Michael L O'Byrne1, Marisa E Millenson2, James M Steven3, Matthew J Gillespie2, Yoav Dori2, Andrew C Glatz4, Jonathan J Rome2. 1. Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Pediatrics Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute and Center for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: obyrnem@email.chop.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Pediatrics Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Anesthesia Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Pediatrics Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the method of procedural sedation and outcomes for congenital cardiac catheterization procedures. BACKGROUND: The safety of operator-directed sedation (ODS) in the pediatric/congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory has been questioned. To our knowledge, the relative safety of ODS versus general anesthesia (GA) in these cases has not to date been critically evaluated. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to compare the relative safety, cost, and times of catheterization procedures performed with ODS and those performed with GA from a cardiac anesthesiologist. The risk of adverse outcomes was compared using propensity-score-adjusted models. Using the same propensity score, procedure times and relative charges were also compared. RESULTS: Over the study period, 4,424 procedures in 2,547 patients were studied. Of these, 27% of cases were performed with ODS. ODS procedures were 70% diagnostic procedures, 17% device closure of patent ductus arteriosus, 5% balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty, and 3% pulmonary artery angioplasty. The risk of adverse event in adjusted models for ODS cases was significantly lower than in GA cases (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.03). Total room time and case time were also significantly shorter (p < 0.001). Professional (charge ratio: 0.88; p < 0.001) and hospital (charge ratio: 0.84; p < 0.001) charges for ODS cases were also lower than those for GA cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that clinical judgment can identify subjects in whom ODS is not associated with increased risk of adverse events. The use of ODS was associated with reduced case times and charges. In combination, these findings suggest that the selective use of ODS can allow for greater efficiency and higher value care without sacrificing safety.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the method of procedural sedation and outcomes for congenital cardiac catheterization procedures. BACKGROUND: The safety of operator-directed sedation (ODS) in the pediatric/congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory has been questioned. To our knowledge, the relative safety of ODS versus general anesthesia (GA) in these cases has not to date been critically evaluated. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to compare the relative safety, cost, and times of catheterization procedures performed with ODS and those performed with GA from a cardiac anesthesiologist. The risk of adverse outcomes was compared using propensity-score-adjusted models. Using the same propensity score, procedure times and relative charges were also compared. RESULTS: Over the study period, 4,424 procedures in 2,547 patients were studied. Of these, 27% of cases were performed with ODS. ODS procedures were 70% diagnostic procedures, 17% device closure of patent ductus arteriosus, 5% balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty, and 3% pulmonary artery angioplasty. The risk of adverse event in adjusted models for ODS cases was significantly lower than in GA cases (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.03). Total room time and case time were also significantly shorter (p < 0.001). Professional (charge ratio: 0.88; p < 0.001) and hospital (charge ratio: 0.84; p < 0.001) charges for ODS cases were also lower than those for GA cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that clinical judgment can identify subjects in whom ODS is not associated with increased risk of adverse events. The use of ODS was associated with reduced case times and charges. In combination, these findings suggest that the selective use of ODS can allow for greater efficiency and higher value care without sacrificing safety.
Authors: Natalie Jayaram; John A Spertus; Michael L O'Byrne; Paul S Chan; Kevin F Kennedy; Lisa Bergersen; Andrew C Glatz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Andrew C Glatz; Laura Mercer-Rosa; Matthew J Gillespie; Yoav Dori; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Steven Kawut; Jonathan J Rome Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Robert N Vincent; John Moore; Robert H Beekman; Lee Benson; Lisa Bergersen; Ralf Holzer; Natalie Jayaram; Kathy Jenkins; Richard Ringel; Jonathan Rome; Gerard R Martin Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Kirsten C Odegard; Robert Vincent; Rahul Baijal; SuAnne Daves; Robert Gray; Alex Javois; Barry Love; Phil Moore; David Nykanen; Lori Riegger; Scott G Walker; Elizabeth C Wilson Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: John W Moore; Robert N Vincent; Robert H Beekman; Lee Benson; Lisa Bergersen; Ralf Holzer; Natalie Jayaram; Kathy Jenkins; Yan Li; Richard Ringel; Jonathan Rome; Gerard R Martin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David G Nykanen; Thomas J Forbes; Wei Du; Abhay A Divekar; Jaxk H Reeves; Donald J Hagler; Thomas E Fagan; Carlos A C Pedra; Gregory A Fleming; Danyal M Khan; Alexander J Javois; Daniel H Gruenstein; Shakeel A Qureshi; Phillip M Moore; David H Wax Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Matthew J Gillespie; Russell T Shinohara; Yoav Dori; Jonathan J Rome; Andrew C Glatz Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-10-17 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Kevin F Kennedy; James M Steven; Kevin D Hill; Reid C Chamberlain; Marisa E Millenson; Christopher L Smith; Yoav Dori; Matthew J Gillespie; Jonathan J Rome; Andrew C Glatz Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Christopher M Janson; Maully J Shah; Kevin F Kennedy; V Ramesh Iyer; Tammy L Sweeten; Andrew C Glatz; James M Steven; Michael L O'Byrne Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-06-17