The inpatient costs related to revascularization of lower extremity artery disease in terms of amputation and mortality rates

Abstract

Objective With the initial utilization of endovascular treatment options in 1970s, the number of procedures performed for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) both with open surgical (OS) and endovascular (EV) treatment increased, but this did not result in a decrease in the number of amputations. The burden of LEAD still constitutes a huge proportion among the health care costs over the world. Methods The patients who admitted to our clinic between October 2014 and December 2019 with LEAD and required revascularization were enrolled. The total hospitalization costs related to LEAD were registered and divided into two groups as care costs and medical supplies costs. Results 181 procedures were performed to 133 patients. Mean age was 63.98 ± 11.65 and 115 (86.5%) patients were male. Mean follow-up period was 31.19 ± 17.99 months (95% CI). The most frequent comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (DM) ( n = 86, 66.2%) and active smoking ( n = 59, 44.4%). Total costs and medical supplies costs were increased in EV group when compared with OS group ($4347.26 ± 3352.96, $3339.28 ± 3459.53 p = .005 v.s. $3318.67 ± 2874.55,$904.42 ± 1209.97 p < .001, respectively). Care costs were increased in OS group when compared with EV group ($2434.85 ± 2641.89 v.s. $1028.56 ± 1397.77 p < .001). The highest total, medical supplies, and care costs were determined in EV + OS group ($13071.32 ± 13717; $6784.91 ± 8332.04; $6286.41 ± 7652.12, respectively).Graft/wound infection related and amputation related costs were 21% of all costs. Amputation-free survival was 71.42% (95% CI) with 21 total amputations. There were linear correlations between mortality and amputation ( p = .002); also between mortality and cost ( p = .001). Conclusions In mid-long-term period, the care costs are increased with OS; however, EV treatment significantly increases the medical supplies and total costs. The increase in cost is correlated with poor outcome. Although the comorbidities and risk factors of these patients lead the clinicians to perform more challenging endovascular approaches, in mid-long-term period, particularly failed endovascular procedures are not promising in terms of outcomes and costs. We consider that the best-fit therapy on time is cost-effective, life and extremity-saving either, by avoiding deleterious effects of severe ischemia, such as severe pain, tissue loss, and related major adverse cardiaovascular events.