Literature DB >> 23305597

Clinical, demographic, and medicolegal factors associated with geographic variation in inferior vena cava filter utilization: an interstate analysis.

Andrew J Meltzer1, Ashley Graham, Joon-Hyung Kim, Peter H Connolly, John K Karwowski, Harry L Bush, Ellen C Meltzer, Darren B Schneider.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Geographic variability exists in the use of IVC filters (IVCF). We hypothesized that variation in IVCF use is incompletely explained by variation in the prevalence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and may result from different practice patterns regarding prophylactic IVCF use. We characterize geographic variation in IVCF use at the state level and evaluate its association with clinical factors, patient demographics, and the medicolegal environment.
METHODS: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database records were accessed to identify 230,445 IVCFs placed from 2006 to 2008 in 33 states. Similar queries were performed for DVT and PE. Additional state data were obtained from public sources. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman Correlation (SC), Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and characterization of variability.
RESULTS: Overall, IVCF use correlated with the prevalence of DVT (SC = 0.89, P < .01). States on the East coast have significantly greater rates of IVCF use per 100K (mean ± SD = 41.2 ± 16.7 vs 27.8 ± 11.1, P < .05) and greater rates of IVCF per DVT (20.2 ± 4.5% vs 15.2 ± 2.9%; P < .005), despite similar rates of DVT per 100K (198.1 ± 51.2 vs 177.7 ± 46.7, P = NS) compared with all other states. Overall, states with the greatest rate of IVCF per DVT were (in descending order): Rhode Island, New Jersey, Florida, New York, and West Virginia. Rates of detected PE per 100K in these states were not significantly different from all other states (95.6 ± 16.6 vs 90.4 ± 16.1, P = NS). In these states, a greater percentage of IVCF recipients were older than 85 (15.3% vs 11.8%; P < .01); fewer were pediatric (0.3% vs 0.7%; P < .05) or aged 45 to 64 (26.1% vs 32.4%; P < .001). There were no differences in patient sex, race, insurance type, hospital size, or teaching status. States with high rates of IVCF per DVT were noted to have significantly greater rates of paid malpractice claims per 100K (4.9 ± 2.51 vs 1.1 ± 0.8; P = .001), and annual general surgeon liability insurance premiums ($78,630 ± 34,822 vs $43,989 ± 17,794; P < .05).
CONCLUSION: Variation in IVCF use is incompletely explained by clinical factors. High rates of IVCF per DVT in some states may represent increased use of prophylactic IVCF in states with litigious medicolegal environments.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23305597     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  10 in total

Review 1.  Procedural and indwelling complications with inferior vena cava filters: frequency, etiology, and management.

Authors:  Lazar Milovanovic; Sean A Kennedy; Mehran Midia
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Device therapy: variation in the use of inferior vena cava filters for VTE.

Authors:  Sanjeeva P Kalva; Christos A Athanasoulis
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 3.  Inferior vena cava filters: current best practices.

Authors:  Anita Rajasekhar
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 4.  Inferior vena cava filter use and patient safety: legacy or science?

Authors:  William Geerts; Rita Selby
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2017-12-08

5.  Vena Caval Filter Utilization and Outcomes in Pulmonary Embolism: Medicare Hospitalizations From 1999 to 2010.

Authors:  Behnood Bikdeli; Yun Wang; Karl E Minges; Nihar R Desai; Nancy Kim; Mayur M Desai; John A Spertus; Frederick A Masoudi; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Local Multi-Channel RF Surface Coil versus Body RF Coil Transmission for Cardiac Magnetic Resonance at 3 Tesla: Which Configuration Is Winning the Game?

Authors:  Oliver Weinberger; Lukas Winter; Matthias A Dieringer; Antje Els; Celal Oezerdem; Jan Rieger; Andre Kuehne; Antonino M Cassara; Harald Pfeiffer; Friedrich Wetterling; Thoralf Niendorf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Retrospective analysis of outcomes following inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in a managed care population.

Authors:  Damian Everhart; Jamieson Vaccaro; Karen Worley; Teresa L Rogstad; Mitchel Seleznick
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.300

8.  IVC filters-Trends in placement and indications, a study of 2 populations.

Authors:  Mahek Shah; Talal Alnabelsi; Shantanu Patil; Shilpa Reddy; Brijesh Patel; Marvin Lu; Aditya Chandorkar; Apostholos Perelas; Shilpkumar Arora; Nilay Patel; Larry Jacobs; Glenn G Eiger
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Rates and Factors Associated With Retrieval in a Large US Cohort.

Authors:  Joshua D Brown; Driss Raissi; Qiong Han; Val R Adams; Jeffery C Talbert
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 5.501

10.  Use and Removal of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients With Acute Brain Injury.

Authors:  Kara Melmed; Monica L Chen; Mais Al-Kawaz; Hannah L Kirsch; Andrew Bauerschmidt; Hooman Kamel
Journal:  Neurohospitalist       Date:  2020-02-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.