Alexander Iribarne1, Philip P Goodney2, Alyssa M Flores3, Joseph DeSimone3, Anthony W DiScipio3, Andrea Austin2, Jock N McCullough3. 1. Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. Electronic address: alexander.iribarne@hitchcock.org. 2. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. 3. Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize the adoption rate and regional variation in bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) use during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the United States. METHODS: Observational study of 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, continuously enrolled in Parts A and B from 2009 to 2014 (n = 162,860,439). Rates of beneficiaries receiving a BIMA versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) during CABG are expressed per 1,000 beneficiaries and aggregated by Hospital Referral Region (HRR). An HRR is a validated unit for quantifying regional variation in health care. RESULTS: The absolute national rate of BIMA use declined during the study period from 0.21 claims per 1,000 beneficiaries in 2009 to 0.13 in 2014 (p < 0.001). When indexed to overall CABG volume, no change was seen in the frequency of BIMA use over time (p = 0.883). SIMA use ranged from 1.3 to 8.5 claims per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, whereas BIMA use ranged from 0 to 1.5 (p < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between regional volume of SIMA use and likelihood of BIMA use (correlation coefficient 0.673, p < 0.001). Although both SIMA and BIMA use correlated with regional volume of diagnostic cardiac catheterization, the correlation was stronger for SIMA use (correlation coefficient 0.962 versus 0.682, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 5 years, no growth was seen in BIMA use among Medicare beneficiaries, and the frequency of BIMA use during CABG remained low. There was significant regional variation in BIMA use, however, which demonstrates opportunity for continued growth of BIMA grafting.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize the adoption rate and regional variation in bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) use during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the United States. METHODS: Observational study of 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, continuously enrolled in Parts A and B from 2009 to 2014 (n = 162,860,439). Rates of beneficiaries receiving a BIMA versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) during CABG are expressed per 1,000 beneficiaries and aggregated by Hospital Referral Region (HRR). An HRR is a validated unit for quantifying regional variation in health care. RESULTS: The absolute national rate of BIMA use declined during the study period from 0.21 claims per 1,000 beneficiaries in 2009 to 0.13 in 2014 (p < 0.001). When indexed to overall CABG volume, no change was seen in the frequency of BIMA use over time (p = 0.883). SIMA use ranged from 1.3 to 8.5 claims per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, whereas BIMA use ranged from 0 to 1.5 (p < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between regional volume of SIMA use and likelihood of BIMA use (correlation coefficient 0.673, p < 0.001). Although both SIMA and BIMA use correlated with regional volume of diagnostic cardiac catheterization, the correlation was stronger for SIMA use (correlation coefficient 0.962 versus 0.682, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 5 years, no growth was seen in BIMA use among Medicare beneficiaries, and the frequency of BIMA use during CABG remained low. There was significant regional variation in BIMA use, however, which demonstrates opportunity for continued growth of BIMA grafting.
Authors: Chaim Locker; Hartzell V Schaff; Joseph A Dearani; Lyle D Joyce; Soon J Park; Harold M Burkhart; Rakesh M Suri; Kevin L Greason; John M Stulak; Zhuo Li; Richard C Daly Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John D Puskas; Adil Sadiq; Thomas A Vassiliades; Patrick D Kilgo; Omar M Lattouf Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Mary A M Rogers; Michael E Chernew; Harlan M Krumholz; Kim A Eagle; John D Birkmeyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sue X Wang; Michelle Lee; Chih-Chiun Chang; Lillian Y Y Lai; Nick Flores; Liang Ge; Curtis J Wozniak; Elaine E Tseng Journal: J Heart Valve Dis Date: 2019
Authors: Joseph D Phillips; Ian C Bostock; Rian M Hasson; Philip P Goodney; David C Goodman; Timothy M Millington; David J Finley Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Emilio Bouza; Arístides de Alarcón; María Carmen Fariñas; Juan Gálvez; Miguel Ángel Goenaga; Francisco Gutiérrez-Díez; Javier Hortal; José Lasso; Carlos A Mestres; José M Miró; Enrique Navas; Mercedes Nieto; Antonio Parra; Enrique Pérez de la Sota; Hugo Rodríguez-Abella; Marta Rodríguez-Créixems; Jorge Rodríguez-Roda; Gemma Sánchez Espín; Dolores Sousa; Carlos Velasco García de Sierra; Patricia Muñoz; Martha Kestler Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Mariusz Kowalewski; Marek Jasiński; Jakub Staromłyński; Marian Zembala; Kazimierz Widenka; Michał Oskar Zembala; Krzysztof Bartuś; Tomasz Hirnle; Inga Dziembowska; Piotr Knapik; Marek Deja; Waldemar Wierzba; Zdzisław Tobota; Bohdan J Maruszewski; Piotr Suwalski Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 4.241