Annals of vascular diseases · 2026
Cost Analysis of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: The Economic Impact of Rising Surgical Material Costs on Public Health Insurance.
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.
Umeda Etsuji, Doi Kiyoshi, Sakai Osamu, Kato Takayoshi, Ogura Hiroki, Sato Masayuki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We conducted a detailed comparison of inpatient medical costs between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open aneurysm repair (OAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
METHODS: We evaluated 312 EVAR and 205 OAR cases performed at our institution between January 2007 and December 2017. Patient background characteristics were adjusted between the EVAR and OAR groups using propensity score matching (PSM). Surgical outcomes and inpatient medical costs were compared.
RESULTS: After PSM, 161 cases were included in each group for comparison. Operative time, blood loss, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay were significantly lower in the EVAR group than in the OAR group. Total inpatient medical costs were significantly higher in the EVAR group (3111× 103 vs. 2156 × 103 JPY [Japanese yen], p <0.01). The surgical material costs in the EVAR group were significantly higher than those in the OAR group, accounting for 58% of total medical expenses. Other costs (diagnosis procedure combination, ICU management, surgical procedure, transfusion, intraoperative injection, and room) were all lower in the EVAR group than in the OAR group.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost-saving effects of EVAR, such as reduced transfusion costs and ICU stay fees, were offset by the significantly higher cost of surgical materials.
METHODS: We evaluated 312 EVAR and 205 OAR cases performed at our institution between January 2007 and December 2017. Patient background characteristics were adjusted between the EVAR and OAR groups using propensity score matching (PSM). Surgical outcomes and inpatient medical costs were compared.
RESULTS: After PSM, 161 cases were included in each group for comparison. Operative time, blood loss, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay were significantly lower in the EVAR group than in the OAR group. Total inpatient medical costs were significantly higher in the EVAR group (3111× 103 vs. 2156 × 103 JPY [Japanese yen], p <0.01). The surgical material costs in the EVAR group were significantly higher than those in the OAR group, accounting for 58% of total medical expenses. Other costs (diagnosis procedure combination, ICU management, surgical procedure, transfusion, intraoperative injection, and room) were all lower in the EVAR group than in the OAR group.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost-saving effects of EVAR, such as reduced transfusion costs and ICU stay fees, were offset by the significantly higher cost of surgical materials.