Home > Riviste > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Fascicoli precedenti > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2020 February;61(1) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2020 February;61(1):18-23

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  FEVAR FOR JUXTARENAL RECONSTRUCTION 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2020 February;61(1):18-23

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11146-9

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chimney/snorkel versus fenestrated endovascular repair for high-risk patients with complex abdominal aortic pathologies

Gergana T. TANEVA 1 , Konstantinos P. DONAS 1, Georgios A. PITOULIAS 2, Martin AUSTERMANN 1, Frank J. VEITH 3, Giovanni TORSELLO 1

1 Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, St. Franziskus Hospital, Münster, Germany; 2 Second Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; 3 Department of Surgery, New York University, New York, NY, USA



BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chimney (ch-EVAR) vs. fenestrated aneurysm repair (f-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic pathologies. Endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic pathologies with involvement of renal arteries includes use of f-EVAR as first line treatment. However, lack of availability and suitability has necessitated an alternative strategy employing parallel or snorkel/chimney grafts (ch-EVAR).
METHODS: Between January 2013 and January 2017, prospectively collected data of elective and symptomatic patients with complex aortic pathologies treated by single or double ch-EVAR (N.=111) or by f-EVAR with three fenestrations (N.=37) were evaluated. The primary endpoint was cost-effectiveness analysis defined as the summary of material costs, in-hospital costs and additional costs due to procedure-related reinterventions during a follow-up period averaging 37.2 months.
RESULTS: No differences between both groups were found in terms of demographics (P=0.32), age (P=0.058) and hospital stay at initial procedure (P=0.956). Index procedure and hospitalization median costs were € 22,171 for ch-EVAR and € 42,116 for f-EVAR, respectively (P<0.001). The median overall costs including costs after reinterventions during follow-up were € 22,872 for ch-EVAR and € 42,128 for f-EVAR (P<0.001). Six patients (5.4%) in the ch-EVAR group required readmission compared to three patients (8.1%) required readmission for reinterventions in the f-EVAR group (P=0.69).
CONCLUSIONS: Ch-EVAR is significantly more cost-effective compared to f-EVAR. The two procedures have comparable readmission rates for reinterventions.


KEY WORDS: Endovascular procedures; Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Costs and cost analysis

inizio pagina