medical treatment (SMT) for the management of deep venous outflow obstruction and leg ulcers from the Italian Healthcare Service perspective. Materials & methods: A Markov model was developed to project costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 3 years, based on data from literature combined with real-world data. Moreover, a BIA was performed comparing the current scenario (100% SMT) with increasing utilization rates of stenting over SMT from 0.5 to 5%, in the next 5 years. Results: Stenting is a cost-effective (incremental cost-utility ratio €12,388/QALY) or dominant option versus SMT, according to in-patient or day-hospital settings, respectively. Increasing use of stenting over SMT, in the next 5 years, is expected to yield additional costs of 39.5 million Euros (in-patient) or savings of 5.1 million Euros (day-hospital). Conclusion: Stenting is a cost-effective option compared with SMT for patients with deep vein occlusion and ulceration in Italy.

Background: The recent BIOFLOW V trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02389946) showed that revascularization with an ultrathin strut, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) was associated with lower rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TVMI) at 24-month follow-up than that with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES). We simulated the impact on cost and mortality., Methods and Results: We projected the impact of the lower adverse event rates from a U.S. health system perspective over a 48-month horizon with a Markov model using event data from the BIOFLOW V trial and estimates for costs and excess mortality due to adverse events from published sources. All cost estimates were CPI-adjusted to 2018 US$ and future cost discounted by 3%. We estimated that use of BP SES compared to DP EES was associated with cumulative net reductions in medical cost of $2429 per patient over 48 months. Peri-procedural TVMI contributed $124 (5%), TLR in patients without TVMI $810 (33%) and spontaneous TVMI $1496 (62%) of cost. Use of BP SES compared to DP EES was associated with 2603 fewer deaths in one million patients over four years, corresponding to a relative risk reduction of 6%., Conclusions: Lower adverse event rates associated with revascularization using BP SES translate into reductions in direct medical cost and mortality. Most of the cost reduction is attributed to reduction in spontaneous TVMI. Given the high volume of coronary procedures, such results are an important consideration for patients, clinicians and payers., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Supported through a contract from BIOTRONIK to Benecit Research. The sponsor provided comments on an earlier draft of the paper, but the authors had full control over study design and execution, interpretation of the data, preparation, review and approval of the manuscript and decision to submit. Soeren Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems, Inc. and the scientific advisory board of aicure technologies, Boston Millennia Partners and ZanoZano. He has received consulting fees from AARP, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Defined Health. Mark Hanson has received consulting fees from Biotronik. Marc Bentele is an employee of Biotronik. David Kandzari reports institutional research/grant support from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medinol, Medtronic, and Orbus Neich; and personal consulting honoraria from Biotronik, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: With rising health care spending in the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in recent years attempted to use reimbursement rates to influence use of less expensive care sites for covered patients, such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories (OBLs), in lieu of hospital service sites. It has been suggested that cost savings have not been realized because of more procedures being performed by physicians with ownership interests in nonhospital facilities. CMS adopted massive reimbursement changes for 2019 OBL and ASC-based procedures, which reduced dialysis access angioplasty reimbursement in the ASC setting by 50%, whereas facility reimbursement for stenting increased by 33% above prior levels. The clinical utility of adjunctive stenting in treating dialysis access stenosis remains controversial and highly discretionary. As a vascular group performing such procedures in both a hospital and nonhospital facility in which we have equity interest, we reviewed our use of stents in dialysis access procedures both in the hospital and in the ASC/OBL to determine whether site of service affected stent use., Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed from 2014 to 2018. All patients undergoing dialysis access angiography with angioplasty and adjunctive stent placement at our OBL (later ASC) and our primary hospital were included in the study., Results: There were 961 angioplasty or stent procedures performed for dialysis accesses between the two sites, 564 (58.7%) in the hospital setting and 397 (41.3%) at the OBL/ASC. There was a significant difference in race and age between the two sites, with younger, minority patients more frequently being treated in the hospital and older, white patients more likely to be treated in the ambulatory setting; 153 (27.1%) underwent adjunctive stent placement in the hospital and 127 (32.0%) in the ambulatory setting (P = .09)., Conclusions: Whereas financial incentives have not yet had an appreciable influence on stent use for dialysis access within previous reimbursement paradigms, the dramatic changes recently adopted by CMS may well alter this dynamic and could lead to substantially higher overall costs without proven clinical advantage. Interventionalists may be incentivized to add stents when performing balloon angioplasty in ASCs. With high failure and reintervention rates and increasingly expensive adjuncts (drug-coated balloons and stents, covered stents), the cost implications of attempts to incentivize interventionalists toward a specific type of procedure or site of care are substantial, and unintended negative consequences are likely to occur., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes., Methods: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure-defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube-was measured., Results: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1-3.8], p 0.028)., Conclusion: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In routine clinical practice, the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) versus a bare metal stent (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been guided by criteria for appropriate use. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of adopting these guidelines, however, is not clear, and was investigated from the perspective of the Australian healthcare payer. Methods and results: Baseline and 12-month follow-up data of 12,710 PCI patients enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2004 and 2011 were analysed. Costs inputs were derived from a clinical costing database and published sources. Propensity-score-matching was performed for DES and BMS groups within sub-groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated for all patients, and sub-groups of patients with '0', 1, 2, or ≥3 indications for a DES. The incremental cost per target vessel revascularization avoided for the overall population was $24,683, and for patients with 0, 1, and 2 indications for a DES was $44,635, $33,335, and $23,788, respectively. However, for those with >3 indications, DES compared with BMS was associated with cost savings. At willingness to pay thresholds of $45,000-$75,000, the probability of cost-effectiveness of DES for the overall cohort was 71-91%, '0' indications, 49-67%, 1 indication, 56-82%, 2 indications, 70-90%, and ≥3 indications, 97-99%. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of DES compared with BMS increased with increasing risk profile of patients from those who had 1, 2, to ≥3 indications for a DES. When compared with BMS, DES was least cost effective among patients with '0' indications for a DES. Based on these results, selective use of DES implantation is supported. These findings may be useful for evidence-based clinical decision-making.

