IMPORTANCELittle is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection.OBJECTIVE To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated.EXPOSURES Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation.RESULTS Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities.
The development of quality assurance (QA) and quality improvement (QI) initiatives have paralleled the expansion and proliferation of cardiac catherization laboratories. Quality cardiovascular care aims to deliver high standards for patient safety by developing processes and systems to optimize patientteam interactions. Quality can be assessed at the individual operator, team, program, facility or system level.Cardiovascular societies and organizations have developed national registries to help institutions benchmark their process and outcomes against national standards. Various quality measurement techniques are available to assess current performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) for revascularization were implemented to serve as a QA measure to examine the use of medical procedures.In today's value-based payment systems-focused healthcare climate, quality metrics are followed closely by many payors. In this review, the framework for quality in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and tools to achieve continuous quality improvement (CQI) are discussed.
Background Randomized clinical trial data have demonstrated catheter ablation (CA) as a viable treatment modality for atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing AF CA appear to derive improvements in quality of life and mortality compared to those treated with medical therapy (MT). Contemporary national data on 30‐day readmissions after CA compared to MT among patients with HF are lacking. Methods From the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Databases, 749 776 (weighted national estimate: 1 421 673) AF HF patients were identified of which 2204 (0.3%) underwent CA and 747 572 (99.7%) received MT. Propensity matching balanced baseline clinical characteristics. Thirty‐day readmission rates, causes, predictors, and costs of 30‐day readmission were compared. Results Among both the unmatched and matched cohorts, 30‐day readmissions were lower for patients treated with CA compared to MT (16.8% vs 20.1%, P < .001 and 16.8% vs 18.8%, P = .020). CA was associated with reduced risk of readmission compared to MT (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77‐0.97). HF exacerbation and arrhythmias were the most common cause for 30‐day readmission after CA. CA costs were higher during index hospitalization but similar to MT during readmission among the matched cohort ($15 858 ± $21 636 vs $16 505 ± $29 171, P = .67). Predictors of readmission were largely nonmodifiable risk factors among both the CA and MT groups. Conclusions Nearly one in six patients with HF is readmitted within 30‐days after undergoing CA. In propensity matched analyses, CA was associated with decreased rate and risk for readmission compared to MT. CA has higher index hospitalization costs, but lower readmission costs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.