Cannulation Strategy for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Does Not Influence Total Hospital Cost.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services decreased reimbursement rates for peripheral venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and venovenous (VV) ECMO procedures in October 2018. Limited data are available describing hospital costs and clinical resources required to support ECMO patients. METHODS: All patients supported on ECMO at our institution between March 2017 and October 2018 were identified. Exclusion criteria were cannulation at referring hospitals, organ transplant recipients, and temporary right ventricular support. The cohort was stratified by the initial cannulation strategy. Outcomes were total hospital cost and clinical resource utilization. RESULTS: There were 29 patients supported on central VA, 72 on peripheral VA, and 37 on VV ECMO. Survival at 30 days was 48% for central vs 37% for peripheral vs 51% for VV. Hospital costs were $187,848 for central vs $178,069 for peripheral vs $172,994 for VV (P = .91). Mean hospital stay was 25.8 days for central vs 21.5 days for peripheral vs 26.2 days for VV (P = .49). Mean intensive care unit stay was 14.1 days for central vs 12.8 days for peripheral vs 7.7 days for VV (P = .25). Mean length of ECMO support was 6.5 days for central vs 6.2 days for peripheral vs 7.8 days for VV (P = .38). Mean ventilator time was 13.0 days for central vs 8.2 days for peripheral vs 10.0 days for VV (P = .06). Hemodialysis was used in 41% central patients, 47% peripheral, and 41% VV (P = .75). Theoretical ECMO reimbursement losses ranged from $1,970,698 to $5,648,219 annually under 2018 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services rates. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO cannulation strategy has minimal impact on resource utilization and hospital cost.

The bleeding risk treatment paradox at the physician and hospital level: Implications for reducing bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is a common and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) are used paradoxically less in patients at high-risk of bleeding: "bleeding risk-treatment paradox" (RTP). We determined whether hospitals and physicians, who do not align BAS to PCI patients' bleeding risk (ie, exhibit a RTP) have higher bleeding rates. METHODS: We examined 28,005 PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 7 hospitals comprising BJC HealthCare. BAS included transradial intervention, bivalirudin, and vascular closure devices. Patients' predicted bleeding risk was based on National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model and categorized as low (<2.0%), moderate (2.0%-6.4%), or high (≥6.5%) risk tertiles. BAS use was considered risk-concordant if: at least 1 BAS was used for moderate risk; 2 BAS were used for high risk and bivalirudin or vascular closure devices were not used for low risk. Absence of risk-concordant BAS use was defined as RTP. We analyzed inter-hospital and inter-physician variation in RTP, and the association of RTP with post-PCI bleeding. RESULTS: Amongst 28,005 patients undergoing PCI by 103 physicians at 7 hospitals, RTP was observed in 12,035 (43%) patients. RTP was independently associated with a higher likelihood of bleeding even after adjusting for predicted bleeding risk, mortality risk and potential sources of variation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.44-1.92, P < .001). A higher prevalence of RTP strongly and independently correlated with worse bleeding rates, both at the physician-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9502, F-value 17.21, P < .0001) and the hospital-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9899, F-value 35.68, P < .0001). All the results were similar in a subset of PCIs conducted since 2015 - a period more reflective of the contemporary practice. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding RTP is a strong, independent predictor of bleeding. It exists at the level of physicians and hospitals: those with a higher rate of RTP had worse bleeding rates. These findings not only underscore the importance of recognizing bleeding risk upfront and using BAS in a risk-aligned manner, but also inform and motivate national efforts to reduce PCI-related bleeding.

Shipping Lungs Greater Distances Increases Costs Without Cutting Waitlist Mortality.

BACKGROUND: On November 24, 2017, a change in lung allocation policy was initiated to replace the donor service area with a 250-nautical-mile radius circle around the donor hospital. We aim to analyze the consequences of this change, including organ acquisition cost and transplant outcomes, at the national level. METHODS: Data on adult patients undergoing lung transplantation between April 27, 2017, and June 22, 2018 (30 weeks before to 30 weeks after allocation policy change) were extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Patients were classified into pre-change and post-change subgroups. Six-month overall survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Organ acquisition costs were compared between the pre-change and post-change groups. RESULTS: Of the 3317 adult patients removed from the waiting list during the study period (pre-change 1637 vs post-change 1680), 2734 underwent transplantation (pre-change 1371 of 1637 [83.8%] vs post-change 1363 of 1680 [81.1%]), and 382 died or became too sick to be transplanted (pre-change 168 of 1637 [10.3%] vs post-change 214 of 1680 [12.7%], P = .077). Six-month survival rates of transplanted patients were similar between the two groups. However, average organ acquisition costs increased after policy change (pre-change $50,735 ± $10,858 vs post-change $53,440 ± $10,247, P < .001) with an increase in nonlocal donors (pre-change 44.3% vs post-change 68.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Organ acquisition costs and resource utilization increased with the new lung allocation policy, whereas deaths on the waiting list or after transplantation did not decrease. Further optimization of the allocation policy is necessary to balance access to transplant and proper stewardship of human and financial resources.

Unintended consequences of changes to lung allocation policy.

Organ allocation for transplantation aims to balance the principles of justice and medical utility to optimally utilize a scarce resource. To address practical considerations, the United States is divided into 58 donor service areas (DSA), each constituting the first unit of allocation. In November 2017, in response to a lawsuit in New York, an emergency action change to lung allocation policy replaced the DSA level of allocation for donor lungs with a 250 nautical mile circle around the donor hospital. Similar policy changes are being implemented for other organs including heart and liver. Findings from a recent US Department of Health and Human Services report, supplemented with data from our institution, suggest that the emergency policy has not resulted in a change in the type of patients undergoing lung transplantation (LT) or early postoperative outcomes. However, there has been a significant decline in local LT, where donor and recipient are in the same DSA. With procurement teams having to travel greater distances, organ ischemic time has increased and median organ cost has more than doubled. We propose potential solutions for consideration at this critical juncture in the field of transplantation. Policymakers should choose equitable and sustainable access for this lifesaving discipline.

Lung transplant or bust: patients' recommendations for ideal lung transplant education.

CONTEXT: Effective lung transplant education helps ensure informed decision making by patients and better transplant outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To understand the educational needs and experiences of lung transplant patients. DESIGN: Mixed-method study employing focus groups and patient surveys. SETTING: Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St Louis, Missouri. PATIENTS: 50 adult lung transplant patients: 23 pretransplant and 27 posttransplant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' interest in receiving specific transplant information, the stage in the transplant process during which they wanted to receive the education, and the preferred format for presenting the information. RESULTS: Patients most wanted information about how to sustain their transplant (72%), when to contact their coordinator immediately (56%), transplant benefits (56%), immunosuppressants (54%), and possible out-of-pocket expenses (52%). Patients also wanted comprehensive information early in the transplant process and a review of a subset of topics immediately before transplant (time between getting the call that a potential donor has been found and getting the transplant). Patients reported that they would use Internet resources (74%) and converse with transplant professionals (68%) and recipients (62%) most often. DISCUSSION: Lung transplant patients are focused on learning how to get a transplant and ensuring its success afterwards. A comprehensive overview of the evaluation, surgery, and recovery process at evaluation onset with a review of content about medications, pain management, and transplant recovery repeated immediately before surgery is ideal.