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) added to standard of care (SOC) in large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes, adopting the French societal perspective given the lack of published studies with such perspective., Methods: We developed an hybrid model (decision tree until one year post-stroke followed by a Markov model from one year onward). The time horizon was 20 years. We calculated transition probabilities across the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) based on a published meta-analysis. The main outcome measure was quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Resources and input costs were derived from a literature search. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/QALY. We used 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate the model uncertainty., Results: In the base-case, adding SRT to SOC resulted in increased effectiveness of 0.73 QALY while total costs were reduced by 3,874€ (ICER of -5,400€/QALY). In the scenario analysis adopting the French healthcare system perspective, the ICER was 4,901€/QALY. Parameters the most influential were the relative risks of SRT over SOC for 90-days mortality and for 90-days mRS 0-2, and the time horizon. PSA showed the 95% confidence interval of the ICER was -21,324 to 4,591€/QALY, with SRT having 85.5% chance to be dominant and 100% to be cost-effective at a threshold of 50,000€/QALY., Conclusion: SRT was dominant from a French societal perspective, from 9 years post-stroke onwards. Cost-effectiveness of SRT added to SOC becomes undisputable with evidences from payer and societal viewpoints., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

In February 2017, India capped the retail price of coronary stents and restricted the channel margin to bring Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) procedure, which uses coronary stents, within reach of millions of patients who previously could not afford it. Prior research shows that care providers respond to such regulations in a way that compensates for their loss in profits because of price control. Therefore, price control policies often introduce unintended consequences, such as distortions in clinical decision making. We investigate such distortions through empirical analysis of claims data from a representative public insurance program in the Indian state of Karnataka. Our data comprises 25,769 insurance claims from 69 private and seven public hospitals from February 2016 to February 2018. The public insurance context is ideal for investigating distortions in clinical decisions as the price paid by patients, and thereby access to the treatment, does not change after price control. We find that the change in the average volume of PTCA procedures per hospital per month after price control disproportionately increased when compared to the change in the clinical alternative - Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) procedures. This increase corresponds to 6% of the average number of PTCA procedures and 28% of the average number of CABG procedures before the price control. In addition, disproportionate increase in PTCA procedures occurred only among private hospitals, indicating the possibility of profit-maximization intentions driving the clinical choices. Such clinical distortions can have negative implications for patient health outcomes in the long run. We discuss alternative policies to improve access and affordability to healthcare products and services which are likely to not suffer from similar distortions., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Ureteric stents are one of the most crucial tools used for various clinical conditions in the urological field. Placement of a ureteric stent, for short- or long-term use, remains one of the commonest urological interventional procedures. In the past few decades, ureteral stents have undergone notable technological advancements. However, an ideal stent without significant side-effects is yet to be engineered. Indwelling ureteric stents are often accompanied by physical distress to the patient and clinical complications, such as bacterial adhesion, encrustation, malpositioning, stent fracture and forgotten stent syndrome, that influence patients' health-related quality of life. In the market, different stent types are available, designed to reduce infections, and improve patient symptoms and tolerance. In this review, we have emphasized the recent developments that have taken place in stent design, size, materials and coating. This overview looks at current practices and problems related to stents, along with clinical and economic considerations. Few trial studies have been enumerated in the context of utilization of a ureteral stent symptom questionnaire and various stent models to compare their effects in patients., (© 2019 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Background: Endovascular treatment of basilar tip aneurysms is less invasive than microsurgical clipping, but requires closer follow-up., Objective: To characterize the additional costs associated with endovascular treatment of basilar tip aneurysms rather than microsurgical clipping., Materials and Methods: We obtained clinical records and billing information for 141 basilar tip aneurysms treated with clip ligation (n=48) or endovascular embolization (n=93). Costs included direct and indirect costs associated with index hospitalization, as well as re-treatments, follow-up visits, imaging studies, rehabilitation, and disability. Effectiveness of treatment was quantified by converting functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score) into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was