Jonathan P Piccini1, Suneet Mittal2, Jeff Snell3, Julie B Prillinger4, Nirav Dalal4, Niraj Varma5. 1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: jonathan.piccini@duke.edu. 2. Valley Health System, Ridgewood, New Jersey. 3. Data Informs, LLC, Chatsworth, California. 4. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Sylmar, California. 5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improves patient survival. However, whether RM reduces health care utilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether RM was associated with reduced hospitalization and costs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cohort study using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Patients implanted with a CIED between March 31, 2009, and April 1, 2012, were included. All-cause hospitalization events were compared between those using RM and those not using RM by using Cox proportional hazards methods with Andersen-Gill extension and propensity scoring. We also compared health care costs (payments >30 days after CIED implantation). RESULTS: Overall, there were 92,566 patients (mean age 72 ± 13 years; 58,140 [63%] men) with a mean follow-up of 19 ± 12 months, including 54,520 (59%) pacemaker, 27,816 (30%) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and 10,230 (11%) cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Only 37% of patients (34,259) used RM. Patients with RM had Charlson Comorbidity Index values similar to those not using RM but had lower adjusted risk of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.84; P < .001) and shorter mean length of hospitalization (5.3 days vs 8.1 days; P < .001) during follow-up. RM was associated with a 30% reduction in hospitalization costs ($8720 mean cost per patient-year vs $12,423 mean cost per patient-year). For every 100,000 patient-years of follow-up, RM was associated with 9810 fewer hospitalizations, 119,000 fewer days in hospital, and $370,270,000 lower hospital payments. CONCLUSION: RM is associated with reductions in hospitalization and health care utilization. Since only about a third of patients with CIEDs routinely use RM, this represents a major opportunity for quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improves patient survival. However, whether RM reduces health care utilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether RM was associated with reduced hospitalization and costs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cohort study using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Patients implanted with a CIED between March 31, 2009, and April 1, 2012, were included. All-cause hospitalization events were compared between those using RM and those not using RM by using Cox proportional hazards methods with Andersen-Gill extension and propensity scoring. We also compared health care costs (payments >30 days after CIED implantation). RESULTS: Overall, there were 92,566 patients (mean age 72 ± 13 years; 58,140 [63%] men) with a mean follow-up of 19 ± 12 months, including 54,520 (59%) pacemaker, 27,816 (30%) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and 10,230 (11%) cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Only 37% of patients (34,259) used RM. Patients with RM had Charlson Comorbidity Index values similar to those not using RM but had lower adjusted risk of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.84; P < .001) and shorter mean length of hospitalization (5.3 days vs 8.1 days; P < .001) during follow-up. RM was associated with a 30% reduction in hospitalization costs ($8720 mean cost per patient-year vs $12,423 mean cost per patient-year). For every 100,000 patient-years of follow-up, RM was associated with 9810 fewer hospitalizations, 119,000 fewer days in hospital, and $370,270,000 lower hospital payments. CONCLUSION: RM is associated with reductions in hospitalization and health care utilization. Since only about a third of patients with CIEDs routinely use RM, this represents a major opportunity for quality improvement.
Authors: Samuel A Shabtaie; Alan Sugrue; Nicholas Y Tan; Samuel Asirvatham; David L Hayes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Giuseppe D'Ancona; Erdal Safak; Jochen Senges; Matthias Hochadel; Van Luyen Nguyen; Christian Perings; Werner Jung; Stefan Spitzer; Lars Eckardt; Johannes Brachmann; Karlheinz Seidl; Hans Ulrich Hink; Hüseyin Ince; Jasmin Ortak Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Lin Tong; Shiqiang Xiong; Jun Hou; Jin Li; Shujuan Qin; Yangchun Zhang; Siqi Yang; Lingyao Qi; Xu Chen; Yan Luo; Zhen Zhang; Haoyu Deng; Hanxiong Liu; Lin Cai Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-05-09
Authors: Niraj Varma; Suneet Mittal; Julie B Prillinger; Jeff Snell; Nirav Dalal; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: José María Lillo-Castellano; Juan José González-Ferrer; Manuel Marina-Breysse; José Bautista Martínez-Ferrer; Luisa Pérez-Álvarez; Javier Alzueta; Juan Gabriel Martínez; Aníbal Rodríguez; Juan Carlos Rodríguez-Pérez; Ignasi Anguera; Xavier Viñolas; Arcadio García-Alberola; Jorge G Quintanilla; José Manuel Alfonso-Almazán; Javier García; Luis Borrego; Victoria Cañadas-Godoy; Nicasio Pérez-Castellano; Julián Pérez-Villacastín; Javier Jiménez-Díaz; José Jalife; David Filgueiras-Rama Journal: Europace Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Shannon E Kelly; Tammy J Clifford; Doug Coyle; Janet Martin; Vivian Welch; Becky Skidmore; David Birnie; Ratika Parkash; Anthony S L Tang; George A Wells Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-27
Authors: Claudius Hansen; Christian Loges; Karlheinz Seidl; Frank Eberhardt; Herbert Tröster; Krum Petrov; Gerian Grönefeld; Peter Bramlage; Frank Birkenhauer; Christian Weiss Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 2.298