Cost analysis of awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation: A single academic health center experience

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the cost of deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed awake versus asleep at a single US academic health center and to compare costs across the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database. Methods Inpatient and outpatient demographic and hospital financial data for patients receiving a neurostimulator lead implant (from the first quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2014) were collected and analyzed. Inpatient charges included those associated with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure code 0293 (implantation or replacement of intracranial neurostimulator lead). Outpatient charges included all preoperative charges ? 30 days prior to implant and all postoperative charges ? 30 days after implant. The cost of care based on reported charges and a cost-to-charge ratio was estimated. The UHC database was queried (January 2011 to March 2014) with the same ICD-9 code. Procedure cost data across like hospitals (27 UHC hospitals) conducting similar DBS procedures were compared. Results Two hundred eleven DBS procedures (53 awake and 158 asleep) were performed at a single US academic health center during the study period. The average patient age (± SD) was 65 ± 9 years old and 39% of patients were female. The most common primary diagnosis was Parkinson's disease (61.1%) followed by essential and other forms of tremor (36%). Overall average DBS procedure cost was 39,152 ± 5340. Asleep DBS cost 38,850 ± 4830, which was not significantly different than the awake DBS cost of 40,052 ± 6604. The standard deviation for asleep DBS was significantly lower (p ? 0.05). In 2013, the median cost for a neurostimulator implant lead was 34,052 at UHC-affiliated hospitals that performed at least 5 procedures a year. At Oregon Health & Science University, the median cost was 17,150 and the observed single academic health center cost for a neurostimulator lead implant was less than the expected cost (ratio 0.97). Conclusions In this single academic medical center cost analysis, DBS performed asleep was associated with a lower cost variation relative to the awake procedure. Furthermore, costs compared favorably to UHC-affiliated hospitals. While asleep DBS is not yet standard practice, this center exclusively performs asleep DBS at a lower cost than comparable institutions.