首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Korean Medical Science >Comparison of Costs of Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgical Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Korea
【2h】

Comparison of Costs of Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgical Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Korea

机译:韩国腹主动脉瘤腔内修复与开放手术修复费用的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This study was designed to compare the hospital-related costs of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment and cost structure between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in Korean health care system. One hundred five primary elective AAA repairs (79 OSRs and 26 EVARs) performed in the Seoul National University Hospital from 2005 to 2009 were included. Patient characteristics were similar between two groups except for older age (P = 0.004) and more frequent history of malignancy (P = 0.031) in EVAR group. Thirty-day mortality rate was similar between two groups and there was no AAA-related mortality in both groups for 5 yr after repair. The total in-hospital costs for the index admission were significantly higher in EVAR patients (mean, KRW19,857,119) than OSR patients (mean KRW12,395,507) (P < 0.001). The reimbursement was also significantly higher in EVAR patients than OSR patients (mean, KRW14,071,081 vs KRW6,238,895, P < 0.001) while patients payments was comparable between two groups. EVAR patients showed higher follow-up cost up to 2 yr due to more frequent imaging studies and reinterventions for type II endoleaks (15.4%). In the perspective of cost-effectiveness, this study suggests that the determination of which method to be used in AAA treatment be more finely trimmed and be individualized.
机译:本研究旨在比较韩国卫生保健系统中血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)和开放手术修复(OSR)之间的选择性腹主动脉瘤(AAA)治疗的医院相关费用和费用结构。 2005年至2009年,在首尔国立大学医院进行了155次主要的AAA选修(79个OSR和26个EVAR)。两组之间的患者特征相似,除了年龄较大(P = 0.004)和EVAR组的恶性病史更频繁(P = 0.031)。两组之间的30天死亡率相似,并且修复后5年内两组均没有AAA相关的死亡率。 EVAR患者的入院总住院费用(平均为19,857,119韩元)明显高于OSR患者(平均为12,395,507韩元)(P <0.001)。 EVAR患者的报销额也显着高于OSR患者(平均值,14,071,081韩元对6,238,895韩元,P <0.001),而两组患者的付款相当。由于更频繁的影像学研究和II型内漏的再次干预(15.4%),EVAR患者的随访费用长达2年,费用更高。从成本效益的角度来看,这项研究表明,对用于AAA治疗的哪种方法的确定应进行更精细的调整和个性化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号