Original ResearchCost analysis of iliac stenting performed in the operating room and the catheterization lab: A case-control study

- When comparing the costs of iliac stenting between the OR and cath lab, the procedure venue per se was not associated with differences in costs.
- Eighty-percent of the OR cases were performed under general anesthesia.
- Patients treated in the OR were more likely to have advanced disease at presentation.
- The OR cases incurred increased professional fees due to dual-provider charges from having both the operator and anesthesiologists present.
- It would seem reasonable to perform most stenting in the catheterization lab or utilize more conscious sedation in the OR.

BackgroundIliac arterial stenting is performed both in the operating room (OR) and the catheterization lab (CL). To date, no analysis has compared resource utilization between these locations.MethodsConsecutive patients (n = 105) treated at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients included adults with chronic, symptomatic iliac artery stenosis with a minimum Rutherford classification (RC) of 3, treated with stents. Exclusion criteria were prior stenting, acute ischemia, or major concomitant procedures. Immediate and two-year outcomes were observed. Patient demographics, perioperative details, physician billings, and hospital costs were recorded. Multivariable regression was used to adjust costs by patient and perioperative cost drivers.ResultsFifty-one procedures (49%) were performed in the OR and 54 (51%) in the CL. Mean age was 57, and 44% were female. Severe cases were more often performed in the OR (RC ≥ 4; 42% vs. 11%, P < 0.001) and were associated with increased total costs (P < 0.01). OR procedures more often utilized additional stents (stents ≥ 2; 61% vs. 46%, P = 0.214), thrombolysis (12% vs. 0%, P = 0.011), cut-down approach (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.052), and general anesthesia (80% vs. 0%, P < 0.001): these were all associated with increased costs (P < 0.05). After multivariable regression, location was not a predictor of procedure room or total costs but was associated with increased professional fees. Same-stay (5%) and post-discharge reintervention (33%) did not vary by location.ConclusionsThe OR was associated with increased length of stay, more ICU admissions, and increased total costs. However, OR patients had more severe disease and therefore often required more aggressive intervention. After controlling for these differences, procedure venue per se was not associated with increased costs, but OR cases incurred increased professional fees due to dual-provider charges. Given the similar clinical results between venues, it seems reasonable to perform most stenting in the CL or utilize conscious sedation in the OR.