performed using cost/QALY ratios., Results: Average index hospitalization costs were significantly higher for patients with unruptured aneurysms treated with clip ligation ($71 400 ± $47 100) compared with coil embolization ($33 500 ± $22 600), balloon-assisted coiling ($26 200 ± $11 600), and stent-assisted coiling ($38 500 ± $20 900). Multivariate predictors for higher index hospitalization cost included vasospasm requiring endovascular intervention, placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, longer length of stay, larger aneurysm neck and width, higher Hunt-Hess grade, and treatment-associated complications. At 1 year, endovascular treatment was associated with lower cost/QALY than clip ligation in unruptured aneurysms ($52 000/QALY vs $137 000/QALY, respectively, p=0.006), but comparable rates in ruptured aneurysms ($193 000/QALY vs $233 000/QALY, p=0.277). Multivariate predictors for higher cost/QALY included worse mRS score at discharge, procedural complications, and larger aneurysm width., Conclusions: Coil embolization of basilar tip aneurysms is associated with a lower cost/QALY. This effect is sustained during follow-up. Clinical condition at discharge is the most significant predictor of overall cost/QALY at 1 year., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG: Viket Medical, Inc (equity interest), ML: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health (grant), American Heart Association (grant), Stryker, Inc (unrestricted educational grant), Covidien (unrestricted educational grant), Medtronic (consulting), Minnetronix (consulting), Proprio (equity interest). LJK: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health (grant), Microvention, Inc (consulting), Spi Surgical, Inc (equity interest). LNS: Spi Surgical, Inc (shareholder), Viket Medical, Inc (shareholder)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Both stent-assisted coiling (SAC) and flow diversion with the Pipeline Embolization device (PED; Medtronic Inc) have been shown to be safe and clinically effective for treatment of small (<10 mm) unruptured aneurysms. However, the economic impact of these different techniques has not been established., Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness between stent-assisted coiling and flow diversion using PED, including procedural costs, long-term outcomes, and aneurysm recurrence., Methods: A decision-analytical study was performed with Markov modeling methods to simulate patients undergoing SAC or PED for treatment for unruptured aneurysms of sizes 5 and 7 mm. Input probabilities were derived from prior literature, and 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed., Results: In base case calculation and PSA, PED was the dominant strategy for both the size groups, with and without consideration of indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analyses show that the conclusion remained robust when varying the retreatment rate of SAC from 0% to 50%, and only changes when the retreatment rate of PED > 49%. PED remained the more cost-effective strategy when the morbidity and mortality of PED increased by <55% and when those of SAC decreased by <37%. SAC only became cost-effective when the total cost of PED is >$73000 more expensive than the total cost of SAC., Conclusion: With increasing use of PED for treatment of small unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms, our study indicates that PED is cost-effective relative to stent coiling irrespective of aneurysm size. This is due to lower aneurysm recurrence rate, as well as better health outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

Purpose: Stent omission after routine ureteroscopy (rtURS) is accepted by current guidelines and may result in decreased patient morbidity and treatment costs. In a value-based healthcare model, the added morbidity and cost of routine stent placement may be scrutinized. Furthermore, data are limited on urologist cost knowledge and it is effect on ureteral stent placement. As such, we seek to describe ureteral stenting practices and urologist cost knowledge amongst US and non-US-based urologists., Methods: The ureteroscopic practice patterns and cost awareness of members of the Endourological Society were surveyed using an international email listserv. Respondents were grouped by practice location (US vs non-US). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations of surgeon practice location with stenting practices., Results: 233 completed responses were received with a response rate of 13.5%. Results revealed that 55% and 71% of respondents reported ureteral stent insertion after rtURS more than 75% of the time for ureteral and renal stones, respectively. Reporting stent insertion following more than 75% of rtURS was more common among US participants for both ureteral and renal stones. Overall, reported cost knowledge was high, but lower among US participants. On multivariable analysis, US respondents were more likely to place ureteral stents after rtURS for ureteral stones more than 75% of the time when compared to those abroad (OR 3.43 p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Ureteral stenting after rtURS is over utilized in the US compared to other countries. While this phenomenon is multifactorial in nature, cost knowledge may be under recognized as a determinant of ureteral stent placement following rtURS.

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., Competing Interests: ZK, VGR, EAH, and LEM disclose consultancy with Endologix, Inc. WKN reports personal fees from Trivascular, outside the submitted work. LHA reports personal fees from Miller Scientific Consulting, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Krajcer et al.)

