Step-down units are cost-effective alternatives to coronary care units with non-inferior outcomes in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) within a door-to-balloon timing of 90 min have greatly decreased mortality and morbidity of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Post-PCI, they are routinely transferred into the coronary care unit (CCU) regardless of the severity of their condition, resulting in frequent CCU overcrowding. This study assesses the feasibility of step-down units (SDUs) as an alternative to CCUs in the management of STEMI patients after successful PCI, to alleviate CCU overcrowding. Criteria of assessment include in-hospital complications, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient outcomes up to a year after discharge from hospital. A retrospective case-control study was done using data of 294 adult STEMI patients admitted to the emergency departments of two training and research hospitals and successfully underwent primary PCI from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015. Patients were followed up for a year post-discharge. Student t test and χ2 test were done as univariate analysis to check for statistical significance of p < 0.05. Further regression analysis was done with respect to primary outcomes to adjust for major confounders. Patients managed in the SDU incurred significantly lower inpatient costs (p = 0.0003). No significant differences were found between the CCU and SDU patients in terms of patient characteristics, PCI characteristics, in-hospital complications, length of stay, and patient outcomes up to a year after discharge. The SDU is a viable cost-effective option for managing STEMI patients after successful primary PCI to avoid CCU overcrowding, with non-inferior patient outcomes as compared to the CCU.

Start-up of a Cardiology Day Hospital: Activity, Quality Care and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the First Year of Operation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The cardiology day hospital (CDH) is an alternative to hospitalization for scheduled cardiological procedures. The aims of this study were to analyze the activity, quality of care and the cost-effectiveness of a CDH. METHODS: An observational descriptive study was conducted of the health care activity during the first year of operation of DHHA. The quality of care was analyzed through the substitution rate (outpatient procedures), cancellation rates, complications, and a satisfaction survey. For cost-effectiveness, we calculated the economic savings of avoided hospital stays. RESULTS: A total of 1646 patients were attended (mean age 69 ± 15 years, 60% men); 2550 procedures were scheduled with a cancellation rate of 4%. The most frequently cancelled procedure was electrical cardioversion. The substitution rate for scheduled invasive procedures was 66%. Only 1 patient required readmission after discharge from the CDH due to heart failure. Most surveyed patients (95%) considered the care received in the CDH to be good or very good. The saving due to outpatient-converted procedures made possible by the CDH was € 219 199.55, higher than the cost of the first year of operation. CONCLUSIONS: In our center, the CDH allowed more than two thirds of the invasive procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis, while maintaining the quality of care. In the first year of operation, the expenses due to its implementation were offset by a significant reduction in hospital admissions.

The high cost of critical care unit over-utilization for patients with NSTE ACS.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variability among hospitals in critical care unit (CCU) utilization for patients admitted with non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE ACS). We estimated the potential cost saving if all hospitals adopted low CCU utilization practices for patients with NSTE ACS. METHODS: National hospital claims data were used to identify all patients with a primary diagnosis of NSTE ACS initially admitted to an acute care hospital between 2007 and 2013. Hospital CCU utilization was classified as low (<30%), medium (30-70%), or high (>70%). RESULTS: Among the 270,564 NSTE ACS hospitalizations (71.6% non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 28.4% unstable angina) admitted to 261 hospitals, 41.9% (inter-hospital range 0.3%-95.1%) were admitted to a CCU. The proportion of patients admitted to a CCU in low, medium and high utilization hospitals was 16.3%, 49.5%, and high 81.1%, respectively. No differences in adjusted inpatient mortality were observed by hospital CCU utilization. The overall inpatient costs of caring for NSTE ACS were $1.1 billion. CCU care accounted for 45.2% of all hospitalization costs including 22.6%, 49.9%, and 69.0% (P < .001) of costs in low, medium and high utilization centers. The national potential direct cost savings of medium and high CCU utilization centers adopting low NSTE ACS CCU utilization practices was $113.4 million over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based contemporary cohort, CCU utilization for patients with NSTE ACS varied widely and in-hospital mortality was similar between low, medium and high utilization centers. CCU care accounted for 45% of hospitalization costs; thus, implementing policies and admission practices to align hospital resources with patient care needs have the potential to reduce overall health care costs.

