P Narayan, A Wong, I Davies, A J Bryan, P Wilde, G J Murphy Does TEVAR provide a financial benefit for management of descending thoracic aortic pathologies?
Background Management of descending aortic pathology is a complex and challenging area Surgical management is indicated in specific situations Endo-Vascular Surgical Repair [TEVAR] provides another important option Aim To assess early and mid term outcomes of TEVAR compared with surgical repair To compare the financial implications of TEVAR and surgical management
Methods Retrospective study Time period: April February 2009 85 procedures Surgical repair: 35 TEVAR: 49 Data accessed from computerised database –PATS System and validated by case note reviews Hospital costs calculated from NHS reference costs for staff time, consumables, transfusion and length of stay.
Statistical Analysis Data tabulated as N(%) for categorical data and median (inter- quartile range) for continuous data Continuous variables analysed with Mann Whitney U test Categorical variables analysed with Fisher’s exact test or Chi- square Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare re- intervention and survival
Trends in the Management of Descending Thoracic Aortic Pathology
Patient Characteristics Surgery (n=35)TEVAR (n=49)P value Age (years) 55.5( )57.5( )0.210 Male 29 (81%)34 (69%)0.245 Pre op Neurological dysfunction 1(2%)2(4%)0.625 Previous cardiac surgery 10(27%)12(24%)0.818 COAD 3(8%)4(8%)0.607 Pre-op Renal Impairment 2(5%)6(12%)0.270 Current Smoker 20(55%)23(47%)0.356 Marfan 1(2%)3(6%)0.432 Diabetes 1(2%) Hypertension 19(53%)23(47%)0.595 EuroScore 10(7-10)9(8-10)0.562 Emergency 12 (33%)21 (43%)0.047 Critical Preoperative State 12 (34%)16 (33%)0.876
Procedural Characteristics SurgeryTEVARp value Operative Sessions 2 ( )1 (1-1)< Aneurysm 19 (53%)22 (45%)0.473 Thoracoabdominal 7 (19%)5 (10%)0.148 Arch 5 (14%) Dissection 10 (28%)17(35%)0.499 Acute 5 (14%)16 (33%)0.047 Chronic 5 (14%)1 (2%)0.047 Trauma 5 (14%)7 (14%)0.303 Other 2 (5%)3 (6%)0.707 RBC Transfusion 8(3-12)0(0-3)< Platelet Transfusion 2(0-3)0(0-0)< FFP Transfusion 2(0-8)0(0-0)<0.0001
In Hospital Clinical Outcome Surgery (n=35)TEVAR(n=49)P value Atrial Fibrillation12(33%)1(2%) < Inotropic Support17(47%)1(2%) <0.001 Neurological Complication9(25%)6(12%)0.244 Renal Complication11(31%)5(10%)0.025 GI Complication5(14%)5(10%)0.513 Chest Infection9(25%)1(2%)0.001 ARDS2(5%)0(0%)0.159 Re-intubation5(14%)3(6%)0.253 Tracheostomy8(22%)2(4%)0.020 ITU Stay6(3-11)1(1-4)< Hospital Stay16(9-26)10(6-17)0.022 In Hospital Death7(20%)3(6%)0.03
Hospitalisation Costs of EVAR versus Surgery CostSurgery (£)TEVAR(£)p value Staff Costs 1836 ( )1433 ( ) < Consumable/ Stent Costs 412 ( )8000 ( ) < Procedure Cost 2468 ( )9581 ( ) < Transfusion Costs 1327 ( )0 (0-531) < ICU Costs 7200 ( )2400 ( ) < Hospitalisation Cost ( )5350 ( ) Total Cost ( )16694 ( ) 0.414
Mid-term Follow-up Surgery (n=35)TEVAR (n=49) Reintervention1 (3%)9 (18%) Death11 (31%)10(20%) Death or Reintervention 11 (31%)18 (37%)
Mid-term Outcomes of TEVAR and Surgery for Diseases of the Descending Thoracic Aorta Surgery TEVAR Surgery TEVAR Mortality Re-intervention Log Rank p=0.002 Log Rank p=0.901
Conclusions TEVAR is associated with superior short-term results Mid term survival is similar to surgery Re-intervention rate is significantly higher in TEVAR Resource utilisation is similar in both groups for the primary procedure Costs may prove to be higher in the TEVAR group with re-interventions