Debbie Chi1,2, Edward R Mariano2,3, Stavros G Memtsoudis4, Laurence C Baker5,6, Eric C Sun2,5. 1. From the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 3. Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York. 5. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 6. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a commonly performed procedure and an important contributor to national health care spending. Reducing the incidence of readmission could have important consequences for patient well-being and relevant financial implications. Whether regional anesthesia techniques are associated with decreased readmission rates and costs among privately insured patients remains unknown. METHODS: Using administrative claims data, we identified 138,362 privately insured patients 18-64 years of age who underwent total knee arthroplasty between 2002 and 2013. We then examined whether the use of a nerve block was associated with decreases in readmission rates and related costs during the 90 days after discharge. Our analyses were adjusted for potential confounding variables including medical comorbidities and previous use of opioids and other medications. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative medication use, the adjusted 90-day readmission rate was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.4) among patients who did not receive a block compared to 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.4) among patients who did (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09; P = .85). The adjusted readmission-related postoperative cost for patients who did not receive a block was $561 (95% CI, 502-619) and $574 (95% CI, 508-639) for patients who did (difference, $13; 95% CI, -75 to 102; P = .74). This lack of statistically significant differences held for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Nerve blocks were not associated with improved measures of long-term postoperative resource use in this younger, privately insured study population.
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a commonly performed procedure and an important contributor to national health care spending. Reducing the incidence of readmission could have important consequences for patient well-being and relevant financial implications. Whether regional anesthesia techniques are associated with decreased readmission rates and costs among privately insured patients remains unknown. METHODS: Using administrative claims data, we identified 138,362 privately insured patients 18-64 years of age who underwent total knee arthroplasty between 2002 and 2013. We then examined whether the use of a nerve block was associated with decreases in readmission rates and related costs during the 90 days after discharge. Our analyses were adjusted for potential confounding variables including medical comorbidities and previous use of opioids and other medications. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative medication use, the adjusted 90-day readmission rate was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.4) among patients who did not receive a block compared to 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.4) among patients who did (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09; P = .85). The adjusted readmission-related postoperative cost for patients who did not receive a block was $561 (95% CI, 502-619) and $574 (95% CI, 508-639) for patients who did (difference, $13; 95% CI, -75 to 102; P = .74). This lack of statistically significant differences held for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Nerve blocks were not associated with improved measures of long-term postoperative resource use in this younger, privately insured study population.
Authors: Brian A Williams; James W Ibinson; Michael P Mangione; Robert T Modrak; Elizabeth J Tonarelli; Hulimangala Rakesh; Alissa M Kmatz; Peter Z Cohen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Seshadri C Mudumbai; Tessa L Walters; Steven K Howard; T Edward Kim; Gregory Milo Lochbaum; Stavros G Memtsoudis; Zeev N Kain; Alex Kou; Robert King; Edward R Mariano Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2016-03-19
Authors: Benjamin F Ricciardi; Kathryn K Oi; Steven B Daines; Yuo-Yu Lee; Amethia D Joseph; Geoffrey H Westrich Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Kathryn G Mueller; Stavros G Memtsoudis; Edward R Mariano; Laurence C Baker; Sean Mackey; Eric C Sun Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gillian A Hawker; Elizabeth M Badley; Ruth Croxford; Peter C Coyte; Richard H Glazier; Jun Guan; Bart J Harvey; J I Williams; James G Wright Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.983