Do stable non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes require admission to coronary care units?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend admitting patients with stable non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) to telemetry units, yet up to two-thirds of patients are admitted to higher-acuity critical care units (CCUs). The outcomes of patients with stable NSTE ACS initially admitted to a CCU vs a cardiology ward with telemetry have not been described. METHODS: We used population-based data of 7,869 patients hospitalized with NSTE ACS admitted to hospitals in Alberta, Canada, between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2013. We compared outcomes among patients initially admitted to a CCU (n=5,141) with those admitted to cardiology telemetry wards (n=2,728). RESULTS: Patients admitted to cardiology telemetry wards were older (median 69 vs 65years, P<.001) and more likely to be female (37.2% vs 32.1%, P<.001) and have a prior myocardial infarction (14.3% vs 11.5%, P<.001) compared with patients admitted to a CCU. Patients admitted directly to cardiology telemetry wards had similar hospital stays (6.2 vs 5.7days, P=.29) and fewer cardiac procedures (40.3% vs 48.5%, P<.001) compared with patients initially admitted to CCUs. There were no differences in the frequency of in-hospital mortality (1.3% vs 1.2%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.57, 95% CI 0.98-2.52), cardiac arrest (0.7% vs 0.9%, aOR 1.37, 95% CI 0.94-2.00), 30-day all-cause mortality (1.6% vs 1.5%, aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82-2.75), or 30-day all-cause postdischarge readmission (10.6% vs 10.8%, aOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28) between cardiology telemetry ward and CCU patients. Results were similar across low-, intermediate-, and high-risk Duke Jeopardy Scores, and in patients with non-ST-segment myocardial infarction or unstable angina. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in clinical outcomes observed between patients with NSTE ACS initially admitted to a ward or a CCU. These findings suggest that stable NSTE ACS may be managed appropriately on telemetry wards and presents an opportunity to reduce hospital costs and critical care capacity strain.

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Units Dedicated to Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Dedicated units for the care of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been submitted to economic evaluations; however, the results have not been systematically presented. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize economic outcomes of studies on hospital units dedicated to the initial care of patients with suspected or confirmed ACS. METHODS: A systematic review of literature to identify economic evaluations of chest pain unit (CPU), coronary care unit (CCU), or equivalent units was done. Two search strategies were used: the first one to identify economic evaluations irrespective of study design, and the second one to identify randomized clinical trials that reported economic outcomes. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and National Health Service (NHS)Economic Evaluation Database. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Costs were inflated to 2012 values. RESULTS: Search strategies retrieved five partial economic evaluations based on observational studies, six randomized clinical trials that reported economic outcomes, and five model-based economic evaluations. Overall, cost estimates based on observational studies and randomized clinical trials reported statistically significant cost savings of more than 50% with the adoption of CPU care instead of routine hospitalization or CCU care for suspected low-to-intermediate risk patients with ACS (median per-patient cost US $1,969.89; range US $1,002.12-13,799.15). Model-based economic evaluations reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below US $ 50,000/quality-adjusted life-year for all comparisons between intermediate care unit, CPU, or CCU with routine hospital admissions. This finding was sensible to myocardial infarction probability. CONCLUSIONS: Published economic evaluations indicate that more intensive care is likely to be cost-effective in comparison to routine hospital admission for patients with suspected ACS.

[Pay for performance approach and its possible future influence on revenues in German interventional cardiology units]. / Der "Pay-for-Performance"-Ansatz im Krankenhausstrukturgesetz.

Pay-for-performance in German health care system is still uncommon but--in view of scheduled legislative projects--could gain more influence in future. Beside others, risc adjusted in-hospital mortality and the door-to-ballon-time inpatients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction could become quality- and performance indicators in interventional cardiology units. As a result, process optimization based on these indicators could have an impact on both patient value (as already today) and revenues (from 2017 onwards).

