Review of Efforts to Decrease Costly Leg Wound Complications in the Medicare Population Following Coronary Revascularization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1019Abstract
Background: Current trends show that patients referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are significantly older, sicker, and at higher risk for complications than ever before. Eliminating leg wound complications would significantly benefit these patients and reduce the consumption of health care time and dollars. Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) decreases the risk of wound complications in patients following CABG and may decrease costly long-term wound-related problems.
Methods: In this retrospective study, the cases of 1909 Medicare patients who had undergone EVH or open vein harvesting (OVH) for CABG were reviewed. The risk factors of these patients were examined and compared with those of 1485 non-Medicare patients. Readmissions, home health care costs, and office lengths of service were reviewed and analyzed.
Results: The results of univariate analyses of the Medicare versus non-Medicare populations indicated significant differences for peripheral vascular disease (25.4% versus 17.2%; P < .0001), renal failure (6.0% versus 2.8%; P < .0001), hypertension (75.4% versus 71.5%; P = .011), female sex (31.1% versus 22.4%; P < .0001), mean age (69.8 years versus 57.1 years; P < .0001), and mortality risk (4.6% versus 2.2%; P < .0001). The wound rates in the Medicare group were 1.1% for EVH (n = 741) versus 2.8% for OVH (n = 1168), and this difference was significant (P = .0163) despite a higher frequency of morbid obesity in the EVH population (P < .0001). No significant differences were found in readmission frequency, home health care costs, or office length of service.
Conclusion: EVH benefits Medicare patients. Although this study is the largest to date to use disposable instruments, there is a lack of statistical power in the analysis of cost comparisons due to the small sample size of wound complications. However, there appears to be a general trend toward a lower treatment cost per patient and less resource use with EVH.
References
December 2000.nAllen KB, Griffith GL, Heimansohn DA, et al. 1998. Endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting: a prospective randomized trial.Ann Thorac Surg 66:26-32.nAllen KB, Heimansohn DA, Robinson RJ, et al. 2000. Risk factors for leg wound complications following endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting. Heart Surg Forum 3:325-30.nAlrawi SJ, Raju R, Satheesan R, Cunningham JN, Acinapaura AJ. 2001. Interleukin-1, interleukin-2, and interleukin-10 expression in different techniques of saphenous vein harvesting. Heart Surg Forum 4:47-52.nBoyce JM, Potter-Bynoe G, Dziobek L. 1990. Hospital reimbursement patterns among patients with surgical wound infections following open heart surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 11:89-93.nBrandt CP, Greene GC, Hall WC, Pollard TR. 2002. Endoscopic vein harvesting: benefits continue to increase as techniques are learned and technology advances. Surg Physician Assistant 8:21-6.nCarpino PA, Khabbaz KR, Bojar RM, et al. 2000. Clinical benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting in patients with risk factors for saphenectomy wound infections undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:69-75.nFerguson TB Jr, Hammill BG, Peterson ED, DeLong ER, Grover FL. 2002. A decade of change: risk profiles and outcomes for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, 1990-1999: a report from the STS National Database Committee and the Duke Clinical Research Institute: Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg 73:480-90.nGandhi RH, Katz D, Wheeler JR, et al. 1994. Vein harvest ischemia: a peripheral vascular complication of coronary artery bypass grafting. Cardiovasc Surg 2:478-83.nGoldsborough MA, Miller MH, Gibson J, et al. 1999. Prevalence of leg wound complications after coronary artery bypass grafting: determination of risk factors. Am J Crit Care 8:149-53.nIhaka R, Gentleman R. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299-314.nKiaii B, Moon BC, Massel D, et al. 2002. A prospective randomized trial of endoscopic versus conventional harvesting of the saphenousnvein in coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 123: 204-12.nLancey RA, Cuenoud H, Nunnari JJ. 2001. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of endoscopic versus open vein harvesting techniques. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 42:297-301.nLyznicki JM, Young DC, Riggs JA, Davis RM. 2001. Obesity: assessment and management in primary care. Am Fam Physician 63:2185-96.nMakary M. 2000. Minimally invasive vein and artery harvesting. Presented at: Cardiovascular Roundtable, The Advisory Board Company;nMarty B, von Segesser LK, Tozzi P, et al. 2000. Benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting. World J Surg 24:1104-8.nMeyer DM, Rogers TE, Jessen ME, Estrera AS, Chin YK. 2000. Histologic evidence of the safety of endoscopic saphenous vein graft preparation. Ann Thorac Surg 70:487-91.nMorris RJ, Butler MT, Samuels LE. 1998. Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting. Ann Thorac Surg 66:1026-8.nPaletta CE, Huang DB, Fiore AC, Swartz MT, Rilloraza FL, Gardner JE. 2000. Major leg wound complications after saphenous vein harvest for coronary revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg 70:492-7.nPatel AN, Hebeler RF, Hamman BL, et al. 2001. Prospective analysis of endoscopic vein harvesting. Am J Surg 182:716-9.nThomas TA, Taylor SM, Crane MM, et al. 1999. An analysis of limb-threatening lower extremity wound complications after 1090 consecutive coronary artery bypass procedures. Vasc Med 4:83-8.n
