Comparison of cost and clinical outcome between transcatheter coil occlusion and surgical closure of isolated patent ductus arteriosus.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost (measured as resource utilization by the institution) and clinical effectiveness of transcatheter coil occlusion and surgical patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) closure. Similar comparisons have been made previously with other devices no longer in use in the United States. No such comparison has been made for coil occlusion, which has been performed increasingly since 1992. METHODS: All patients who underwent either coil or surgical closure of uncomplicated PDA at our institution between August 1993 and June 1996 were retrospectively identified. Patients were included in the study if they were eligible for either closure technique. Thus, they had a restrictive PDA (not associated with pulmonary hypertension) and no overt evidence of congestive heart failure. Patients were excluded if they had other significant cardiac or noncardiac problems. Total procedural and recovery costs (including labor, material, equipment, and overhead) incurred by the provider were determined using a cost accounting system called Transition Systems, Inc. To define further how costs differed for the two techniques, total costs were subdivided into the categories of professional, technical, inpatient hospital stay, postprocedure testing, and supplies and other miscellaneous costs. PDA closure rates and associated complications also were compared. Follow-up information was sought from outpatient visits to our institution or by contacting the referring physicians. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were identified, 3 of whom were excluded because of coexisting medical problems. The study group consisted of 36 patients; 24 underwent PDA coil occlusion and 12 surgical closure. Mean age and weight were 8.8 years and 28.5 kg for the coil patients, and 7.3 years and 32.8 kg for the surgical patients. Median procedural duration was 150 minutes for the coil group and 165 minutes for the surgical group. The total cost to the institution of coil occlusion was significantly lower than that of surgical closure ($5273 vs $8509). The largest difference lay in the cost of hospital stay ($398 vs $2566) and in the professional costs ($1506 vs $2782). Technical costs were similar ($2156 for coil, $2151 for surgery), although use of the catheterization laboratory per unit of time was more expensive than use of the operating room ($800 vs $400 per hour). Additional technical costs of the surgical procedure related to general anesthesia and postoperative care made up the difference. No patient in either group had a residual PDA murmur at hospital discharge or thereafter. Follow-up echocardiography was performed in all coil occlusion patients, and tiny residual leaks were detected in 17%. Only 42% of the surgical patients had postoperative echocardiography; none had residual leaks. There were no deaths or major complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter coil occlusion is as effective and less costly than surgical closure if silent residual leaks are not considered clinically significant. This information may be used increasingly in patient care decisions in the current era of managed medical care.