Hospital variation in admission to intensive care units for patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was transformed by the introduction of intensive care units (ICUs), yet we know little about how contemporary hospitals use this resource-intensive setting and whether higher use is associated with better outcomes. METHODS: We identified 114,136 adult hospitalizations for AMI from 307 hospitals in the 2009 to 2010 Premier database using codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Hospitals were stratified into quartiles by rates of ICU admission for AMI patients. Across quartiles, we examined in-hospital risk-standardized mortality rates and usage rates of critical care therapies for these patients. RESULTS: Rates of ICU admission for AMI patients varied markedly among hospitals (median 48%, Q1-Q4 20%-71%, range 0%-98%), and there was no association with in-hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (6% all quartiles, P = .7). However, hospitals admitting more AMI patients to the ICU were more likely to use critical care therapies overall (mechanical ventilation [from Q1 with lowest rate of ICU use to Q4 with highest rate 13%-16%], vasopressors/inotropes [17%-21%], intra-aortic balloon pumps [4%-7%], and pulmonary artery catheters [4%-5%]; P for trend < .05 in all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ICU admission for patients with AMI vary substantially across hospitals and were not associated with differences in mortality, but were associated with greater use of critical care therapies. These findings suggest uncertainty about the appropriate use of this resource-intensive setting and a need to optimize ICU triage for patients who will truly benefit.

Unplanned Extubations in Children: Impact on Hospital Cost and Length of Stay.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the attributable hospital cost, both operational and departmental, and length of stay associated with unplanned extubations in children admitted to PICU and cardiac ICU. DESIGN: Retrospective, matched case-control study. SETTING: Forty-four-bed PICU and 26-bed cardiac ICU in a 303-bed tertiary care pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Cases with an unplanned extubation were retrospectively identified from July 2011 to March 2013. Controls were PICU and cardiac ICU patients admitted over the same time period and were matched at a ratio of 2:1 for age and diagnosis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-eight unplanned extubations were analyzed. There were no differences in patient demographics between the two groups, except the control group had a higher severity of illness as illustrated by a larger Paediatric Index of Mortality II Risk of Mortality. Median total hospital costs were higher in those patients with unplanned extubations as compared with controls ($101,310 vs $64,618; p < 0.001). Patients with an unplanned extubation had longer median ICU length of stay (10 d vs 4.5 d; p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (16.5 d vs 10 d, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pediatric patients with unplanned extubations have an associated increase in hospital costs ($36,692/case) and length of stay (6.5 d/case) as compared with age and diagnosis-matched controls. Further efforts are warranted to establish data-driven benchmarks and establishment of unplanned extubations as a critical metric for ICU quality.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect in adults.

BACKGROUND: The most common congenital anomaly in adults is secundum, which can be closed using a surgical or transcatheter approach. Despite the growing use of transcatheter ASD closure, few studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. We sought to compare the long-term cost effectiveness of transcatheter and surgical closure of secundum in adults. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used with all clinical outcome parameter estimates obtained from the province-wide Québec Congenital Heart Disease Database. Costs were obtained from a single academic centre (Canadian dollars). A cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event Monte Carlo simulation model from the perspective of a single third party payer and multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. Patients were followed for a maximum of 5 years after ASD closure. RESULTS: Between l998 and 2005, we identified 718 adults (n=335 transcatheter; n=383 surgical) who underwent ASD closure in Quebec. The 5-year cost of surgical closure was $15,304 SD $4581 versus $11,060 SD $5169 for the transcatheter alternative. At 5 years, transcatheter closure was marginally more effective than surgery (4.683 SD 0.379 life-years versus 4.618 SD 0.638 life-years). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that transcatheter ASD closure was a dominant strategy with an 80% probability of cost savings and equal or greater efficacy compared to surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: Although definitive conclusions are limited given the observational nature of the primary data sources, transcatheter ASD closure appeared to be a cost-effective strategy associated with slightly improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs compared to surgical closure at 5-years follow-up.

Renoprevention: A new concept for reengineering nephrology care--an economic impact and patient outcome analysis of two hypothetical patient management paradigms in the CCU.

