The impact of socioeconomic factors on outcome and hospital costs associated with femoropopliteal revascularization

Introduction: Within the context of healthcare system reform, the cost efficacy of lower extremity revascularization remains a timely topic. The impact of an individual patient's socioeconomic status represents an under-studied aspect of vascular care, especially with respect to longitudinal costs and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and clinical outcomes as well as inpatient hospital costs. Methods: A retrospective femoropopliteal revascularization database, which included socioeconomic factors (household income, education level, and payor status), in addition to standard demographic, clinical, anatomical, and procedural variables were analyzed over a 3-year period. Patients were stratified by income level (low income [LI] <200% federal poverty level [$42,400 for a household of 4], and higher income [HI] >200% federal poverty level) and revascularization technique (open vs endovascular) and analyzed for the endpoints of primary assisted patency, amortized cost-per-day of patency, and limb salvage. Data were analyzed with univariate and multivariate techniques. Results: A total of 187 cases were identified with complete data for analysis, 146 in the LI and 41 in the HI cohorts. LI patients differed from HI patients by mean age (66.2 +/- 1.0 vs 61.8 +/- 1.5 years, P = .04), high school graduate rate (51.4% vs 85.4%, P < .001), presence of tissue loss (30.1% vs 14.6%, P = .05), female gender (43.7% vs 22.0%, P = .01) and preoperative stattn use (45.8% vs 75.6%, P < .001) There were no differences with respect to other comorbidities including smoking status, presence of diabetes, renal insufficiency, anatomic factors or treatment modality (open vs endovascular). Ninety-seven patients underwent endovascular revascularization. The following outcomes were noted in the endovascular subset of LI and HI patients respectively: primary assisted patency (66% vs 71%, P = NS) and 12-month cost-per-day of patency ($166.30 +/- 77.40 vs $22.45 +/- 12 45, P =.05). Ninety-eight patients underwent open revascularization, with the following outcomes in LI and HI patients respectively: primary assisted patency (78% vs 86%, P = NS) and 12-month cost-per-day of patency ($319.43 +/- 225.44 vs $40.47 +/- 4.63, P = .07). Of the 77 patients with critical limb ischemia, 19 underwent eventual amputation. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that income above 100% of the federal poverty line was protective against limb loss (odds ratio 0.06,95% confidence interval 0.01-0.51, P<.001). Conclusion: Income level correlates with advanced presentation, advanced age, and lack of statin use. Although primary assisted patency rate is not affected by income status, an increased cost-per-day of patency and inferior limb salvage is found in lower income patients. (J Vase Surg 2010;52:600-7.)