These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes and Cost Comparison of Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Endovascular Aortic Repair With Open Femoral Exposure.
    Author: Thurston JS, Camara A, Alcasid N, White SB, Patel PJ, Rossi PJ, Hieb RE, Lee CJ.
    Journal: J Surg Res; 2019 Aug; 240():124-129. PubMed ID: 30928769.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess cost differences between patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) and open surgical femoral exposure in elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An IRB-approved single center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2009 to 2016 was performed. One hundred patients were selected with 50 patients who underwent PEVAR and 50 patients who underwent open surgical femoral exposure. Patient demographics, procedural variables, and hospital outcomes were collected and compared. Primary outcomes assessed used in cost calculations included operating time (OR time), hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit stay (ICU LOS). Extrapolated cost differences were based on known, published cost multipliers for the primary outcomes observed. RESULTS: Patients undergoing PEVAR had significant reduction in mean OR time (113.9 min versus 144.9 min, P < 0.001), mean ICU LOS (19.7 h versus 28.9 h, P = 0.094), and overall LOS (28.3 h versus 33.1 h, P = 0.020). There was no statistically significant difference in access related complications, although there was a trend toward less complication rates with PEVAR (0% versus 5%, P = 0.056). Calculated cost of procedures based on mean ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and OR time, showed significant reduction in mean hospital costs with PEVAR ($16,628.5 versus $21,705.8, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated an overall 23% cost reduction with PEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Prior reports comparing PEVAR versus EVAR with open femoral exposures have shown improvement in overall patient time to ambulation and other hospital metrics such as LOS with PEVAR. There is, however, a paucity of overall cost comparison data regarding PEVAR. In this study, adoption of PEVAR was seen to significantly reduce OR times (19%) and overall hospital LOS (50%). The outcomes observed ultimately translated into significant reduction in hospital costs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]