Background: There is only limited information about the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in Turkey., Aims: To evaluate bare-metal and drug-eluting stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease from the perspective of the reimbursement institution with cost-effectiveness analysis., Study Design: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis., Methods: In our study, 329 patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease and treated with bare-metal or drug-eluting stents in the cardiology clinics of a public university hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2016 were investigated. Bare-metal and drug-eluting stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease were evaluated retrospectively with cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the reimbursement institution., Results: The cost of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 2,131.41 Turkish Liras, and the cost of treatment with a drug-eluting stent was 3,546.14 Turkish Liras; the Quality Adjusted Life Years value of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 0.8371, and the Quality Adjusted Life Years value of treatment with a drug-eluting stent was 0.8924. All these data were analyzed by decision tree. As a result of decision tree analysis, the weighted cost of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 2,340.71 Turkish Liras and weighted Quality Adjusted Life Years value was 0.8332; and the weighted cost of treatment with drug-eluting stent was 3,970.90 Turkish Liras and the weighted Quality Adjusted Life Years value of the treatment with drug-eluting stent was 0.8911. With these values, the additional cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as 28,179.12 Turkish Liras per acquired Quality Adjusted Life Years. The additional cost-effectiveness ratio is in the first zone in the cost-effectiveness plane and below the very threshold of cost-effectiveness., Conclusion: In our study, it was concluded that drug-eluting stents are cost effective compared with bare-metal stents in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Considering the cost and effectiveness of the drug-eluting stent, it is thought that increasing reimbursement for this technology by the reimbursement agency would be beneficial for the service provider.

Purpose: 'Prophylactic' ureteric stents potentially reduce rates, and facilitate intraoperative recognition, of iatrogenic ureteric injury (IUI) during colorectal resections. A lack of consensus surrounds the risk-benefit equation of this practice, and we aimed to assess the evidence base., Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched using terms 'ureteric/ureteral/JJ/Double J stent' or 'ureteric/ureteral catheter' and 'colorectal/prophylactic/resection/diverticular disease/diverticulitis/iatrogenic injury'. Primary outcomes were rates of ureteric injuries and their intraoperative identification. Secondary outcomes included stent complication rates., Results: We identified 987 publications; 22 papers met the inclusion criteria. No randomised controlled trials were found. The total number of patients pooled for evaluation was 869,603 (102,370 with ureteric stents/catheters, 767,233 controls). The most frequent indications for prophylactic stents were diverticular disease (45.38%), neoplasia (33.45%) and inflammatory bowel disease (9.37%). Pooled results saw IUI in 1521/102,370 (1.49%) with, and in 1333/767,233 (0.17%) without, prophylactic ureteric stents. Intraoperative recognition of IUIs occurred in 10/16 injuries (62.5%) with prophylactic stents, versus 9/17 (52.94%) without stents (p = 0.579). The most serious complications of prophylactic stent use were ureteric injury (2/1716, 0.12%) and transient ureteric obstruction following stent removal (13/666, 1.95%)., Conclusions: Placement of prophylactic ureteric stents has a low complication rate. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that stents decrease ureteric injury or increase intraoperative detection of IUIs. Apparently higher rates of IUI in stented patients likely reflect use in higher risk resections. A prospective registry with harmonised data collection points and stratification of intraoperative risk is needed.

Background: Endoscopic biliary stenting is a well-established palliative treatment for patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, the main problem with stent placement is the relatively short duration of stent patency. Although self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) have a longer patency period than plastic stents (PSs), the higher costs limit the wide use of SEMSs. A PS with an antireflux valve is an attractive idea to prolong stent patency, but no ideal design for an antireflux PS (ARPS) has been proposed. We developed a new ARPS with a "duckbilled" valve attached to the duodenal end of the stent., Aim: To compare the patency of ARPSs with that of traditional PSs (TPSs) in patients with unresectable distal MBO., Methods: We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. This study was conducted at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University. Consecutive patients with extrahepatic MBO were enrolled prospectively. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either an ARPS or a TPS. Patients were followed by clinic visits or telephone interviews every 1-2 mo until stent exchange, death, or the final study follow-up in October 2018. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency. Secondary outcomes included the rate of technical success, the rate of clinical success, adverse events, and patient survival., Results: Between February 2016 and December 2017, 38 patients were randomly assigned to two groups, with 19 patients in each group, to receive ARPSs or TPSs. Stent insertion was technically successful in all patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of clinical success or the rates of early or late adverse events ( P = 0.660, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively). The median duration of stent patency in the ARPS group was 285 d [interquartile range (IQR), 170], which was significantly longer than that in the TPS group (median, 130 d; IQR, 90, P = 0.005). No significant difference in patient survival was noted between the two groups ( P = 0.900)., Conclusion: The new ARPS is safe and effective for the palliation of unresectable distal MBO, and has a significantly longer stent patency than a TPS., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Professor Bing Hu is one of the inventors of the antireflux plastic stent. He has worked in collaboration with Micro-Tech (Nanjing) Co. Ltd., Nanjing, China to develop the stent. No free device was offered for this study. The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

