Interventional Radiologists Achieve Equivalent Outcomes and Lower Costs for Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Placement Compared to Operating Room Placement

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the cost and outcomes of surgical and interventional radiology (IR) placement of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) within a large regional health system to determine the service line with better outcomes and lower costs to the health system. Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of all chest port placements performed in the operating room (OR) and IR suite over 12 months was conducted at a large, integrated health system with 6 major hospitals. Secondary electronic health record and cost data were used to identify TIVAD placements, follow-up procedures indicating port malfunction, early adverse events (within 1 month after the surgery), late adverse events (2–12 months after the procedure), and health system cost of TIVAD placement and management. ResultsFor 799 total port placements included in this analysis, the rate of major adverse events was 1.3% and 1.9% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .5655) and 4.9% and 2.8% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .5437). Malfunction-related follow-up procedure rates were 1.8% and 2.6% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .4787) and 12.4% and 10.5% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .4354). The mean cost of port placement per patient was $4,509 and $5,247 for the IR and OR groups, respectively. The difference in per-patient cost of port placement was $1,170 greater for the OR group (P = .0074). ConclusionsThe similar rates of adverse events and follow-up procedures and significant differences in insertion cost suggest that IR TIVAD placement may be more cost effective than surgical placement without affecting the quality.