Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness and Postoperative Outcome of Device Closure and Open Surgery Closure Techniques for Treatment of Patent Ductus Arteriosus



Ahmadi A¹ ; Sabri M² ; Bigdelian H³ ; Dehghan B⁴ ; Gharipour M⁵ Show Affiliations
Source: ARYA Atherosclerosis Published:2014

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various devices have been recently employed for percutaneous closure of the patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). Although the high effectiveness of device closure techniques has been clearly determined, a few studies have focused on the cost-effectiveness and also postoperative complications of these procedures in comparison with open surgery. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of PDA occlusion by Amplatzer and coil device in comparisong with open surgery. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a randomized sample of 201 patients aged 1 month to 16 years (105 patients with device closure and 96 patients with surgical closure) was selected. The ratio of total pulmonary blood flow to total systemic blood flow, the Qp/Qs ratio, was measured using a pulmonary artery catheter. The cost analysis included direct medical care costs associated with device implantation and open surgery, as well as professional fees. All costs were calculated in Iranian Rials and then converted to US dollars. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in mean Qp/Qs ratio before the procedure between the device closure group and the open surgery group (2.1 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.6, P = 0.090). The mean measured costs were overall higher in the device closure group than in open closure group (948.87 ± 548.76 US$ versus 743.70 ± 696.91 US$, P < 0.001). This difference remained significant after adjustment for age and gender (Standardized Beta = 0.160, P = 0.031). PDA closure with the Amplatzer ductal occluder (1053.05 ± 525.73 US$) or with Nit-Occlud coils (PFM) (912.73 ± 565.94 US$, P < 0.001) was more expensive than that via open surgery. However, the Cook detachable spring coils device closure (605.65 ± 194.62 US$, P = 0.650) had a non-significant cost difference with open surgery. No event was observed in the device closure group regarding in-hospital mortality or morbidity; however, in another group, 2 in-hospital deaths occurred, two patients experienced pneumonia and seizure, and one suffered electrolyte abnormalities including hyponatremia and hypocalcemia. CONCLUSION: Although open surgery seems to be less expensive than device closure technique, because of lower mortality and morbidity, the latter group is more preferable.