Objective: To determine the most cost-effective approach to the management of distal ureteral stones in children given the potential for recurrent renal colic during a trial of passage versus potential stent discomfort and complications of ureteroscopy., Methods: We developed a decision tree to project costs and clinical outcomes associated with observation, medical explusive therapy (MET), and ureteroscopy for the management of an index patient with a 4-mm-distal ureteral stone. We determined which strategy would be least costly and offer the most pain-free days within 30days of diagnosis. We performed a one-way sensitivity analysis on the probability of successful stone passage with MET. We obtained probabilities from the literature and costs from the 2016 Pediatric Health Information System Database., Results: Ureteroscopy was the costliest strategy but maximized the number of pain-free days within 30days of diagnosis ($5282/29 pain-free days). MET was less costly than ureteroscopy but also less effective ($615/21.8 pain-free days). Observation cost more than MET and was also less effective ($2139/15.5 pain-free days). The one-way sensitivity analysis on the probability of successful stone passage with MET demonstrated that ureteroscopy always has the highest net monetary benefits value and is therefore the recommended strategy given a fixed willingness-to-pay., Discussion: Using a rigorous decision-science approach, we found that ureteroscopy is the recommended strategy in children with small distal ureteral stones. Although it costs more than MET, it resulted in more pain-free days in the first 30days following diagnosis given the faster resolution of the stone episode., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study is to determinate the cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus transfemoral stenting (TFS) and transcervical stenting (TCS) in a short- and long-term basis in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients., Methods: From January 2003 to December 2014, patients from the vascular department, with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, who were clinically and anatomically suitable for TFS, TCS, or CEA, were included. Prospective cost data for each individual procedure and complication during follow-up were obtained from the diagnosis-related group. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Analysis of data was by treatment received. All statistical tests were two-sided. The significance level was 5%., Results: A total of 349 patients were enrolled: 61 for CEA (17.5%), 159 for TFS (45.5%), and 129 for TCS (37%). A total of 220 (63%) patients were symptomatic and 129 (37%) were asymptomatic. The median procedural cost and overall cost were lower on CEA (5499€ and 5595€, respectively). However, QALYs, for symptomatic patients, were better on TCS (7.3), whereas for asymptomatic patients, QALYs were better on CEA (9.6). Cost-effectiveness for symptomatic patients was better with TCS (803€/QALY), and for asymptomatic patients, it was with CEA (654€/QALY)., Conclusions: TFS and TCS were associated with clinical outcomes equivalent to CEA on both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Cost-effectiveness ratios for symptomatic patients were better on TCS, whereas the CEA showed the best results in asymptomatic patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the total midterm costs and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with optional stenting (PTA/S) as initial treatment compared with femoropopliteal bypass (FPB) surgery in patients with medium-length TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC) B and C femoropopliteal lesions., Materials and Methods: Over a period of 3 years, all hospital health care costs for 226 consecutive patients were calculated: 170 patients with a TASC B lesion and 56 patients with a TASC C lesion. In the 135-patient PTA/S group (mean age 69.9±10.9 years; 83 men), 108 (63.5%) patients had TASC B lesions and 27 (48.2%) patients had TASC C lesions. Ninety-one patients (mean age 68.4±10.9 years; 60 men) were treated with FPB for 62 TASC B and 29 TASC C femoropopliteal lesions. The main outcome measure was the primary patency rate at 3-year follow-up. Multiple imputation and bootstrapping techniques were used to analyze the data. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the difference in total costs by the difference in 3-year primary patency rate. Costs were expressed in euros (€), and cost differences are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Mean total costs per patient were €29,058 in the PTA/S treatment group vs €42,437 in the FPB group (mean adjusted difference -€14,820, 95% CI -€29,044 to -€5976). Differences in 3-year primary patency between PTA/S and FPB were small and nonsignificant (68.9% and 70.3%, respectively). An ICER of 563,716 was found, indicating that FPB costs €563,716 more per one extra patient reaching 3-year primary patency in comparison with PTA/S treatment., Conclusion: FPB in medium-length femoropopliteal lesions involved higher total costs when evaluated over a 3-year follow-up period. An endovascular-first approach is recommended, as this will result in cost minimization for patients with medium-length femoropopliteal disease.

