Cost Impact of Extension Cuff Utilization During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BackgroundModular stent-graft systems for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) most often require two to three components, depending on the device. Differences in path lengths and availability of main body systems often require additional extensions for appropriate aneurysm exclusion. These additional devices usually result in added expenses and can affect the financial viability of an EVAR program within a hospital. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of extensions during EVAR, focusing on incidence, clinical impact, and financial impact, as well as determining the associated cost differences between two- and three-component EVAR device systems.MethodsWe reviewed available clinical data, images, and follow-up of 218 patients (203 males and 15 females, mean age: 74 ± 9 years) who underwent elective EVAR at a single academic center from 2004 to 2007. Patients were divided into two groups: patients undergoing EVAR using the standard number of pieces, that is, no extensions used (group A, n = 98), and those needing proximal or distal extensions during the index procedure (group B, n = 120).ResultsBoth groups were similar in terms of demographics; preoperative characteristics, including aneurysm morphology; as well as intraoperative, postoperative, and midterm outcomes. Overall, 30-day operative mortality was 1.4%, with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Group A patients underwent repair with two-piece modular devices 41% of the time and three-piece systems 59% of the time, whereas group B patients underwent repair with two-piece modular systems 82% of the time and three-piece modular systems 18% of the time. The number of additional extensions per patient ranged from one to four (median: one piece). There was a 30% cost increase in overall mean device-related cost when using extensions versus the standard number of pieces (group A: $13,220 vs. group B: $17,107, p < 0.01).ConclusionsClinical midterm aneurysm-related outcomes after EVAR in patients who required additional extensions was comparable with those treated with the standard number of pieces. An increased number of extensions led to increased costs and could have potentially been minimized with appropriate preoperative planning or device selection. Consideration should be made toward per-case pricing instead of per-piece pricing to further improve cost efficiency without compromising long-term patient outcomes.