Cost of Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Background: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health‐care technologies in terms of their econ...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 2000-09, Vol.70 (9), p.660-666
Hauptverfasser: Birch, Simone E., Stary, David R., Scott, Alan R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 666
container_issue 9
container_start_page 660
container_title Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery
container_volume 70
creator Birch, Simone E.
Stary, David R.
Scott, Alan R.
description Background: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health‐care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. Methods: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow‐up costs. Results: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P < 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15 092, P < 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10 284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P < 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P < 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure‐related complications were higher for EVR ($26 909 vs $17 650). Conclusion: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01921.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72236771</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72236771</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4691-10ec3c52526fb55469a69ac1cbb1eee9fef3ca47f66d4f586c7d9b437757cff53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1P2zAUhi00REvZX0C52l2C7cR2crGLrLCCVBWJsm53luMco3T5KHbD2n-Ps1TTLpEs2eec5z2WHoQCgiOCE36zjUiS4JBwSiOKMY4wySiJDmdo6gcspCQTn9DUT5Iw5SmdoEvntkPJ0_QCTQjOBE8zPkWreef2QWeCu7bs3pTTfa1ssAHrehc87qAN1r19qbSqgyfYqcoObF6UXVO1vpd3dl_pIG-ht0fXuCt0blTt4PPpnqEf3--e5_fh8nHxMM-XoU54RkKCQceaUUa5KRjzPeWPJrooCABkBkysVSIM52ViWMq1KLMiiYVgQhvD4hn6Mu7d2e61B7eXTeU01LVqoeudFJTGXAjiwXQEte2cs2DkzlaNskdJsBxcyq0cXMrBpRxcyr8u5cFHr09_9EUD5X_BUZ4Hvo7An6qG44cXy3y1Hl4-H475yu3h8C-v7G_JRSyY_LlayGy9obe_4m9yFb8DUXyR8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72236771</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost of Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Birch, Simone E. ; Stary, David R. ; Scott, Alan R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Birch, Simone E. ; Stary, David R. ; Scott, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health‐care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. Methods: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow‐up costs. Results: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P &lt; 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P &lt; 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15 092, P &lt; 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10 284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P &lt; 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P &lt; 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure‐related complications were higher for EVR ($26 909 vs $17 650). Conclusion: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0004-8682</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1445-2197</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01921.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10976896</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Angiography ; aortic aneurysm ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - economics ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery ; Australia ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - economics ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods ; Chi-Square Distribution ; cost analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; endoluminal repair ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Probability ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Vascular Surgical Procedures - economics ; Vascular Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><ispartof>Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 2000-09, Vol.70 (9), p.660-666</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4691-10ec3c52526fb55469a69ac1cbb1eee9fef3ca47f66d4f586c7d9b437757cff53</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046%2Fj.1440-1622.2000.01921.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046%2Fj.1440-1622.2000.01921.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10976896$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Birch, Simone E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stary, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><title>Cost of Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</title><title>Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery</title><addtitle>Aust. N.Z. J. Surg</addtitle><description>Background: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health‐care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. Methods: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow‐up costs. Results: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P &lt; 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P &lt; 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15 092, P &lt; 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10 284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P &lt; 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P &lt; 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure‐related complications were higher for EVR ($26 909 vs $17 650). Conclusion: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Angiography</subject><subject>aortic aneurysm</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - economics</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - economics</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>endoluminal repair</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Care Costs</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Vascular Surgical Procedures - economics</subject><subject>Vascular Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><issn>0004-8682</issn><issn>1445-2197</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1P2zAUhi00REvZX0C52l2C7cR2crGLrLCCVBWJsm53luMco3T5KHbD2n-Ps1TTLpEs2eec5z2WHoQCgiOCE36zjUiS4JBwSiOKMY4wySiJDmdo6gcspCQTn9DUT5Iw5SmdoEvntkPJ0_QCTQjOBE8zPkWreef2QWeCu7bs3pTTfa1ssAHrehc87qAN1r19qbSqgyfYqcoObF6UXVO1vpd3dl_pIG-ht0fXuCt0blTt4PPpnqEf3--e5_fh8nHxMM-XoU54RkKCQceaUUa5KRjzPeWPJrooCABkBkysVSIM52ViWMq1KLMiiYVgQhvD4hn6Mu7d2e61B7eXTeU01LVqoeudFJTGXAjiwXQEte2cs2DkzlaNskdJsBxcyq0cXMrBpRxcyr8u5cFHr09_9EUD5X_BUZ4Hvo7An6qG44cXy3y1Hl4-H475yu3h8C-v7G_JRSyY_LlayGy9obe_4m9yFb8DUXyR8w</recordid><startdate>200009</startdate><enddate>200009</enddate><creator>Birch, Simone E.</creator><creator>Stary, David R.</creator><creator>Scott, Alan R.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200009</creationdate><title>Cost of Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</title><author>Birch, Simone E. ; Stary, David R. ; Scott, Alan R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4691-10ec3c52526fb55469a69ac1cbb1eee9fef3ca47f66d4f586c7d9b437757cff53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Angiography</topic><topic>aortic aneurysm</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - economics</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - economics</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>endoluminal repair</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Care Costs</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Vascular Surgical Procedures - economics</topic><topic>Vascular Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Birch, Simone E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stary, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Birch, Simone E.</au><au>Stary, David R.</au><au>Scott, Alan R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost of Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</atitle><jtitle>Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Aust. N.Z. J. Surg</addtitle><date>2000-09</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>660</spage><epage>666</epage><pages>660-666</pages><issn>0004-8682</issn><eissn>1445-2197</eissn><abstract>Background: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health‐care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. Methods: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow‐up costs. Results: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P &lt; 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P &lt; 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15 092, P &lt; 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10 284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P &lt; 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P &lt; 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure‐related complications were higher for EVR ($26 909 vs $17 650). Conclusion: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>10976896</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01921.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0004-8682
ispartof Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 2000-09, Vol.70 (9), p.660-666
issn 0004-8682
1445-2197
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72236771
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Angiography
aortic aneurysm
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - economics
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery
Australia
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - economics
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods
Chi-Square Distribution
cost analysis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
endoluminal repair
Female
Health Care Costs
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Probability
Retrospective Studies
Statistics, Nonparametric
Vascular Surgical Procedures - economics
Vascular Surgical Procedures - methods
title Cost of Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T18%3A14%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost%20of%20Endovascular%20Versus%20Open%20Surgical%20Repair%20of%20Abdominal%20Aortic%20Aneurysms&rft.jtitle=Australian%20and%20New%20Zealand%20Journal%20of%20Surgery&rft.au=Birch,%20Simone%20E.&rft.date=2000-09&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=660&rft.epage=666&rft.pages=660-666&rft.issn=0004-8682&rft.eissn=1445-2197&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01921.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72236771%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72236771&rft_id=info:pmid/10976896&rfr_iscdi=true