Duplex ultrasound imaging alone is sufficient for midterm endovascular aneurysm repair surveillance: A cost analysis study and prospective comparison with computed tomography scan

ObjectiveEarly in our experience with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) we performed both serial computed tomography scans and duplex ultrasound (DU) imaging in our post-EVAR surveillance regimen. Later we conducted a prospective study with DU imaging as the sole surveillance study and determined cost savings and outcome using this strategy.MethodsFrom September 21, 1998, to May 30, 2008, 250 patients underwent EVAR at our hospital. Before July 1, 2004, EVAR patients underwent CT and DU imaging performed every 6 months during the first year and then annually if no problems were identified (group 1). We compared aneurysm sac size, presence of endoleak, and graft patency between the two scanning modalities. After July 1, 2004, patients underwent surveillance using DU imaging as the sole surveillance study unless a problem was detected (group 2). CT and DU imaging charges for each regimen were compared using our 2008 health system pricing and Medicare reimbursements. All DU examinations were performed in our accredited noninvasive vascular laboratory by experienced technologists. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson correlation coefficient.ResultsDU and CT scans were equivalent in determining aneurysm sac diameter after EVAR (P < .001). DU and CT were each as likely to falsely suggest an endoleak when none existed and were as likely to miss an endoleak. Using DU imaging alone would have reduced cost of EVAR surveillance by 29% ($534,356) in group 1. Cost savings of$1595 per patient per year were realized in group 2 by eliminating CT scan surveillance. None of the group 2 patients sustained an adverse event such as rupture, graft migration, or limb occlusion as a result of having DU imaging performed as the sole follow-up modality.ConclusionSurveillance of EVAR patients can be performed accurately, safely, and cost-effectively with DU as the sole imaging study

Low rehospitalization rate for vascular surgery patients.

OBJECTIVES: Reducing rehospitalization rates has been proposed to improve care, reduce costs, and as a pay-for-performance criterion. Recent review of Medicare claims data indicates that vascular surgery patients have among the highest rates of 30-day rehospitalization at 23.9%. METHODS: We retrospectively examined all live patient discharges (n = 799) from the vascular surgery service at a single university hospital over 12 months. Planned and unplanned 30-day rehospitalizations were distinguished, and predictors of unplanned 30-day rehospitalization were determined. To identify whether patients were readmitted to other hospitals, a prospective study of patient discharges (n = 66) over 1 month was also performed. RESULTS: Ninety-five (11.9%) of the 799 patient discharges from the vascular surgery service were rehospitalized within 30 days. Of these, 71 were unplanned; therefore, the unplanned rehospitalization rate was 8.9%. The most common causes of unplanned 30-day rehospitalization were related to wound complications. Diabetes (P = .039) predicted unplanned 30-day rehospitalization by multivariate analysis. Patients with the diagnosis of critical limb ischemia (14.9%) and patients undergoing open lower extremity revascularization (14.6%) had the highest rates of unplanned 30-day rehospitalization. In the prospective portion of this study, no patient was readmitted to any other hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively low 30-day rehospitalization was accomplished in vascular surgery patients at a single university hospital. Moreover, planned rehospitalizations accounted for approximately 25% of readmissions in vascular surgery patients. Strategies designed to reduce rehospitalization in diabetics may be warranted