Cost Analysis of Isolated Mitral Valve Surgery in the United States

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois. Electronic address: .
The Annals of thoracic surgery (Impact Factor: 3.85). 08/2012; 94(5):1429-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.100
Source: PubMed


Within the field of cardiac surgery, several strategies have been adopted in an effort to address contributors to increasing health care costs. Limited data are available on cost analysis within the field of mitral valve surgery. The purpose of our investigation was to analyze cost differences between mitral valve repair and replacement.
The analysis was based on the subset of patients with isolated mitral valve repair or replacement (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, clinical codes 35.12, 35.23, and 35.24) using data from the 2005 to 2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, which is the largest all-payer database in the United States. We examined the selective contribution of patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and postoperative complications to cost by using hierarchical linear mixed models. We used mixed effects logistic regression models to identify factors that influence extreme cost expenditures in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery.
Independent predictors of increased cost for both repair and replacement on multivariable analysis included increased age, prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, neurologic deficit, renal disease, emergent status, and Medicare or Medicaid insurance type. The presence of postoperative complications also predicted increased costs. However, the model for repair only yielded a reduction in variability of 13%, while the model for replacement produced a reduction of 22%.
In this analysis, the most important contributors to cost for mitral valve repair and replacement are preoperative patient comorbidities, most notably history of myocardial infarction and heart failure, emergent admission status, and postoperative complications. The variables in our model failed to account for a large proportion of the variability in cost. This would suggest that future analyses exploring differential procedure costs between hospitals must look for factors beyond patient baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Christina M Vassileva, Jun 08, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The short-term advantage of mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease has been extensively documented. These advantages include lower operative mortality, improved survival, better preservation of left-ventricular function, shorter post-operative hospital stay, lower total costs, and fewer valve-related complications, including thromboembolism, anticoagulation-related bleeding events and late prosthetic dysfunction. More recent written data are available indicating the long-term advantage of repair versus replacement. While at some institutions, the repair rate for degenerative disease may exceed 90%, the national average in 2007 was only 69%. Making direct comparisons between mitral valve repair and replacement using the available studies does present some challenges however, as there are often differences in baseline characteristics between patient groups as well as other dissimilarities between studies. The purpose of this review is to systematically summarize the long-term survival and reoperation data of mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease. A PubMed search was done and resulted in 12 studies that met our study criteria for comparing mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease. A systematic review was then conducted abstracting survival and reoperation data.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2014 · Current Cardiology Reviews
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated national trends, clinical outcomes, and cost implications of mitral valve (MV) repair, versus replacement, concomitant with aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients who underwent MV surgery concomitant with AVR, between 1999 and 2008, were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) registry. Mitral stenosis, endocarditis, and emergency cases were excluded. Inpatient clinical outcomes and costs were compared. Costs were derived using cost-to-charge ratios supplied by the dataset for each individual hospital. Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were used for risk adjustment. A total of 41,417 concomitant cases were identified, of which 11,472 (28%) were MV repairs. Repair rates increased from 15.3% in 1999 to 43.5% in 2008 (P < .001). Major postoperative morbidity rates were similar with MV repair, versus replacement, concomitant with AVR (each 29%, P = .54). Unadjusted inpatient mortality (7.9% vs 10.1%, P = .005); length of hospital stay (median: 8 vs 9 days, P < .001); and costs (median: $45,455 vs $49,648, P < .001) were lower with MV repair. After risk adjustment, MV repair was associated with lower odds of inpatient mortality, and with lower costs (each P < .001). Mitral valve repair concomitant with AVR is associated with reduced inpatient mortality and costs, compared with MV replacement, supporting its use when technically feasible. Although use has increased substantially, MV repair continues to comprise a minority of concomitant AVR cases, in centers reporting to the NIS registry. Increasing repair rates, particularly in NIS-participating hospitals, seems prudent. Copyright © 2015 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2015 · Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

  • No preview · Article · Oct 2015 · The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery