Real-world comparative claims analysis of a novel single-branched aortic stent graft device versus thoracic endograft placement with extra-anatomic debranching/revascularization in zone 2 aortic disease.
Cervical debranching
TEVAR
cost analysis
single-branch device
thoracic endovascular aortic repair
Journal
Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
ISSN: 0899-8280
Titre abrégé: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9302033
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
19
6
2023
entrez:
19
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving landing zone 2 can require extra-anatomic debranching (SR-TEVAR) to ensure left subclavian artery perfusion, resulting in increased costs. A single-branch device (Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis [TBE], WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ) provides a total endovascular solution. Comparative cost analysis of patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR requiring left subclavian artery preservation with TBE versus SR-TEVAR is presented. A single-center retrospective cost analysis was performed for aortic diseases requiring a zone 2 landing zone (TBE vs. SR-TEVAR) from 2014 to 2019. Facility charges were collected from the universal billing form UB-04 (form CMS 1450). Twenty-four patients were included in each arm. There were no significant differences in the overall mean procedural charges between the two groups: TBE, $209,736 ($57,761) vs. SR-TEVAR $209,025 ($93,943), TBE had similar overall procedural charges despite higher device/implant-related expenses and reduced facility resource utilization (lower operating room, intensive care unit, telemetry, and pharmacy charges).
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving landing zone 2 can require extra-anatomic debranching (SR-TEVAR) to ensure left subclavian artery perfusion, resulting in increased costs. A single-branch device (Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis [TBE], WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ) provides a total endovascular solution. Comparative cost analysis of patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR requiring left subclavian artery preservation with TBE versus SR-TEVAR is presented.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A single-center retrospective cost analysis was performed for aortic diseases requiring a zone 2 landing zone (TBE vs. SR-TEVAR) from 2014 to 2019. Facility charges were collected from the universal billing form UB-04 (form CMS 1450).
Results
UNASSIGNED
Twenty-four patients were included in each arm. There were no significant differences in the overall mean procedural charges between the two groups: TBE, $209,736 ($57,761) vs. SR-TEVAR $209,025 ($93,943),
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
TBE had similar overall procedural charges despite higher device/implant-related expenses and reduced facility resource utilization (lower operating room, intensive care unit, telemetry, and pharmacy charges).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37334086
doi: 10.1080/08998280.2023.2212585
pii: 2212585
pmc: PMC10269387
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
422-426Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Gable is a consultant, on the speakers bureau, and receives research support from WL Gore; is a consultant and on the speakers bureau of Silk Road; and is a consultant, on the speakers bureau, and receives research support from Medtronic. Dr. Shutze is on the speakers bureau and receives research support from both Medtronic and Terumo. Dr. Brinkman is a consultant, on the speakers bureau, and receives research support from Medtronic; and on the speakers bureau and receives research support from Terumo and WL Gore. The other authors have no potential conflicts to disclose.
Références
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007 Feb;133(2):369-77
pubmed: 17258566
Top Health Inf Manage. 1993 Feb;13(3):56-61
pubmed: 10124872
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Oct;102(4):1190-8
pubmed: 27262912
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Nov;74(5):1483-1490.e2
pubmed: 33940079
Ann Surg. 2014 Oct;260(4):691-6; discussion 696-7
pubmed: 25203886
Health Policy. 2009 Oct;92(2-3):218-24
pubmed: 19410326
J Vasc Surg. 2005 Jan;41(1):1-9
pubmed: 15696036
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Jun;53(6):1499-505
pubmed: 21609795
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Feb;59(2):283-290, 290.e1
pubmed: 24139984
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Jun 1;51(6):1142-1148
pubmed: 28329146
J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52(4 Suppl):65S-70S
pubmed: 20875614
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Jan;73(1S):55S-83S
pubmed: 32628988
Circulation. 2013 Jan 1;127(1):24-32
pubmed: 23283856
Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):677-84; discussion 684-5
pubmed: 15383795
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jun;75(6):1829-1836.e3
pubmed: 34998942
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Jan;57(1):116-24
pubmed: 23021570
Int J Angiol. 2012 Dec;21(4):223-8
pubmed: 24293981
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Jul;92(1):97-102; discussion 102-3
pubmed: 21718834
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Nov;50(5):1159-69
pubmed: 19878792
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017 Aug 1;25(2):246-253
pubmed: 28486683
N Engl J Med. 1994 Dec 29;331(26):1729-34
pubmed: 7984192
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Aug;46(2):218-22
pubmed: 17600665
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2011 Jan;45(1):39-45
pubmed: 20829240
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Dec;46(6):1103-1110; discussion 1110-1
pubmed: 18154984