Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery in the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND

In the UK National Health Service, finite resources make the adoption of minimally invasive (MI) mitral valve surgery challenging unless greater operative costs (vs sternotomy [ST]) are balanced by postoperative savings. This study examined whether the cost analysis now became unfavorable.

METHODS

All patients (n = 380) undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery with or without a maze procedure over a 3-year period by either MI or ST approaches were included. Propensity matching (2 cohorts, 1:1 matched;, n = 75 per group) and multivariable regression were used to assess for the effect on cost. Cost data were prospectively collected from Service Line Reporting and reported in Sterling (£) as median (interquartile range [IQR]).

RESULTS

Matched data revealed that total hospital costs were equivalent (MI vs ST, £16,672 [IQR, £15,044, £20,611] vs £15,875 [IQR, £12,281, £20,687]; P .33). Three of 15 costing pools were significantly different: operative costs were higher for the MI group (MI vs ST, £7458 [IQR, £6738, £8286] vs £5596 iIQR, £4204, £6992]; P < .001), whereas ward costs (boarding, nursing) (MI vs ST, £1464 [IQR, £1146, £1864] vs £1733 [IQR, £1403, £2445] P = .006) and pharmacy services (MI vs ST, £187 [IQR, £140, £239] vs £244 [IQR, £179, £375] P < .001) were lower for the MI group. Hospital stay was shorter in the MI group (MI vs ST, 6 days [IQR, 5, 8 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6, 11 days]; P < .001). Multivariable regression produced similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in overall hospital cost between MI and ST mitral valve surgery: higher operative costs of MI surgery were offset by lower postoperative costs, with a 2-day shorter hospital stay.