Eligibility Rates for Ambulatory EVAR.

A new interesting article has been published in Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Jul;58:7-15. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.10.047. Epub 2019 Feb 6. and titled:

Eligibility Rates for Ambulatory EVAR.

Authors of this article are:

Sylvestre R, Coscas R, Javerliat I, Goeau-Brissonniere O, Coggia M.

A summary of the article is shown below:

BACKGROUND: The current results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) and the wide use of percutaneous closure systems suggest that ambulatory treatment is feasible in selected patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of eligibility to ambulatory EVAR (EVAR-Ambu) and its potential medicoeconomic impact.METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2016, 245 patients were operated of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in our center. The 128 patients whose anatomy was unfavorable with EVAR, which were operated in urgency or who were classified as American society of anesthesiologists 4, were excluded from the study. The 117 remaining files were reexamined to evaluate the eligibility for EVAR-Ambu retrospectively. The patients were considered as eligible if they presented all the following criteria: (1) normal surgical risk, (2) logistic feasibility of an ambulatory procedure (home <1 hr away from the hospital, available relatives), and (3) anatomical criteria of percutaneous feasibility according to angio-computed tomography. The surgical risk was evaluated according to the French High Health Authority (HAS) and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) score. The balance between costs and revenue was evaluated for each patient according to the length of stay.RESULTS: Among the 117 patients, 43 (37%) and 57 (49%) were eligible for EVAR-Ambu by percutaneous route according to whether the surgical risk was assessed according to the HAS or the SVS criteria. If a conventional surgical approach was considered as compatible with EVAR-Ambu, 12 (10%) and 13 (11%) additional patients were eligible according to whether the surgical risk was assessed according to the HAS or the SVS criteria, respectively. In terms of medicoeconomic evaluation, the cost of the initial intervention depended was mainly on the cost of the stent graft and the operating room services. The cost spent of 1 night conventional hospitalization (CH) after EVAR was 603€ per day versus 490€ in the Day Surgery Unit (DSU). In comparison, the revenue for the institution was identical for DSU and a 1-night CH. According to our estimates, the balance between revenue and expenditures amounted to +122€ per patient for EVAR-Ambu versus +10€ or +119€ per patient hospitalized 1 or 2 nights, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: EVAR-Ambu is possible in a substantial proportion of patients treated for infrarenal AAA. Its medicoeconomic interest is real for the health system although it appears low at the individual level. The safety of this approach in clinical practice must be confirmed by a prospective study in selected patients.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Check out the article’s website on Pubmed for more information:

This article is a good source of information and a good way to become familiar with topics such as: Aged;Aged, 80 and over;Ambulatory Surgical Procedures;Aortic Aneurysm;Aortography;Clinical Decision-Making;Computed Tomography Angiography;Cost Savings;Cost-Benefit Analysis;Cross-Sectional Studies;Female;Hospital Costs;Humans;Length of Stay;Male;Middle Aged;Patient Selection;Retrospective Studies;Risk Factors;Time Factors;Treatment Outcome.

New Chemicals from MOLECULAR DEPOT