BACKGROUND: The impact of acute kidney injury (AKI) on chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression remains uncertain; the common belief is that AKI in CKD is short-lived with subsequent full recovery. However 25.2% of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) Medicare patients all experienced antecedent AKI. We recently described a new syndrome of ESRD following AKI, the syndrome of rapid-onset end-stage renal disease (SORO-ESRD). Renoprevention, which we described in 2009, is the application of preventative measures to reduce AKI incidence. METHODS: This is a descriptive study based on real clinical experience. Two hypothetical 69-year-old Caucasian male patients, A and B, with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) presented for elective cardiac catheterization and subsequent coronary artery bypass graft procedures; renoprevention was applied in patient A but not in B. RESULTS: Aggressive fluid repletion, withholding Lisinopril 40 mg once daily (QD) 1 week before hospitalization (hydralazine substituted) in A-earlier discharge after 6 days, transient minimal change in serum creatinine. Patient B continued on Lisinopril 40 mg QD, experienced prolonged hypotension needing pressors-severe oliguric AKI, volume overload, daily RRT for 6 days, recovered kidney function, was discharged after 20 days. Hospital charges were $68,580 (A) versus $154,650 (B). If patient B had developed ESRD (SORO-ESRD), the savings would be humongous. CONCLUSION: A more forceful and pragmatic application of renoprevention strategies in the coronary care unit (CCU)-preemptive withholding of nephrotoxics including renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, aggressive prevention of perioperative hypotension, avoiding nephrotoxic exposure as contrast, and antibiotics-leads to less AKI, potentially less SORO-ESRD, better patient outcomes, and massive dollar savings. Such paradigm shifts would constitute major rethinking in current nephrology practice, a form of nephrology practice reengineering.

Treatment of patients with a history of penicillin allergy in a large tertiary-care academic hospital.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing antibiotics to patients with a history of penicillin allergy is common in clinical practice. Opting for non-beta-lactam antibiotics has its inconveniences and is often unnecessary, because most of these patients are in fact not allergic. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine how physicians in a large Canadian tertiary-care academic hospital without allergists on staff treat patients with a history of penicillin allergy. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted during a 1-year period among all patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, coronary care unit, and internal medicine wards. Files of patients with a record of penicillin allergy were reviewed to assess the need for antibiotics during their hospitalization and the decision-making process underlying the choice of antibiotic. The additional costs of alternative antibiotics were calculated. RESULTS: The files of 1738 patients admitted over a 1-year period were hand reviewed. A history of penicillin allergy was found in 172 patients (9.9%). The allergic reaction was described in only 30% of cases and left unmentioned in 20.7%. Beta-lactam antibiotics were used on 56 occasions despite a history of penicillin allergy. The use of alternative antibiotics in place of the beta-lactam standard of care carried an additional cost of $15,672 Canadian. CONCLUSION: Alleged penicillin allergy is common among hospitalized patients and leads to substantial additional costs. Poor documentation of penicillin allergy likely reflects a lack of knowledge on this issue in the medical community, which impairs optimal treatment of these patients. Increased education on this matter is needed, and allergists on staff could be part of the solution.

The universal bed model for patient care improves outcome and lowers cost in cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: With the escalating demands to increase the efficiency and decrease the cost, innovations in postoperative cardiac surgical patient care are needed. The universal bed model is an innovative care delivery system that allows patient care to be managed in one setting from postoperation to discharge. We hypothesized that the universal bed model in the context of cardiac surgery would improve outcomes and efficacy. METHODS: A total of 610 consecutive patients were admitted to the universal bed unit and prospectively entered into the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Intensive care unit level of care was determined by acuity and staffing needs. Telemetry was employed from admission to discharge, and multidisciplinary rounds were conducted twice daily. Postoperative outcomes were recorded during hospital stay, and comparisons were made with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database using identical variables over the same period of time. RESULTS: Decreased ventilation time, intensive care unit and hospital stay, and reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation and infectious complications yielded a financial benefit in the universal bed group compared with the traditional model of admission. Stroke rate and in-hospital mortality were the same compared with regional and national centers. Compared with regional centers, there was an average cost savings between $6200 and $9500 per patient depending on the operation. Patient care satisfaction by independent survey was in the 99th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: The universal bed patient care model allows for expedient and efficacious care as measured by decreased length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, improved postoperative outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost savings.

