Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: What does each really cost?

Niren Angle, Amir Dorafshar, Wesley S. Moore, William J. Quiñones-Baldrich, Hugh A. Gelabert, Samuel S. Ahn, J. Dennis Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has emerged as an alternative to open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and specific costs of these procedures since commercialization. A retrospective analysis of 119 consecutive infrarenal AAA repaired via an EVAR or an OR between July 2000 and September 2001 was performed. Patient charts were reviewed. Diagnostic-related group (DRG) classification and payer mix were identified. The hospital cost accounting system was accessed to obtain actual variable direct cost (AVDC) for the two groups. Percentages of the mean AVDC for the two groups were compared in the following cost categories: graft, operating room, radiology procedures and supplies, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, clinical laboratories, surgical floor, and monitored unit. Hospital profit margins were determined. Fifty-five patients underwent EVAR and 64 patients underwent OR. Mean aneurysm size was 5.5 cm (EVAR) and 6.1 cm (OR). Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 0.09 days for EVAR vs. 3.5 days for OR (p <0.05). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 1.96 days for EVAR vs. 7.3 days for OR (p <0.05). Reimbursement was based on DRG 110, 47.3% in the EVAR and 79.7% in the OR group (p <0.05), and DRG 111, 50.9% in the EVAR group and 12.5% in the OR group (p <0.05). The payer mix showed no significant differences between the two groups. Mean AVDC for EVAR was 1.74 times that of OR. Significant differences in the distribution of costs were found in the following: graft costs (58% vs. 6.3%, p <0.05), radiology procedures and supplies (3.9% vs. 0.1%, p <0.05), pharmacy (1.9% vs. 10.5%, p <0.05), and monitored unit (7.3% vs. 24.65%, p <0.05) comparing EVAR vs. OR, respectively. Median cost of an endovascular graft was 22.4 times that of the standard graft for OR. Average hospital profit margins for an EVAR case was 49.5% vs. 88.6% for OR. Despite significant differences in monitored unit utilization, pharmacy services, and respiratory therapy services by the OR group, the cost of EVAR is appreciably more expensive. Furthermore, increased DRG reimbursement, and decreased ICU use and LOS do not compensate for the cost of EVAR. The main cost of EVAR is the cost of the graft itself. Hospital profit margins are acceptable with both the EVAR and OR procedures at this time; however, with proposed reductions in reimbursement, the ability to cover the cost of this new technology may be threatened.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)612-618
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Costs and Cost Analysis
Diagnosis-Related Groups
Transplants
Respiratory Therapy
Radiology
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Pharmaceutical Services
Hospital Costs
Operating Rooms
Aneurysm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Angle, N., Dorafshar, A., Moore, W. S., Quiñones-Baldrich, W. J., Gelabert, H. A., Ahn, S. S., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: What does each really cost? Annals of Vascular Surgery, 18(5), 612-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-004-0089-3

Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms : What does each really cost? / Angle, Niren; Dorafshar, Amir; Moore, Wesley S.; Quiñones-Baldrich, William J.; Gelabert, Hugh A.; Ahn, Samuel S.; Baker, J. Dennis.

