Impact on Hospital Resource Utilization of Endoluminal Bypass Using the Viabahn Endoprosthesis with Heparin Bioactive Surface Compared With Surgical Femoropopliteal Bypass
Authors: van Walraven Laurens A. , Velandia-Sánchez Alejandro , Iqbal Kashfa , Zeebregts Clark J. , Holewijn Suzanne , Reijnen Michel M. P.J. 
Published: April 2024

Objective: To assess the impact of heparin-bonded endoprosthesis compared with femoropopliteal bypass on key hospital resources and revenues up to 1-year follow-up. Design: A 2-arm scenario resource consumption data analysis was modeled based on a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: Six centers in the Netherlands. Participants: A total of 100 patients were assigned to 2 arms (50 each arm). The first arm evaluated endovascular treatment using the heparin-bonded Viabahn endoprosthesis and the second the femoropopliteal bypass. Resource consumption rates were compared between arms. Primary and secondary outcomes measures: Resource consumption rates, including hospital stay for bypass procedure, operating room time, type of anesthesia, number of used (endo)grafts, use of different types of bed locations (vascular ward, medium or intensive care), readmission for wound infections, and reinterventions over a period of 12 months. Results: Endovascular repair used fewer hospital resources, with an overall difference of €149.983. Hospital stay was 118 days less (261 vs 379), including 21 fewer days in medium/intensive care (5 vs 26) and 50 fewer operating room hours (100 vs 150). Fewer patients required general anesthesia (31 vs 39), and there were less surgical site infections (3 vs 12). In the surgical bypass group, there were 18 fewer days of hospital stay related to reinterventions (80 vs 62), and the cost of the devices was €309.996, cheaper. The total monetary difference was € 160.013, in favor of the femoropopliteal bypass (€3.200, per patient). Conclusions: Endovascular repair of the superficial femoral artery reduces the use of valuable hospital resources. Its major limitation is the cost of the devices, which should be balanced against the reduction in peri-procedural morbidity and faster recovery. In the context of shortage of hospital beds, it offers capacity benefits, allowing for the treatment of more patients overall. These benefits may outweigh the fewer reinterventions in the surgical bypass group. Registration: The SuperB Trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov; NCT-ID: NCT01220245. Clinical Impact Modeling is a useful technique to predict the impact of treatment modalities on hospital resources and revenue. This study uses real-world data from the SuperB Trial to compare two treatment strategies of superficial femoral artery disease, reflecting actual clinical practice and patient outcomes. The analysis focused on direct costs associated with hospital resources and device usage without considering indirect costs or long-term cost-effectiveness. The analysis showed that endovascular repair reduces the use of valuable hospital resources. Its major limitation is device costs, which should be balanced against the reduction in peri-procedural morbidity and faster recovery. In the context of shortage of hospital beds, it offers capacity benefits, allowing for the treatment of more patients overall.