Financial impact of coronary stenting in emergency for acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Since the prospective payment system, health institutions have only specific payments for the emergency care in the emergency room. The direct urgent admissions in coronary care units for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) do not collect this complementary refund. For the patient's stay, hospital is remunerated with fixed national prices which are similar even in case of emergent or planed coronary revascularization when realized. AIMS: To analyze and compare the financial impact between emergent and planed coronary stenting in the setting of ACS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was based on patients suffering from ACS who experienced emergent coronary stenting during the year 2005. On 154 patients, 127 were age-, sex- and diagnosis-related group (called "groupe homogène de malades" in the French Health Care system)-matched with 127 suffering from same ACS but with planed "ad hoc" coronary stenting. The overall charges (medical and paramedical team, pharmacy, biology, implantable coronary devices, radiology) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Mean stay duration was 6.7 days and did not differ between the two groups. Mean financial retributions were significantly higher in the emergent group (7338 euro [6831-7846] IC95 vs 6509 euro [5994-7023]; p=0,02) but with a much more raised consumption (6810 euro [6283-7336] vs 5223 euro [4632-5814]; p=0,001). This overcost was due especially to drugs and biological expenses. The hospitalization payments did not cover the overall expenses for 25% of the patients' stays (N=64) among whom 39 have had emergent coronary stenting (30.7%, p=0.04). Among the different GHM, the most important difference was observed in non-STEMI without complication with a negative receipts/costs ratio for 37.8% of the stay with coronary stenting in emergency. CONCLUSION: The application of the recent guidelines for coronary revascularization in the management of ACS represents a financial venture for hospital institutions. The engaged charges for emergent coronary stenting are covered with difficulties contrary to planed revascularization.

The costs and savings associated with prevention of adverse events by critical care nurses.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the costs and savings associated with prevention of adverse events (AEs) by critical care nurses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from 2 coronary care unit (CCU) studies that determined the incremental cost of AEs and the rate of near misses recovered by nurses during weekday, daytime shifts. For this study, we determined the nurse staffing costs and savings by averting AEs. Physicians judged the likelihood that observed near misses would have resulted in actual AEs if not initially intercepted. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the savings from preventing AEs and the costs of different nurse staffing ratios and experience levels. RESULTS: We observed 66 recovered near misses during 308 observation hours, with 34 (51.5%) judged to likely have reached and harmed the patient resulting in an AE if not intercepted. The annual incidence of prevented AEs extrapolated to 2296 events. Savings from prevented AEs ranged from $2.2 million to $13.2 million. Nurse staffing costs for the same time frame was $1.36 million. CONCLUSIONS: Although CCU nursing staffing costs are significant, the potential savings associated with preventing AEs is far greater. Further research is needed to identify the optimal nurse staffing ratios.

Unit cost of stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation costs borne by the service institution are part of the total cost incurred when a patient is admitted to hospital. The total costs cannot directly represent the rehabilitation costs. When considering the funding allocated for specific services, it is useful to have figures that represent the actual costs of those services. OBJECTIVE: Study the unit cost of rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data were collected from March to December 2006. Three hundred twenty seven patients from nine collaborating centers, including 18 patients from Sirindhron National Medical Rehabilitation Center (SNMRC) participated in this study. Descriptive analysis produced results in percent, mean standard deviation, and p-value. One unit of rehabilitation treatment is equal to twenty minutes. RESULTS: The average unit cost of rehabilitation treatment among the nine collaborating centers was 94.56 units per week and 33.78 from rehabilitation nursing. At SNMRC, the average rehabilitation unit was 32.67 units per week and the cost for rehabilitation was 11,170.56 +/- 5641.73 baht. CONCLUSION: The calculated unit cost was 60 baht/20 minutes service time.

Identification of barriers that impede the implementation of nicotine replacement therapy in the acute cardiac care setting.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been shown to increase 12-month abstinence rates by as much as 50% when compared with placebo; however, NRT seems to be underutilized in the acute cardiac setting. This study explores the attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals regarding the use of NRT in acute cardiac inpatients, in an effort to identify and expose barriers that may impede the use of this drug in the acute cardiac care environment. METHOD: Framework analysis formed the methodological foundation of the study and provided the structure for analysis of data generated via qualitative, semistructured one-on-one interviews. A purposive sample of healthcare professionals practicing in the acute cardiac care setting informed the study. RESULTS: Although health care professionals expressed strong views regarding the benefits of implementing NRT as a smoking cessation intervention, barriers were identified that hinder its use. Financial implications, lack of knowledge and safety issues all contributed to the institutional justification for rejecting hospital-based NRT as a secondary prevention intervention in the acute cardiac setting. CONCLUSION: To proactively reduce the incidence of secondary cardiac events, education of healthcare professionals concerning tobacco addiction and available cessation treatments in the acute cardiac patient is paramount. Nicotine replacement products require further investigation to ascertain their safety and financial viability in the acute cardiac setting. Findings may support the implementation of NRT in the inpatient cardiac setting, and ultimately help curb the incidence of smoking-related mortality owing to secondary cardiac events.

