The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model Task Force report on opportunities for value-based reimbursement in care for patients with peripheral artery disease.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model (APM) Taskforce document explores the drivers and implications for developing objective value-based reimbursement plans for the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The APM is a payment approach that highlights high-quality and cost-efficient care and is a financially incentivized pathway for participation in the Quality Payment Program, which aims to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment method. At present, the participation of vascular specialists in APMs is hampered owing to the absence of dedicated models. The increasing prevalence of PAD diagnosis, technological advances in therapeutic devices, and the increasing cost of care of the affected patients have financial consequences on care delivery models and population health. The document summarizes the existing measurement methods of cost, care processes, and outcomes using payor data, patient-reported outcomes, and registry participation. The document also evaluates the existing challenges in the evaluation of PAD care, including intervention overuse, treatment disparities, varied clinical presentations, and the effects of multiple comorbid conditions on the cost potentially attributable to the vascular interventionalist. Medicare reimbursement data analysis also confirmed the prolonged need for additional healthcare services after vascular interventions. The Society for Vascular Surgery proposes that a PAD APM should provide patients with comprehensive care using a longitudinal approach with integration of multiple key medical and surgical services. It should maintain appropriate access to diagnostic and therapeutic advancements and eliminate unnecessary interventions. It should also decrease the variability in care but must also consider the varying complexity of the presenting PAD conditions. Enhanced quality of care and physician innovation should be rewarded. In addition, provisions should be present within an APM for high-risk patients who carry the risk of exclusion from care because of the naturally associated high costs. Although the document demonstrates clear opportunities for quality improvement and cost savings in PAD care, continued PAD APM development requires the assessment of more granular data for accurate risk adjustment, in addition to largescale testing before public release. Collaboration between payors and physician specialty societies remains key.

Current Status of Clot Removal for Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to carry a high mortality if not recognized early and treated aggressively. Rapid recognition and diagnosis remains the mainstay of all efforts. Risk stratification early is paramount to guide therapy and achieve successful outcomes. Pulmonary emboli can generally be classified as massive, submassive, or stable. Fibrinolysis and/or surgical embolectomy are recommended for the treatment of the patient with massive PE to rescue the patient and restore hemodynamic stability. Current trials support an aggressive approach. In submassive PE, determination of right ventricular (RV) strain by echocardiography and biomarker assessment (troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide) identify patients who can benefit from catheter-directed therapy with the therapeutic intent of achieving a rapid reduction of RV afterload, prevention of impending hemodynamic collapse and prolonged in-hospital and outpatient survival. Current trials have not shown long-term benefit for this approach to date, and thus, this therapy should only be offered to select patients. Stable PE can be treated using both an inpatient and an outpatient approach, based on the available infrastructure. Therapy for PE continues to evolve and stratification of risks and benefits remain the key to implementation of invasive strategies.

Acute Aortic Treatment Center.

Acute aortic syndromes are a life-threatening set of conditions that require rapid triage and intervention to obtain satisfactory outcomes. The Methodist Hospital is the first institution to establish an Acute Aortic Treatment Center (AATC) based on a clinical care pathway that expedites the care of acute aortic syndromes. This pathway has resulted in a 64% reduction in time to definitive therapy and a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Establishment of a multidisciplinary pathway to treat acute aortic syndromes improves efficiency and enhances outcomes.

Outcomes before and after initiation of an acute aortic treatment center.

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic syndromes remain life-threatening. Time is of the essence, as mortality rises with increasing time after the acute episode. The aim of this report is to show changes in practice and outcomes after the establishment of an acute aortic treatment center (AATC) to expedite the care of acute aortic syndromes in a major metropolitan area with the belief that "door to intervention time under 90 minutes" reduces mortality and morbidity from acute aortic disease. METHODS: A database of patients admitted with acute aortic disease (Type A and B aortic dissections, acute thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms, acute and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms) for 1 year prior to initiation (2007) and 1 year after initiation of the pathway (AATC) in 2008 was developed. Comorbidities were scored according to Society of Vascular Surgery criteria. Anatomic and functional outcomes were determined and categorized by Society of Vascular Surgery reporting criteria. Multivariate analysis was performed for categorical outcomes and Cox proportional hazard analyses for time-dependent outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-one patients reported with aortic disease to the cardiovascular services; 306 patients were considered to have acute disease. When compared with the year before the AATC was instituted, there was a 30% increase in the total number of admissions and a 25% increase in acute pathology after setting up the AATC (P = .02). There was a two-fold increase in thoracic aortic dissections admitted to the service. Initiation of the treatment pathway resulted in a highly significant 64% reduction in time to definitive therapy (526 ± 557 vs 187 ± 258 minutes, mean ± SD pre-AATC vs AATC; P = .0001). Comorbidity scores were equivalent between the two cohorts. Despite the increase in acuity, mortality (4% vs 6%) and morbidity (41% vs 45%) rates were unchanged, and there was a significant decrease in intensive care unit length of stay (5 vs 4 days, pre-AATC cohort vs the AATC cohort), but total hospital length of stay (11 vs 10 days) was unchanged. There was no correlation between deaths within 30 days and length of stay in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: Establishment of a multidisciplinary AATC pathway was associated with a 30% increase in volume, 64% reduction in time to definitive treatment, improved throughput with reduced intensive care unit time, and maintained clinical efficacy despite an increase in acute admissions. These results suggest the concept be further evaluated.