Abstract

Background: VCDs are used in femoral catheterization and said to be safer and less expensive than MC. This study aimed to compare complications and healthcare expenditures between VCD and MC, in diagnostic and interventional femoral catheterization from German claims data. Methods: The study population came from a German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). We calculated odds ratios (OR) for complications with logistic regression models. Healthcare expenditures refer to overall SHI expenditures for the hospital stay and were modelled in Generalized Gamma regression models with recycled predictions and confidence intervals. All analyses were stratified by diagnostic or interventional catheterization and adjusted by age, gender, comorbidities, and antiplatelet and anticoagulant medication. Findings: We found a significantly lower probability for complications for VCD compared to MC in diagnostic catheterization (OR=0.31, p-value=0.02) but not in interventional catheterization (OR=0.98, p-value=0.90). Total adjusted healthcare expenditures were €2,657 for VCD and €2,664 for MC with a difference of €6 (CI=[-141.5, 121.7], p-value=0.92) in diagnostic catheterization. In interventional catheterization healthcare expenditures were €4,380 for VCD and €4,352 for MC with a difference of €28 (CI=[-107.0, 150.2], p-value=0.62). Conclusions: Our results implicate that using VCDs is associated with a significantly lower probability for complications in diagnostic catheterization, but has no significant association in interventional procedures. Healthcare expenditures for VCD and MC are comparable in both types of catheterization. These results suggest that the application of VCD is particularly beneficial in diagnostic catheterization from a payer perspective.

Highlights

  • In 2013 over 350,000 people died of cardiovascular diseases in Germany making it the leading cause of death [1]

  • These kinds of procedures leave an access puncture site in the femoral artery that can be closed by either manual compression (MC) or by using a Vascular Closing Device (VCD)

  • We considered every observation of the study cohort that had this OPS code during the hospital stay with the femoral catheterization as having received a VCD

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In 2013 over 350,000 people died of cardiovascular diseases in Germany making it the leading cause of death [1]. In 2008 around 845,000 diagnostics and 304,000 therapeutic catheterizations were performed in Germany [2]. These kinds of procedures leave an access puncture site in the femoral artery that can be closed by either manual compression (MC) or by using a Vascular Closing Device (VCD). VCDs were developed to achieve a shorter time to hemostasis and to shorten the time that the patient must lie still and enhance patient comfort. They are expected to cause less access site complications. This study aimed to compare complications and healthcare expenditures between VCD and MC, in diagnostic and interventional femoral catheterization from German claims data

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call