Complication-Specific In-Hospital Costs After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Artery Stenting. (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dakour-Aridi, Hanaa; Nejim, Besma; Locham, Satinderjit; Alshaikh, Husain; Obeid, Tammam; Malas, Mahmoud B.
• Is Part Of: Journal of endovascular therapy. Volume 25:Number 4(2018:Aug.)
• Page Start: 514
• Page End: 521
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: carotid artery stenting -- carotid endarterectomy -- complications -- cost analysis -- hospital costs -- mortality -- myocardial infarction -- stroke; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Angioscopy -- Periodicals; Intravenous catheterization -- Periodicals; Peripheral vascular diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Angioscopy -- Periodicals; Catheterization, Peripheral -- Periodicals; Peripheral Vascular Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Angioscopie; Maladies vasculaires périphériques; 617.413
• DOI: 10.1177/1526602818781580
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-6028

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify and compare the incremental cost associated with in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS).Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 100, 185 patients (mean age 70.7±9.5 years; 58.3% men) who underwent CEA (n=86, 035) or CAS (n=14, 150) between 2009 and 2015 and were entered into the Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariate logistic models and generalized linear models were used to analyze binary outcomes and hospitalization costs, respectively. Outcomes are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Results: CAS was associated with 1.6 times higher adjusted odds of stroke [aOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.77), p<0.001] and with 2.6 times higher odds of death [aOR 2.60 (95% CI 2.14 to 3.17), p<0.001] compared with CEA. There was no significant difference in MI risk between the 2 procedures. The adjusted incremental cost of death and MI were similar between the 2 procedures. However, the adjusted incremental cost of stroke was significantly higher in CEA compared with CAS by an estimated $2000. When stratified with respect to symptomatic status, the increased adjusted incremental cost of stroke in CEA was mainly seen in asymptomatic patients ($5284 vs $2932, p<0.01).Conclusion: The incremental cost of in-hospital stroke is relatively higher in CEA compared to CAS. However, CEA remains a more cost-effective carotid intervention due to lower complication rates and baseline costs compared with CAS. Long-term cost-effectiveness studies are needed before definite conclusions are made.