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 (χ 2 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., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In infants with ductal-dependent pulmonary blood flow, initial palliation with patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) stent or modified Blalock-Taussig (BT) shunt have comparable mortality but discrepant length of stay, procedural complication rates and reintervention burdens, which may influence cost. The relative economic impact of these palliation strategies is unknown., Methods and Results: Retrospective study of infants with ductal-dependent pulmonary blood flow palliated with PDA stent (n=104) or BT shunt (n=251) from 2008 to 2015 at 4 centers of the Congenital Catheterization Research Collaborative. Inflation-adjusted inpatient hospital costs were calculated for first year of life using Pediatric Health Information System data. Costs derived from outpatient catheterizations not in Pediatric Health Information System were imputed. Costs were compared using propensity score-adjusted multivariable models, to account for baseline differences between groups. After propensity score adjustment, first year of life costs were significantly lower in PDA stent ($215 825 [190 644-244 333]) than BT shunt ($249 855 [230 693-270 609]) patients ( P=0.05). After addition of imputed costs, first year of life costs were not significantly different between PDA stent ($226 403 [200 274-255 941]) and BT shunt ($252 072 [232 955-272 759]) groups ( P=0.15). Patient characteristics associated with higher costs included: younger gestational age, genetic syndrome, noncardiac diagnoses, procedural complications, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and reintervention ( P≤0.02 for all)., Conclusions: In this first multicenter comparative cost study of PDA stent or BT shunt as palliation for infants with ductal-dependent pulmonary blood flow, adjusted for baseline differences, PDA stent was associated with lower to equivalent costs over the first year of life. Combined with previous evidence suggesting clinical noninferiority, these findings suggest that PDA stent provides competitive health care value.

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., (Copyright © 2018 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using drugeluting stents (DES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) for coronary heart disease (CHD)., Data Sources/study Setting: Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Longitudinal Health Insurance Database, which contains claims data for 1,000,000 beneficiaries. The data were randomly sampled from all beneficiaries., Study Design: A retrospective claims data analysis., Data Collection/extraction Methods: Patients with stable coronary heart disease who underwent coronary stent implantation from 2007 to 2008 were recruited and followed to the end of 2013. After a 2:1 propensity score matched by gender, age, stent number, and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), 852 patients with 568 stents in the BMS group and 284 stents in the DES group were included. The cumulative medical costs for both matched groups were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier Sample Average (KMSA), and then the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated., Principal Findings: The ICER of DES vs. BMS was NT$ 663,000 per cardiovascular death averted and NT$ 238,394 per cardiovascular death or coronary event averted in five years from the insurer perspective., Conclusion: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was a more cost-effective strategy than PCI with BMS for CHD patients during the five-year follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite significant technical advancement in the last decade, the durability of endovascular management of critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains highly debatable. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are being popularized for the management of CLI after its precedent success in coronary intervention. Initial reports on the durability of DES are promising. However, little is known on the additional cost of this relatively newer technology. The aim of this study is to compare the cost of the traditional bare metal stents (BMSs) to the newly introduced DES in a large cohort of CLI patients., Methods: Using the Premier database (2009-2015), we identified all patients with CLI undergoing DES and BMS. A multivariable generalized linear model was implemented to examine in-hospital cost adjusting for patients' characteristics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics., Results: A total of 20,702 patients with CLI underwent peripheral artery revascularization using BMS (18,924 [91.41%]) or DES (1,778 [8.6%]). Majority of patients were males (53%) and whites (71%). Patients undergoing BMS were slightly younger (median age [interquartile range]: 70 [62-79] versus 71 [63-80]) and were more likely to be smokers (46% vs. 39%) and have a history of cerebrovascular disease (10% vs. 8%) and chronic pulmonary disease (24.5% vs. 20.9%) as compared with those undergoing DES (all P < 0.05). On the other hand, DES patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (4% vs. 3%) and renal disease (25% vs. 22%) (both P < 0.05). There was also a significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing DES and a corresponding decrease in BMS (P < 0.001) over