Suppr超能文献

门诊血管内动脉瘤修复的可行性和成本分析。

Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Ambulatory Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

机构信息

Division of vascular surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Division of vascular surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.

出版信息

J Endovasc Ther. 2024 Aug;31(4):576-583. doi: 10.1177/15266028221133694. Epub 2022 Nov 8.

Abstract

PURPOSE

We sought to compare the costs of ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair (a-EVAR) and inpatient EVAR (i-EVAR) at up to 1-year of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing elective EVAR between April 2016 and December 2018 at two academic centers. Patients planned for a-EVAR were compared with i-EVAR. Costs at 30 days and 1 year were extracted. These included operating room (OR) use, bed occupancy, laboratory and imaging, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reinterventions. Baseline characteristics were compared. Multiple regression model was used to identify predictors of increased EVAR costs. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare cost differences at 30 days and 1 year via an intention-to-treat analysis. Bonferroni post hoc test compared between-group differences. A p value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy patients were included. Most underwent percutaneous EVAR (>94%) under spinal anesthesia (>84%). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair was successful in 84% (84/100). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair patients (76±8 years) were younger than i-EVAR (78±9 years). They also had a smaller mean aneurysm diameter (56±6 mm) compared with i-EVAR (59±6 mm). Emergency department visits, readmissions, and reinterventions were similar up to 1 year (all p=NS). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair costs showed a non-statistically significant reduction in total costs at 30 days and 1 year by 27% and 21%, respectively. Patients younger than 85 years and males had a 30-day cost reduction by 34% (p=0.027) and 33% (p=0.035), respectively with a-EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day discharge is feasible and successful in selected patients. Patients younger than 85 years and males have a short-term cost benefit with EVAR done in the ambulatory setting without increased complications or reinterventions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study shows the overall safety of ambulatory EVAR with proper patient selection. These patient had similar post-intervention complications to inpatients. Same day discharge also resulted in short-term reduction in costs in male patients and patients younger than 85 years.

摘要

目的

我们旨在比较门诊血管内动脉瘤修复术(a-EVAR)和住院血管内动脉瘤修复术(i-EVAR)在 1 年随访期内的成本。

材料和方法

这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2016 年 4 月至 2018 年 12 月在两个学术中心接受择期 EVAR 的连续患者。将计划进行 a-EVAR 的患者与 i-EVAR 进行比较。在 30 天和 1 年时提取手术费用,包括手术室(OR)使用、床位占用、实验室和影像学检查、急诊就诊、再入院和再介入治疗。比较了基线特征。采用多元回归模型确定 EVAR 成本增加的预测因素。采用重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)通过意向治疗分析比较 30 天和 1 年的成本差异。Bonferroni 事后检验比较组间差异。p 值<0.05 被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

共纳入 170 例患者。大多数患者(>94%)采用经皮 EVAR,并在脊髓麻醉下进行(>84%)。门诊血管内动脉瘤修复术成功率为 84%(84/100)。与 i-EVAR 相比,门诊血管内动脉瘤修复术患者(76±8 岁)更年轻。他们的平均动脉瘤直径也更小(56±6mm),而 i-EVAR 为(59±6mm)。在 1 年内,急诊就诊、再入院和再介入治疗相似(均 p=NS)。门诊血管内动脉瘤修复术的总成本在 30 天和 1 年时分别降低了 27%和 21%,但无统计学意义。年龄<85 岁和男性患者的 30 天成本降低了 34%(p=0.027)和 33%(p=0.035),分别接受 a-EVAR。

结论

在选定的患者中,当天出院是可行且成功的。年龄<85 岁和男性患者在门诊环境下接受 EVAR 治疗,具有短期成本效益,且无并发症或再介入治疗增加。

临床意义

本研究表明,通过适当的患者选择,门诊血管内动脉瘤修复术是安全的。这些患者的术后并发症与住院患者相似。在男性患者和年龄<85 岁的患者中,当天出院还可降低短期成本。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac2f/11290021/89e866bcdfe4/10.1177_15266028221133694-fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验