User login
PALM BEACH, FLA. – Costs of three different endovascular repair systems for abdominal aortic aneurysms were slightly lower than that of open repair, but the implants still took up a substantial portion of the initial hospitalization costs, according to a study from a Veterans Affairs database.
“Device performance doesn’t appear to result in statistically different downstream fiscal performance. That should not be a factor in your procurement committees, I believe,” said Dr. Jon Matsumura, chairman of Division of Vascular Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison.
He presented the new set of findings from the 881-patient Open Versus Endovascular Repair Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study, or OVER, at the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery annual meeting.
The cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been the subject of several studies, and the findings have changed since the method arrived in the market more than a decade ago.
In 2010, long-term follow-up of the United Kingdom EVAR Trial 1 cohort showed that “Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions,” and that it was more costly. But the study also showed that there were no differences in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term when comparing the two methods.
Meanwhile, in 2012, results of the randomized multicenter trial OVER showed that the method was a cost-effective alternative to open surgery, at least for the first two years after the procedure.
In the latest analysis of the OVER trial, Dr. Matsumura reported that 437 patients were randomized to open repair and 444 to endovascular repair (EVR). Open repair controls were matched to each device cohort, which included Zenith, Excluder, and AneuRx systems.
At the VA, the device takes up to 38% of the cost of EVR, said Dr. Matsumura, so it was important to find out what were the benefits of having one system versus another, or if all the systems were needed.
Although the statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the cost of each device and open repair – in fact, the mean cost of EVR was less than open repair with each system – there were noticeable dollar differences between the systems:
- The Zenith system’s mean total 2-year cost was $78,200, compared with $82,000 in the open repair cohort, leading to a difference of $3,800.
- The Excluder system’s mean cost was $73,400, compared with $82,000 for open repair, leading to a difference of $8,300.
- The AneuRx system’s mean cost was $72,400, compared with $75,600 for open repair, with a cost difference $3,100.
However, device costs didn’t vary much.
The analysis also showed that the total health care costs – the final bill – were not statistically significant different between the two methods.
Dr. Matsumura said understanding the cost-effectiveness of different systems and procedures is imperative in light of the Affordable Care Act, which is shifting the focus of health care delivery from volume toward value.
Dr. Matsumura has received several research grants through his university, and not personally.
nmiller@frontlinemedcom.com<[lb]>
On Twitter @NaseemMiller
PALM BEACH, FLA. – Costs of three different endovascular repair systems for abdominal aortic aneurysms were slightly lower than that of open repair, but the implants still took up a substantial portion of the initial hospitalization costs, according to a study from a Veterans Affairs database.
“Device performance doesn’t appear to result in statistically different downstream fiscal performance. That should not be a factor in your procurement committees, I believe,” said Dr. Jon Matsumura, chairman of Division of Vascular Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison.
He presented the new set of findings from the 881-patient Open Versus Endovascular Repair Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study, or OVER, at the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery annual meeting.
The cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been the subject of several studies, and the findings have changed since the method arrived in the market more than a decade ago.
In 2010, long-term follow-up of the United Kingdom EVAR Trial 1 cohort showed that “Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions,” and that it was more costly. But the study also showed that there were no differences in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term when comparing the two methods.
Meanwhile, in 2012, results of the randomized multicenter trial OVER showed that the method was a cost-effective alternative to open surgery, at least for the first two years after the procedure.
In the latest analysis of the OVER trial, Dr. Matsumura reported that 437 patients were randomized to open repair and 444 to endovascular repair (EVR). Open repair controls were matched to each device cohort, which included Zenith, Excluder, and AneuRx systems.
At the VA, the device takes up to 38% of the cost of EVR, said Dr. Matsumura, so it was important to find out what were the benefits of having one system versus another, or if all the systems were needed.
Although the statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the cost of each device and open repair – in fact, the mean cost of EVR was less than open repair with each system – there were noticeable dollar differences between the systems:
- The Zenith system’s mean total 2-year cost was $78,200, compared with $82,000 in the open repair cohort, leading to a difference of $3,800.
- The Excluder system’s mean cost was $73,400, compared with $82,000 for open repair, leading to a difference of $8,300.
- The AneuRx system’s mean cost was $72,400, compared with $75,600 for open repair, with a cost difference $3,100.
However, device costs didn’t vary much.
The analysis also showed that the total health care costs – the final bill – were not statistically significant different between the two methods.
Dr. Matsumura said understanding the cost-effectiveness of different systems and procedures is imperative in light of the Affordable Care Act, which is shifting the focus of health care delivery from volume toward value.
Dr. Matsumura has received several research grants through his university, and not personally.
nmiller@frontlinemedcom.com<[lb]>
On Twitter @NaseemMiller
PALM BEACH, FLA. – Costs of three different endovascular repair systems for abdominal aortic aneurysms were slightly lower than that of open repair, but the implants still took up a substantial portion of the initial hospitalization costs, according to a study from a Veterans Affairs database.
“Device performance doesn’t appear to result in statistically different downstream fiscal performance. That should not be a factor in your procurement committees, I believe,” said Dr. Jon Matsumura, chairman of Division of Vascular Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison.
He presented the new set of findings from the 881-patient Open Versus Endovascular Repair Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study, or OVER, at the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery annual meeting.
The cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been the subject of several studies, and the findings have changed since the method arrived in the market more than a decade ago.
In 2010, long-term follow-up of the United Kingdom EVAR Trial 1 cohort showed that “Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions,” and that it was more costly. But the study also showed that there were no differences in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term when comparing the two methods.
Meanwhile, in 2012, results of the randomized multicenter trial OVER showed that the method was a cost-effective alternative to open surgery, at least for the first two years after the procedure.
In the latest analysis of the OVER trial, Dr. Matsumura reported that 437 patients were randomized to open repair and 444 to endovascular repair (EVR). Open repair controls were matched to each device cohort, which included Zenith, Excluder, and AneuRx systems.
At the VA, the device takes up to 38% of the cost of EVR, said Dr. Matsumura, so it was important to find out what were the benefits of having one system versus another, or if all the systems were needed.
Although the statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the cost of each device and open repair – in fact, the mean cost of EVR was less than open repair with each system – there were noticeable dollar differences between the systems:
- The Zenith system’s mean total 2-year cost was $78,200, compared with $82,000 in the open repair cohort, leading to a difference of $3,800.
- The Excluder system’s mean cost was $73,400, compared with $82,000 for open repair, leading to a difference of $8,300.
- The AneuRx system’s mean cost was $72,400, compared with $75,600 for open repair, with a cost difference $3,100.
However, device costs didn’t vary much.
The analysis also showed that the total health care costs – the final bill – were not statistically significant different between the two methods.
Dr. Matsumura said understanding the cost-effectiveness of different systems and procedures is imperative in light of the Affordable Care Act, which is shifting the focus of health care delivery from volume toward value.
Dr. Matsumura has received several research grants through his university, and not personally.
nmiller@frontlinemedcom.com<[lb]>
On Twitter @NaseemMiller
