Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 30, 2026
Vascular Gene Transfer from Metallic Stent Surfaces Using Adenoviral Vectors Tethered through Hydrolysable Cross-linkers
Published on: August 12, 2014
Hospital reimbursement for carotid stenting and endarterectomy
Melissa J Donovan1, Daniel E Ramirez, Gregory D Crenshaw
1Section of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Insights
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) yields higher hospital reimbursement than carotid endarterectomy (CEA), but CEA generates 29% more net revenue due to lower material costs. CAS is not cost-effective for most patients.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Health Economics
- Medical Device Technology
Background:
- Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are procedures to prevent stroke.
- Assessing the economic impact of these procedures is crucial for healthcare providers.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of CEA versus CAS based on hospital reimbursement.
- To analyze net revenue generated by each procedure.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of hospital reimbursement data for CEA and CAS.
- Data collected from January 2008 to September 2010 at a single tertiary referral institution.
- Hospital costs and reimbursements assessed using cost accounting system data, excluding professional fees.
Main Results:
- Mean hospital reimbursement was 16% higher for CAS ($12,000) than CEA ($10,160).
- CEA generated 29% greater net revenue ($3487) compared to CAS ($2603) due to CAS's higher material costs.
- Net revenue differences persisted across asymptomatic, symptomatic, and urgent subgroups.
Conclusions:
- CEA is more cost-effective than CAS, yielding higher net hospital revenue despite lower reimbursement.
- Higher material costs for CAS contribute to its lower net revenue.
- CAS is not considered cost-effective for the majority of patients due to increased healthcare resource expenditure without improved clinical outcomes.
Purpose:
To investigate the cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs. carotid artery stenting (CAS) in terms of hospital reimbursement.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted of hospital reimbursement for patients undergoing CEA and CAS from 1 January 2008 through 30 September 2010 at a single tertiary referral institution. Hospital cost and reimbursement were assessed using patient-specific data gathered by the institution's cost accounting system. Professional fees were excluded.
Results:
Hospital reimbursement data were extracted for a total of 301 cases (169 CEA and 132 CAS). Mean hospital reimbursement was 16% higher for CAS ($12,000±$7372) vs. CEA ($10,160±$6840, p=0.02). However, because of the significantly higher cost of materials necessary to perform CAS, the net revenue for the hospital was 29% greater in patients undergoing CEA ($3487) vs. CAS ($2603). The differences in hospital reimbursement and net revenue were consistent in asymptomatic (n=183), symptomatic (n=123), and urgent (n=36) subgroups. When focusing on cases by diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes vs. current procedural terminology (CPT) codes, the data shifted. Several patients were coded as an outpatient procedure (DRG 0): 28 (21%) of the 132 CAS patients and 7 (4%) of the 169 CEA patients, reducing their mean reimbursement to $4046 and $2513, respectively. If these patients were excluded, the mean hospital reimbursement differential widened between and CEA ($10,515) and CAS ($13,825).
Conclusion:
Hospital reimbursement for CAS is significantly higher than that for CEA. While both procedures created net positive income for the hospital, CEA was associated with a 29% higher net revenue due to the 40% cost premium of CAS when looking at all carotid procedures. However, proper DRG coding of CAS cases would have likely resulted in similar net revenue. Asymptomatic patients had the lowest cost and highest net revenue of all the subgroups. Per capita, significantly more healthcare resources were expended with CAS when compared to CEA. Given the lack of improved clinical outcome in most cases, CAS cannot be considered cost-effective for most patients.
Related Concept Videos
01:27Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
01:27Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
01:28Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
01:22Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
01:21Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization
01:26Cardiac Catheterization IV: Nursing Management