Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 223–228 | Cite as

The impact of post-procedural complications on reimbursement, length of stay and mechanical ventilation among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Germany

  • Klaus Kaier
  • Holger Reinecke
  • Huseyin Naci
  • Lutz Frankenstein
  • Martin Bode
  • Werner Vach
  • Philip Hehn
  • Andreas Zirlik
  • Manfred Zehender
  • Jochen Reinöhl
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

The impact of various post-procedural complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on resource use and their consequences in the German reimbursement system has still not been properly quantified.

Methods

In a retrospective observational study, we use data from the German DRG statistic on patient characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of all isolated TAVI procedures in 2013 (N = 9147). The impact of post-procedural complications on reimbursement, length of stay and mechanical ventilation was analyzed using both unadjusted and risk-adjusted linear and logistic regression analyses.

Results

A total of 235 (2.57%) strokes, 583 (6.37%) bleeding events, 474 (5.18%) cases of acute kidney injury and 1428 (15.61%) pacemaker implantations were documented. The predicted reimbursement of an uncomplicated TAVI procedure was €33,272, and bleeding events were associated with highest additional reimbursement (€12,839, p < 0.001), extra length of stay (14.58 days, p < 0.001), and increased likelihood of mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h (OR 17.91, p < 0.001). A more moderate complication-related impact on resource use and reimbursement was found for acute kidney injury (additional reimbursement: €5963, p < 0.001; extra length of stay: 7.92 days, p < 0.001; ventilation >48 h: OR 6.93, p < 0.001) as well as for stroke (additional reimbursement: €4125, p < 0.001; extra length of stay: 4.68 days, p < 0.001; ventilation >48 h: OR 5.73, p < 0.001). Pacemaker implantations, in contrast, were associated with comparably small increases in reimbursement (€662, p = 0.006) and length of stay (3.54 days, p = 0.006) and no impaired likelihood of mechanical ventilation more than 48 h (OR 1.22, p = 0.156). Interestingly, these complication-related consequences remain mostly unchanged after baseline risk-adjustment.

Conclusions

Post procedural complications such as bleeding events, acute kidney injuries and strokes are associated with increased resource use and substantial amounts of additional reimbursement in Germany, which has important implications for decision making outside of the usual clinical sphere.

Keywords

Post-procedural complications TAVR Transcatheter aortic valve replacement Excess costs Reimbursement Resource use 

