Background: The aim of this work is to value cost-effectiveness of complex aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) revascularization, by comparing in-hospital clinical outcomes and detailed costs of hospitalization of open and endovascular techniques. Methods: This observational single-center retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent AIOD revascularization from May 2008 to February 2018 and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into 2 groups: open surgical repair and endovascular repair. Inclusion criteria were type C and D AIOD, and type of intervention: aorto-bifemoral bypass and covered kissing stenting. Costs were directly compared between the 2 groups, and subsequently a multivariate logistic regression model was performed to define which group most influenced major in-hospital costs. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of long-term mortality and primary patency (PP). Results: The 2 groups included 50 patients each, and all patients had a bilateral iliac axis revascularization. Mean age was 67 ± 9 years and 71% of patients were males. The open surgical repair group had a significantly longer length of hospitalization (P < 0.001) and in-hospital medical complications rate (22%, P = 0.003). No differences were found in the total cumulative cost of hospitalization, including ward, intensive care unit, and operating room. In a multivariate logistic model, higher total hospitalization costs were not significantly associated with either one or the other type of treatment. We did not find any statistically significant differences in overall medium-term survival (P = 0.298) and PP (P = 0.188), which were not influenced by the type of revascularization on Cox proportional hazard models (overall survival: hazard ratio 2.09 confidence interval 95% [0.90-4.84] P = 0.082; PP: hazard ratio 1.82 confidence interval 95% [0.56-6.16] P = 0.302). Conclusions: Total in-hospital stay cost analysis did not reveal significant differences between aorto-bifemoral bypasses and covered kissing stentings for AIOD revascularization.

Open Versus Endovascular Repair With Covered Stents for Complex Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: Cost Analysis Results

Colacchio, Elda Chiara;Squizzato, Francesco;Grego, Franco;Piazza, Michele;Antonello, Michele
2023

Abstract

Background: The aim of this work is to value cost-effectiveness of complex aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) revascularization, by comparing in-hospital clinical outcomes and detailed costs of hospitalization of open and endovascular techniques. Methods: This observational single-center retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent AIOD revascularization from May 2008 to February 2018 and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into 2 groups: open surgical repair and endovascular repair. Inclusion criteria were type C and D AIOD, and type of intervention: aorto-bifemoral bypass and covered kissing stenting. Costs were directly compared between the 2 groups, and subsequently a multivariate logistic regression model was performed to define which group most influenced major in-hospital costs. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of long-term mortality and primary patency (PP). Results: The 2 groups included 50 patients each, and all patients had a bilateral iliac axis revascularization. Mean age was 67 ± 9 years and 71% of patients were males. The open surgical repair group had a significantly longer length of hospitalization (P < 0.001) and in-hospital medical complications rate (22%, P = 0.003). No differences were found in the total cumulative cost of hospitalization, including ward, intensive care unit, and operating room. In a multivariate logistic model, higher total hospitalization costs were not significantly associated with either one or the other type of treatment. We did not find any statistically significant differences in overall medium-term survival (P = 0.298) and PP (P = 0.188), which were not influenced by the type of revascularization on Cox proportional hazard models (overall survival: hazard ratio 2.09 confidence interval 95% [0.90-4.84] P = 0.082; PP: hazard ratio 1.82 confidence interval 95% [0.56-6.16] P = 0.302). Conclusions: Total in-hospital stay cost analysis did not reveal significant differences between aorto-bifemoral bypasses and covered kissing stentings for AIOD revascularization.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3502756
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact