Interventional Radiologists Achieve Equivalent Outcomes and Lower Costs for Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Placement Compared to Operating Room Placement.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost and outcomes of surgical and interventional radiology (IR) placement of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) within a large regional health system to determine the service line with better outcomes and lower costs to the health system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all chest port placements performed in the operating room (OR) and IR suite over 12 months was conducted at a large, integrated health system with 6 major hospitals. Secondary electronic health record and cost data were used to identify TIVAD placements, follow-up procedures indicating port malfunction, early adverse events (within 1 month after the surgery), late adverse events (2-12 months after the procedure), and health system cost of TIVAD placement and management. RESULTS: For 799 total port placements included in this analysis, the rate of major adverse events was 1.3% and 1.9% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .5655) and 4.9% and 2.8% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .5437). Malfunction-related follow-up procedure rates were 1.8% and 2.6% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .4787) and 12.4% and 10.5% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .4354). The mean cost of port placement per patient was $4,509 and $5,247 for the IR and OR groups, respectively. The difference in per-patient cost of port placement was $1,170 greater for the OR group (P = .0074). CONCLUSIONS: The similar rates of adverse events and follow-up procedures and significant differences in insertion cost suggest that IR TIVAD placement may be more cost effective than surgical placement without affecting the quality.

Enhancing Patient Activation and Self-Management Activities in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Using the US Department of Defense Mobile Health Care Environment: Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Past mobile health (mHealth) efforts to empower type 2 diabetes (T2D) self-management include portals, text messaging, collection of biometric data, electronic coaching, email, and collection of lifestyle information. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to enhance patient activation and self-management of T2D using the US Department of Defense's Mobile Health Care Environment (MHCE) in a patient-centered medical home setting. METHODS: A multisite study, including a user-centered design and a controlled trial, was conducted within the US Military Health System. Phase I assessed preferences regarding the enhancement of the enabling technology. Phase II was a single-blinded 12-month feasibility study that randomly assigned 240 patients to either the intervention (n=123, received mHealth technology and behavioral messages tailored to Patient Activation Measure [PAM] level at baseline) or the control group (n=117, received equipment but not messaging. The primary outcome measure was PAM scores. Secondary outcome measures included Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) scores and cardiometabolic outcomes. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate changes in outcomes. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 229 patients. Participants were 61.6% (141/229) male, had a mean age of 62.9 years, mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.5%, mean BMI of 32.7, and a mean duration of T2D diagnosis of 9.8 years. At month 12, the control group showed significantly greater improvements compared with the intervention group in PAM scores (control mean 7.49, intervention mean 1.77; P=.007), HbA1c (control mean -0.53, intervention mean -0.11; P=.006), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (control mean -7.14, intervention mean 4.38; P=.01). Both groups showed significant improvement in SDSCA, BMI, waist size, and diastolic blood pressure; between-group differences were not statistically significant. Except for patients with the highest level of activation (PAM level 4), intervention group patients exhibited significant improvements in PAM scores. For patients with the lowest level of activation (PAM level 1), the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement compared with the control group in HbA1c (control mean -0.09, intervention mean -0.52; P=.04), BMI (control mean 0.58, intervention mean -1.22; P=.01), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (control mean -4.86, intervention mean 3.56; P<.001). Significant improvements were seen in AM scores, SDSCA, and waist size for both groups and in diastolic and systolic blood pressure for the control group; the between-group differences were not statistically significant. The percentage of participants who were engaged with MHCE for ≥50% of days period was 60.7% (68/112; months 0-3), 57.4% (62/108; months 3-6), 49.5% (51/103; months 6-9), and 43% (42/98; months 9-12). CONCLUSIONS: Our study produced mixed results with improvement in PAM scores and outcomes in both the intervention and control groups. Structural design issues may have hampered the influence of tailored behavioral messaging within the intervention group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02949037; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02949037. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.6993.