JEL Classification

C01 I10 

Supplementary material

10198_2017_877_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 36 kb)
10198_2017_877_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (37 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 36 kb)
10198_2017_877_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (37 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 36 kb)
10198_2017_877_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (37 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 36 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Reinöhl, J., Kaier, K., Reinecke, H., Schmoor, C., Frankenstein, L., Vach, W., Cribier, A., Beyersdorf, F., Bode, C., Zehender, M.: Effect of availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 2438–2447 (2015)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gada, H., Agarwal, S., Marwick, T.H.: Perspective on the cost-effectiveness of transapical aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients: outcomes of a decision-analytic model. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2012(1), 145–155 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orlando, R., Pennant, M., Rooney, S., Khogali, S., Bayliss, S., Hassan, A., Moore, D., Barton, P.: Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis in patients who are high risk or contraindicated for surgery: a model-based economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 17, (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reynolds, M.R., Magnuson, E.A., Wang, K., Lei, Y., Vilain, K., Walczak, J., Kodali, S.K., Lasala, J.M., O’Neill, W.W., Davidson, C.J., Smith, C.R., Leon, M.B., Cohen, D.J., PARTNER Investigators: Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard care among inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis: results from the placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER) trial (Cohort B). Circulation 125, 1102–1109 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watt, M., Mealing, S., Eaton, J., Piazza, N., Moat, N., Brasseur, P., Palmer, S., Busca, R., Sculpher, M.: Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ineligible for conventional aortic valve replacement. Heart 98, 370–376 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neyt, M., Van Brabandt, H., Devriese, S., Van De Sande, S.: A cost-utility analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Belgium: focusing on a well-defined and identifiable population. BMJ Open 2, e001032–e001032 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gutmann, A., Kaier, K., Sorg, S., von zur Mühlen, C., Siepe, M., Moser, M., Geibel, A., Zirlik, A., Ahrens, I., Baumbach, H.: Analysis of the additional costs of clinical complications in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the German Health Care System. Int. J. Cardiol. 179, 231–237 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reinöhl, J., Gutmann, A., Kollum, M., von zur Mühlen, C., Baumbach, H., Avlar, M., Moser, M., Bode, C., Zehender, M.: Transfemoral aortic valve implantation: bleeding events, related costs and outcomes. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 35, 469–475 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sinzobahamvya, N., Kopp, T., Arenz, C., Blaschczok, H.C., Hraska, V., Asfour, B.: Reimbursement by current German Diagnosis-Related Groups system penalises complex congenital heart surgery. Cardiol. Young 24, 344–350 (2014)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qvick, B., Buehren, V., Woltmann, A.: Ist ein Polytrauma heutzutage noch bezahlbar?: g-DRG-System vs. Tagessätze anhand 1030 polytraumatisierter Patienten. Unfallchirurg 115, 892–896 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bauer, M., Ostermann, H.: DRGs in transfusion medicine and hemotherapy in Germany. Transfus. Med. Hemother. 39, 60–66 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schreyögg, J., Tiemann, O., Busse, R.: Cost accounting to determine prices: how well do prices reflect costs in the German DRG-system? Health Care Manag. Sci. 9, 269–279 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoehn, T., Drabik, A., Lehmann, C., Christaras, A., Stannigel, H., Mayatepek, E.: Correlation between severity of disease and reimbursement of costs in neonatal and paediatric intensive care patients. Acta Paediatr. 97, 1438–1442 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vogl, M.: Assessing DRG cost accounting with respect to resource allocation and tariff calculation: the case of Germany. Health Econ. Rev. 2, 15 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malyar, N., Furstenberg, T., Wellmann, J., Meyborg, M., Luders, F., Gebauer, K., Bunzemeier, H., Roeder, N., Reinecke, H.: Recent trends in morbidity and in-hospital outcomes of in-patients with peripheral arterial disease: a nationwide population-based analysis. Eur. Heart J. 34, 2706–2714 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freisinger, E., Fuerstenberg, T., Malyar, N.M., Wellmann, J., Keil, U., Breithardt, G., Reinecke, H.: German nationwide data on current trends and management of acute myocardial infarction: discrepancies between trials and real-life. Eur. Heart J. 35, 979–988 (2014)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reinöhl, J., K. Kaier, Reinecke, H., Schmoor, C., Frankenstein, L., Vach, W., Cribier, A., Beyersdorf, F., Bode, C., Zehender, M.: Effect of availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on clinical practice: supplementary appendix. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 2438–2447 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roques, F., Michel, P., Goldstone, A.R., Nashef, S.A.M.: The logistic euroscore. Eur. Heart J. 24, 882 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heinz, J., Fiori, W., Heusser, P., Ostermann, T.: Cost analysis of integrative inpatient treatment based on DRG data: the example of anthroposophic medicine. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat, Med (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quentin, W., Geissler, A., Scheller-Kreinsen, D., Busse, R.: DRG-type hospital payment in Germany: the G-DRG system. Euro. Obs. 12, 4–6 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Braun, J.-P., Bause, H., Bloos, F., Geldner, G., Kastrup, M., Kuhlen, R., Markewitz, A., Martin, J., Mende, H., Quintel, M.: Peer reviewing critical care: a pragmatic approach to quality management. GMS Ger. Med. Sci. 8, (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cao, C., Liou, K., Pathan, F., Virk, S., McMonnies, R., Wolfenden, H., Indraratna, P.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Curr. Pharm, Des (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kappetein, A.P., Head, S.J., Généreux, P., Piazza, N., Van Mieghem, N.M., Blackstone, E.H., Brott, T.G., Cohen, D.J., Cutlip, D.E., van Es, G.-A.: Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60, 1438–1454 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Cardiology and Angiology IHeart Center Freiburg UniversityFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Division of Vascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular MedicineUniversity Hospital MuensterMuensterGermany
  4. 4.LSE Health, Department of Social PolicyLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  5. 5.Department of Cardiology, Angiology, PulmonologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  6. 6.Faculty of Business Management and Social SciencesOsnabrück University of Applied SciencesOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations