OBJECTIVES:: To establish the economical benefits of the hemodynamic monitoring (HEMON) in comparison to no hemodynamic monitoring at all (NOMON) on high risk patients who underwent large/medium surgical procedures. METHODS:: A retrospective analysis was performed using a public claims database (DATASUS), which contains all procedures reimbursed by the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). Patients who underwent a procedure to correct an abdominal aortic aneurism, in 2014, were selected, as the HEMON procedure is allowed under this procedure. Groups (HEMON and NOMON) were defined by the presence of the Swan-Ganz catheter in the medical accounts, which characterizes the use of HEMON procedure. Groups were homogenized thru the exclusion of patients who died during the hospitalization and the minimum length of stay (LoS) was defined as 4 days on both groups. Outcomes were total cost of hospitalization, LoS and ITU LoS. Results were expressed as means, standard deviations (SD), median (MD) and min-max ranges. RESULTS:: Median total hospitalization costs were R$ 15.515 and R$ 23.853 for HEMON and NOMON, respectively. Showing a reduction of approximately 35% when HEMON was used. Patients who underwent HEMON procedure showed higher median LoS (12 vs. 8 days – HEMON and NOMON, respectively) and ITU LoS (5 and 2 – HEMON and NOMON, respectively), which can be explained by a higher complexity attributed to those patients that required HEMON. CONCLUSIONS:: Although showing higher LoS (general and ITU) patients who were treated with HEMON had lower hospitalization costs. Those results are associated with better outcomes provided by HEMON, even though, patients who required it under the SUS perspective had worse conditions than those who didn’t (explained by the higher LoS).