Acta cardiologica · 2023
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a single-centre cost analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Paepe Jarne, Lamberigts Marie, Meuris Bart, Jacobs Steven, Adriaenssens Tom, Dubois Christophe, Verbrugghe Peter
Аннотация
AIMS: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are both viable therapeutic interventions for aortic stenosis in elderly patients. Meta-analyses show similar all-cause mortality for both techniques albeit with a different pattern of adverse effects. This study means to compare costs and, to a lesser extent, clinical outcomes of both techniques.
METHODS: A retrospective single-centre analysis was performed for patients receiving SU-AVR or TAVI from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative clinical data were collected from patient files. Costs were assessed by a cost allocation tool. In an attempt to avoid confounding, propensity score matching was carried out.
RESULTS: A total of 368 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 100) or SU-AVR (n = 268). After matching, there were 61 patients per treatment group. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SU-AVR group. Excluding device costs, total expenses for SU-AVR (median: €11,630) were significantly higher than TAVI (median: €9240). For both groups, these costs were mostly incurred on intensive care units, followed by nursing units. Non-medical staff was the largest contributor to expenses. Including device costs, SU-AVR (median: €14,683) was shown to be cost-saving compared to TAVI (median: €24,057).
CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, we found SU-AVR to be cost-saving compared to TAVI, largely due to higher device costs associated with the latter. Excluding device costs, TAVI was associated with lower expenses and shorter length of stay. Non-medical staff was the largest source of costs, suggesting length of stay to be a major financial determinant.
METHODS: A retrospective single-centre analysis was performed for patients receiving SU-AVR or TAVI from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative clinical data were collected from patient files. Costs were assessed by a cost allocation tool. In an attempt to avoid confounding, propensity score matching was carried out.
RESULTS: A total of 368 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 100) or SU-AVR (n = 268). After matching, there were 61 patients per treatment group. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SU-AVR group. Excluding device costs, total expenses for SU-AVR (median: €11,630) were significantly higher than TAVI (median: €9240). For both groups, these costs were mostly incurred on intensive care units, followed by nursing units. Non-medical staff was the largest contributor to expenses. Including device costs, SU-AVR (median: €14,683) was shown to be cost-saving compared to TAVI (median: €24,057).
CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, we found SU-AVR to be cost-saving compared to TAVI, largely due to higher device costs associated with the latter. Excluding device costs, TAVI was associated with lower expenses and shorter length of stay. Non-medical staff was the largest source of costs, suggesting length of stay to be a major financial determinant.