Do patients after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting need the intensive care unit? A prospective audit of 85 patients.

With limited resources, cardiac surgery is frequently cancelled due to lack of ICU beds. Immediate postoperative extubation (UFT) is performed in our hospital setting. The aim of the present study is to report patients undergoing off-pump aortocoronary bypass grafting (OPCABG) with immediate extubation and no ICU stay. Eighty-five patients undergoing OPCABG were included. UFT analgesia consisted of high thoracic epidural analgesia (n=65), or PCA morphine (n=20). Discharge criteria from PACU to cardiac ward were: alert, cooperative patient, respiratory rate <25/min, PaO(2)>80 mmHg and PaCO(2)<45 mmHg, temperature >36 degrees C, hemodynamic stability, no bleeding, no ischemia, and sufficient analgesia. More males (71/14) were included. Mean age was 63.4 years, NYHA class III, ejection fraction 59.4. Three grafts were performed in 119 min. Patients were extubated 12+/-2 min after closure. After 428 min in PACU, four patients did not meet ward criteria; three bradycardia requiring pacing, one elevated CK-MB. Two patients returned to the ICU, one for hypertension, and one for hypovolemia. Cardiac complications were: atrial fibrillation (29%), MI=2, bradycardia=3. During the same period, 304 OR-extubated patients spent 21+/-6 h in the ICU. The cost from leaving the OR until the patient reached the cardiac ward was 1265$ for ICU bypass patients vs. 6405$ for ICU patients, the difference representing 5140$ per patient. ICU bypass after OPCABG is safe. By avoiding ICU, this protocol reduces costs, improves resource utilization and may reduce OR cancellation due to ICU bed shortages.

[Structure and functional organization of integrated cardiac intensive care]. / Struttura e organizzazione funzionale delle unità di terapia intensiva cardiologica.

The early invasive strategy for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes and the increasing number of older and sicker patients requiring prolonged and more complex intensive care have induced many changes in the function of the intensive care units. These changes include the statement that specially trained cardiologists and cardiac nurses who can manage patients with acute cardiac conditions should staff the intensive care units. This document indicates the structure of the units and specific recommendations for the number of beds, monitoring system, respirators, pacemaker/defibrillators and additional equipment.

Critical care medicine use and cost among Medicare beneficiaries 1995-2000: major discrepancies between two United States federal Medicare databases.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison of federal Medicare databases to identify critical care medicine (CCM) use, cost discrepancies, and their possible causes. DESIGN: A 6-yr (1995-2000) retrospective analysis of Medicare hospital and CCM use and cost, comparing the Hospital Cost Report Information System (HCRIS) with Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File (MedPAR) supplemented when necessary by Health Care Information System (HCIS) (identified herein as MedPAR/HCIS). SETTING: All nonfederal U.S. hospitals. SUBJECTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data are presented as days (M = million) and costs ($; B = Billion) for both hospitals and CCM. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of hospital days decreased in both databases: HCRIS (-13.2%; 78M to 67.7M) and MedPAR/HCIS (-14.1%; 82.8M to 71.1M). CCM days decreased in HCRIS (-4.6%; 8.3M to 7.9M). In contrast, CCM days increased in MedPAR/HCIS (7.2%; 13.9M to 14.9M). The discrepancy in CCM days between HCRIS and MedPAR/HCIS increased from 40% (5.6M days) in 1995 to 47% (7M days) in 2000. Two CCM billing codes (intensive care unit and coronary care unit "post/intermediate") used in MedPAR/HCIS were responsible for 73% on average per year, over the study period, for this CCM discrepancy. The use of these two codes progressively increased (44%; 3.9M to 5.6M days) by the end of the study. The cumulative 6-yr discrepancy in CCM days between HCRIS and MedPAR/HCIS (37.3M days) had a calculated cost of $92.3B. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified major, and progressively increasing, discrepancies between two U.S. federal databases tabulating hospital and CCM use and cost for Medicare beneficiaries. Two CCM "post/intermediate" billing codes in MedPAR/HCIS were predominantly responsible for the CCM discrepancy. To accurately assess Medicare CCM use and cost, either HCRIS, or MedPAR/HCIS without the "post/intermediate" codes, should be used.