In: Annals of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 18, No. 5, 09.2004, p. 612-618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Angle, N, Dorafshar, A, Moore, WS, Quiñones-Baldrich, WJ, Gelabert, HA, Ahn, SS & Baker, JD 2004, 'Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: What does each really cost?', Annals of Vascular Surgery, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 612-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-004-0089-3
Angle N, Dorafshar A, Moore WS, Quiñones-Baldrich WJ, Gelabert HA, Ahn SS et al. Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: What does each really cost? Annals of Vascular Surgery. 2004 Sep;18(5):612-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-004-0089-3
Angle, Niren ; Dorafshar, Amir ; Moore, Wesley S. ; Quiñones-Baldrich, William J. ; Gelabert, Hugh A. ; Ahn, Samuel S. ; Baker, J. Dennis. / Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms : What does each really cost?. In: Annals of Vascular Surgery. 2004 ; Vol. 18, No. 5. pp. 612-618.
@article{6b1008bec76b4e29a1df32a452c95bed,
title = "Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: What does each really cost?",
abstract = "Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has emerged as an alternative to open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and specific costs of these procedures since commercialization. A retrospective analysis of 119 consecutive infrarenal AAA repaired via an EVAR or an OR between July 2000 and September 2001 was performed. Patient charts were reviewed. Diagnostic-related group (DRG) classification and payer mix were identified. The hospital cost accounting system was accessed to obtain actual variable direct cost (AVDC) for the two groups. Percentages of the mean AVDC for the two groups were compared in the following cost categories: graft, operating room, radiology procedures and supplies, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, clinical laboratories, surgical floor, and monitored unit. Hospital profit margins were determined. Fifty-five patients underwent EVAR and 64 patients underwent OR. Mean aneurysm size was 5.5 cm (EVAR) and 6.1 cm (OR). Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 0.09 days for EVAR vs. 3.5 days for OR (p <0.05). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 1.96 days for EVAR vs. 7.3 days for OR (p <0.05). Reimbursement was based on DRG 110, 47.3{\%} in the EVAR and 79.7{\%} in the OR group (p <0.05), and DRG 111, 50.9{\%} in the EVAR group and 12.5{\%} in the OR group (p <0.05). The payer mix showed no significant differences between the two groups. Mean AVDC for EVAR was 1.74 times that of OR. Significant differences in the distribution of costs were found in the following: graft costs (58{\%} vs. 6.3{\%}, p <0.05), radiology procedures and supplies (3.9{\%} vs. 0.1{\%}, p <0.05), pharmacy (1.9{\%} vs. 10.5{\%}, p <0.05), and monitored unit (7.3{\%} vs. 24.65{\%}, p <0.05) comparing EVAR vs. OR, respectively. Median cost of an endovascular graft was 22.4 times that of the standard graft for OR. Average hospital profit margins for an EVAR case was 49.5{\%} vs. 88.6{\%} for OR. Despite significant differences in monitored unit utilization, pharmacy services, and respiratory therapy services by the OR group, the cost of EVAR is appreciably more expensive. Furthermore, increased DRG reimbursement, and decreased ICU use and LOS do not compensate for the cost of EVAR. The main cost of EVAR is the cost of the graft itself. Hospital profit margins are acceptable with both the EVAR and OR procedures at this time; however, with proposed reductions in reimbursement, the ability to cover the cost of this new technology may be threatened.",
author = "Niren Angle and Amir Dorafshar and Moore, {Wesley S.} and Qui{\~n}ones-Baldrich, {William J.} and Gelabert, {Hugh A.} and Ahn, {Samuel S.} and Baker, {J. Dennis}",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s10016-004-0089-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "612--618",
journal = "Annals of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0890-5096",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

T2 - What does each really cost?

AU - Angle, Niren

AU - Dorafshar, Amir

AU - Moore, Wesley S.

AU - Quiñones-Baldrich, William J.

AU - Gelabert, Hugh A.

AU - Ahn, Samuel S.