the study period. Median total in-hospitalization cost (BMS: $13,342 [8,574 to 21,166], DES: $13,243 [8,560-20,232], P = 0.76) was similar for both approaches. After adjusting for potential confounders, DES was associated with $407 higher cost than BMS (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 407 [17 to 798], P = 0.04). In addition, the cost was $672 higher in teaching hospitals, $1,153 higher in Rural areas, and increased in all regions compared with the Midwest (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]-South: $293 [31 to 555], Northeast: $2,006 [1,517 to 2,495], West: $3,312 [2,930 to 3,695], all P < 0.05)., Conclusions: In this large cohort of CLI patients, after controlling for potential confounders, we demonstrated that the cost of endovascular revascularization is significantly higher in patients undergoing DES than those undergoing BMS. Regional disparities in cost were also observed. Further studies looking at the long-term durability and costs of DES versus BMS are needed., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to understand drivers of cost for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) and to compare variation in cost among cases performed by vascular surgery (VS) with other services (OSs)., Methods: We collected internal hospital claims data for CEA and CAS between September 2013 and August 2015 and performed a financial analysis of all hospital costs including room accommodations, medications, medical and surgical supplies, imaging, and laboratory tests. Cases were stratified by presence of symptoms and procedure type, and costs of procedures performed by VS were compared with those performed by OSs., Results: The cohort comprised 144 patients (78 asymptomatic, 66 symptomatic; 44 CAS, 100 CEA) receiving unilateral revascularization. VS (24 CAS, 70 CEA) and neurosurgery and neurointerventional radiology services (20 CAS, 30 CEA) performed all procedures. Age (71 ± 9 years vs 70 ± 11 years; P = .8) and length of stay (1.7 ± 2.1 days vs 2.2 ± 2.4 days; P = .73) were similar for VS and OSs. Symptoms were present before revascularization for 46% and were more commonly treated by OSs (78% vs 29%; P < .001). Case mix index was similar after stratifying by symptoms (asymptomatic, 1.28 ± 0.35 vs 1.39 ± 0.42 [P = .5]; symptomatic, 1.66 ± 0.73 vs 1.82 ± 0.81 [P = .9]). The largest cost components were operating room (OR)-related costs, beds, and supplies, together accounting for 76% of costs. Asymptomatic patients had 37% lower average hospital costs. For asymptomatic CAS, average index hospitalization cost was 17% less for VS compared with OSs because of 78% lower intensive care unit costs, 44% lower OR-related costs, 40% lower medication costs, and 24% lower cardiac testing costs. VS had 22% higher supply costs. For asymptomatic CEA, average index hospitalization costs were 22% lower for VS, driven by lower OR-related costs (28%), medications (28%), imaging (62%), and neurointerventional monitoring (64%). Costs were 38% higher for CAS vs CEA. For symptomatic CAS, costs were similar for both groups. For symptomatic CEA, total costs were 14% lower for VS compared with OSs, driven by 25% lower OR-related costs, 62% lower neurointerventional monitoring, 20% step-down beds, and 28% lower supply costs (and counterbalanced by 117% higher intensive care unit costs)., Conclusions: VS average hospital costs were lower for asymptomatic CAS and all CEAs compared with OSs. Drivers of higher cost appear to be attributed to variation in physicians' practice as well as patients' complexity, affording an opportunity to reduce cost by establishing standard practices when appropriate., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The contemporary limb outcomes and costs of stent-based vs non-stent based strategies in endovascular revascularization of femoropopliteal (FP) peripheral artery disease (PAD) are not well understood., Methods and Results: We present data from the ongoing United States multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease Registry between 2006-2016 to compare stent vs non-stent treatment outcomes and associated costs in FP interventions. A total of 2910 FP interventions were performed in 2162 patients (mean age, 66 years), comprising 1339 stent based (superficial femoral artery, 93%) in 1007 patients and 1571 non-stent interventions (superficial femoral artery, 85%) in 1155 patients. A growing trend for non-stent based interventions and a declining trend in repeat revascularization rate at 1 year were observed across years of registry enrollment. Stent implantation was the prevailing strategy in treating longer FP lesions (mean length, 152 mm vs 105 mm; P<.001) and chronic total occlusions (65% vs 40%; P<.001), while stent implantation was employed less frequently when treating in-stent restenotic lesions (14% vs 20%; P<.001). Stent and non-stent interventions had similar 1-year limb outcomes in all-cause death, target-limb revascularization, target-vessel revascularization, and major or minor amputation. The average procedure costs for the stent group were significantly higher than the non-stent group ($6215 vs $4790; P<.001)., Conclusion: There is a growing trend for non-stent FP artery interventions, with a significant decline in 1-year target-limb revascularization rates over time. One-year limb outcomes in stent-based compared to non-stent interventions are similar; however, at a significantly higher procedural cost.

