A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation : Analysis of costs and outcomes.
Traditionally cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed by surgeons under general anesthesia.
However, with advances in lead and pulse generator technology, the surgical implantation technique has been simplified and routine pectoral pulse generator placement without general anesthesia is now possible.
To assess the economic benefit of pectoral implantation, we analyzed 43 consecutive initial transvenous defibrillator implantations.
The patients were grouped according to whether the implant was abdominal by a surgeon in the operating room (n=23) or pectoral by an electrophysiologist in a laboratory (n=20).
The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the operating room than in the laboratory group (8.1 ± 3.4 vs 5.8 ± 2,4 days, p=0.01), which was due primarily to the postoperative stay which averaged 1.9 days longer.
Total costs were $40,274+6,861 for the operating room cohort and $32,546 ± 3,634 for the lab group (p<0.001).
This reduction was due to a 32% lowering of professional costs and an 18% lowering of facility costs.
We conclude that pectoral defibrillator implantation is cost effective and results in significant reductions of hospital stay.
Mots-clés Pascal : Défibrillation, Défibrillateur, Implantation, Technique, Etude comparative, Voie abord, Voie abdominale, Muscle pectoral, Homme, Evolution, Coût, Economie santé, Electrophysiologie, Chirurgie, Réanimation cardiocirculatoire, Traitement instrumental
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Defibrillation, Defibrillator, Implantation, Technique, Comparative study, Surgical approach, Abdominal route, Pectoral muscle, Human, Evolution, Costs, Health economy, Electrophysiology, Surgery, Intensive cardiocirculatory care, Instrumentation therapy
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 99-0141338
Code Inist : 002B26E. Création : 16/11/1999.