AU - Baker, J. Dennis

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has emerged as an alternative to open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and specific costs of these procedures since commercialization. A retrospective analysis of 119 consecutive infrarenal AAA repaired via an EVAR or an OR between July 2000 and September 2001 was performed. Patient charts were reviewed. Diagnostic-related group (DRG) classification and payer mix were identified. The hospital cost accounting system was accessed to obtain actual variable direct cost (AVDC) for the two groups. Percentages of the mean AVDC for the two groups were compared in the following cost categories: graft, operating room, radiology procedures and supplies, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, clinical laboratories, surgical floor, and monitored unit. Hospital profit margins were determined. Fifty-five patients underwent EVAR and 64 patients underwent OR. Mean aneurysm size was 5.5 cm (EVAR) and 6.1 cm (OR). Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 0.09 days for EVAR vs. 3.5 days for OR (p <0.05). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 1.96 days for EVAR vs. 7.3 days for OR (p <0.05). Reimbursement was based on DRG 110, 47.3% in the EVAR and 79.7% in the OR group (p <0.05), and DRG 111, 50.9% in the EVAR group and 12.5% in the OR group (p <0.05). The payer mix showed no significant differences between the two groups. Mean AVDC for EVAR was 1.74 times that of OR. Significant differences in the distribution of costs were found in the following: graft costs (58% vs. 6.3%, p <0.05), radiology procedures and supplies (3.9% vs. 0.1%, p <0.05), pharmacy (1.9% vs. 10.5%, p <0.05), and monitored unit (7.3% vs. 24.65%, p <0.05) comparing EVAR vs. OR, respectively. Median cost of an endovascular graft was 22.4 times that of the standard graft for OR. Average hospital profit margins for an EVAR case was 49.5% vs. 88.6% for OR. Despite significant differences in monitored unit utilization, pharmacy services, and respiratory therapy services by the OR group, the cost of EVAR is appreciably more expensive. Furthermore, increased DRG reimbursement, and decreased ICU use and LOS do not compensate for the cost of EVAR. The main cost of EVAR is the cost of the graft itself. Hospital profit margins are acceptable with both the EVAR and OR procedures at this time; however, with proposed reductions in reimbursement, the ability to cover the cost of this new technology may be threatened.

AB - Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has emerged as an alternative to open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and specific costs of these procedures since commercialization. A retrospective analysis of 119 consecutive infrarenal AAA repaired via an EVAR or an OR between July 2000 and September 2001 was performed. Patient charts were reviewed. Diagnostic-related group (DRG) classification and payer mix were identified. The hospital cost accounting system was accessed to obtain actual variable direct cost (AVDC) for the two groups. Percentages of the mean AVDC for the two groups were compared in the following cost categories: graft, operating room, radiology procedures and supplies, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, clinical laboratories, surgical floor, and monitored unit. Hospital profit margins were determined. Fifty-five patients underwent EVAR and 64 patients underwent OR. Mean aneurysm size was 5.5 cm (EVAR) and 6.1 cm (OR). Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 0.09 days for EVAR vs. 3.5 days for OR (p <0.05). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 1.96 days for EVAR vs. 7.3 days for OR (p <0.05). Reimbursement was based on DRG 110, 47.3% in the EVAR and 79.7% in the OR group (p <0.05), and DRG 111, 50.9% in the EVAR group and 12.5% in the OR group (p <0.05). The payer mix showed no significant differences between the two groups. Mean AVDC for EVAR was 1.74 times that of OR. Significant differences in the distribution of costs were found in the following: graft costs (58% vs. 6.3%, p <0.05), radiology procedures and supplies (3.9% vs. 0.1%, p <0.05), pharmacy (1.9% vs. 10.5%, p <0.05), and monitored unit (7.3% vs. 24.65%, p <0.05) comparing EVAR vs. OR, respectively. Median cost of an endovascular graft was 22.4 times that of the standard graft for OR. Average hospital profit margins for an EVAR case was 49.5% vs. 88.6% for OR. Despite significant differences in monitored unit utilization, pharmacy services, and respiratory therapy services by the OR group, the cost of EVAR is appreciably more expensive. Furthermore, increased DRG reimbursement, and decreased ICU use and LOS do not compensate for the cost of EVAR. The main cost of EVAR is the cost of the graft itself. Hospital profit margins are acceptable with both the EVAR and OR procedures at this time; however, with proposed reductions in reimbursement, the ability to cover the cost of this new technology may be threatened.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4544232796&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4544232796&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10016-004-0089-3

DO - 10.1007/s10016-004-0089-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 15534745

AN - SCOPUS:4544232796

VL - 18

SP - 612

EP - 618

JO - Annals of Vascular Surgery

JF - Annals of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0890-5096

IS - 5

ER -