Objective: to evaluate the results and costs of surgical treatment against endovascular in non ruptured aneurysms., Material and Methods: retrospective study of a consecutive series non ruptured aneurysms from a single-center treated endovascularly (EV) and surgically (SC). A descriptive study of demographic (age, sex) charqacteristics of the patients and the radiological aspects of the aneurysms have been carried out. Clinical results (GOS at 6 months), angiographic data (occlusion classification) and economic costs have been evaluated in both globally, and in each of the groups., Results: 89 patients treated between 2010 and 2015 were reviewed. Most of them were treated endovascularly (74%). There were no statiscally significant differences between EV and SC groups. 89% of the patients presented favourable GOS (4-5) at six months, being this percentage similar in both groups. Complete occlusion was much higher in SC group (96%) than in EV (55%). Retreatment rate was 24% in EV group and 0% in SC group. The retreatments were more frequent in anterior circulation aneurysms and bigger aneurysms (> 10 mm). The expenses in the SC group come mainly from hospital stay, meanwhile in the EV group is due to embolisation materials. The average length of stay (ALOS) are higher in SC group but costs of first admission are higher in EV group (14% more). When the costs of retreatments and follow up are included the costs of endovascular treatment is much higher than the surgical (61% more expensive)., Conclusions: results of both types of treatment are comparable. The grade of aneurysmal occlusion of the SC group was higher than the EV, as well as the stability of the treatment, requiring fewer retreatments. Althoug the ALOS in SC group were longer, the costs of the EV group were significantly higher than the SC group due to the costs of embolisation materials, follow up that they need and the rate of retreatment. Adequate selection of candidates for endovascular coiling could improve angiographic outcomes, reduce retraction rates, and save costs., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Neurocirugía. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Many previous studies have evaluated the outcomes of open and endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, little is known about the differences in cost of these procedures and the potential factors driving these differences. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and cost of open aortic repair (OAR) vs endovascular repair of intact TAAA., Methods: All patients undergoing repair for intact TAAA were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database (July 2009-March 2015). Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the χ 2 test, Student t-test, and median test as appropriate. A multivariable generalized linear model was used to examine total in-hospital cost., Results: A total of 879 TAAA repairs were identified (481 [55%) endovascular repairs vs 398 [45%] OARs). Patients undergoing endovascular repair were on average 5 years older (71.2 [±10.0] years vs 66.5 [±10.9] years; P < .001) and more likely to be female (48% vs 42%; P = .05) and hypertensive (87% vs 80%; P = .009). Otherwise, there were no significant differences in comorbidities between the two groups. Patients undergoing OAR were more likely to stay longer in the hospital (median [interquartile range], 11 [7-20] days vs 5 [2-9] days; P < .001). In-hospital mortality (15% vs 5%; P < .001) and all major complications were two to three times higher after OAR. The median total cost of OAR was significantly higher compared with endovascular repair (cost [interquartile range], $44,355 [$32,177-$54,824] vs $36,612 [$24,395-$53,554]; P = .004). The majority of the cost attributed to TAAA repair was also higher in patients undergoing open repair: room and board ($11,561 vs $4720), operating room ($9230 vs $4929), pharmacy ($2309 vs $900), blood bank ($1189 vs $195), rehabilitation/physical therapy ($378 vs $236), and respiratory therapy ($875 vs $168; all P < .001). Only the cost of central supplies, which includes endovascular grafts and stents, was the highest among patients undergoing endovascular repair ($17,472 vs $5501; P < .001). The cost of diagnostic imaging ($625 vs $595) and anesthesia ($479 vs $478) was similar in both approaches. In a multivariable analysis, the adjusted total hospitalization cost for OAR was $5974 (95% confidence interval, $1828-$10,120; P = .005) higher compared with endovascular repair. However, after adjusting for in-hospital complications, no difference was seen between the two approaches (-$460; 95% confidence interval, -$4390 to $3470; P = .82)., Conclusions: In this large cohort of intact TAAAs, we showed a significantly higher adjusted total hospitalization cost of open compared with endovascular repair despite the additional cost of endografts. This is likely driven by longer length of stay and higher morbidity after OAR., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pricing of stents is being questioned by healthcare stakeholders due to large differences in price of its product types and its variation across different markets. The stent pricing literature published during 1997-2017 were reviewed besides inputs from industry experts to identify initial key pricing drivers. Interpretive structural modeling was used to build priority for checking the price rise in emerging markets like India. Lack of regulation besides other drivers like R&D cost and price of substitute was found to be important drivers of high prices. The findings would help policy makers to take steps to make stent pricing affordable.

Background: There are limited economic evaluations comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) in contemporary, routine clinical practice., Objective: The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing CABG and PCI in patients with MVCAD, from the perspective of the Australian public hospital payer, using observational data sources., Methods: Clinical data from the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) registries were analysed for 1022 CABG (treatment) and 978 PCI (comparator) procedures performed between June 2009 and December 2013. Clinical records were linked to same-hospital admissions and national death index (NDI) data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) avoided were evaluated. The propensity score bin bootstrap (PSBB) approach was used to validate base-case results., Results: At mean follow-up of 2.7 years, CABG compared with PCI was associated with increased costs and greater all-cause mortality, but a significantly lower rate of MACCE. An ICER of $55,255 (Australian dollars)/MACCE avoided was observed for the overall cohort. The ICER varied across comparisons against bare metal stents (ICER $25,815/MACCE avoided), all drug-eluting stents (DES) ($56,861), second-generation DES ($42,925), and third-generation of DES ($88,535). Moderate-to-low ICERs were apparent for high-risk subgroups, including those with chronic kidney disease ($62,299), diabetes ($42,819), history of myocardial infarction ($30,431), left main coronary artery disease ($38,864), and heart failure ($36,966)., Conclusions: At early follow-up, high-risk subgroups had lower ICERs than the overall cohort when CABG was compared with PCI. A personalised, multidisciplinary approach to treatment of patients may enhance cost containment, as well as improving clinical outcomes following revascularisation strategies.