Peter Cram1,2,3,4, Saket Girotra5,6, John Matelski3, Maria Koh4, Bruce E Landon7, Lu Han4, Douglas S Lee1,8,4,9, Dennis T Ko1,4,10. 1. Department of Medicine (P.C., D.S.L., D.T.K.), University of Toronto, ON. 2. North American Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (P.C.), University of Toronto, ON. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON (P.C., J.M.). 4. ICES, Toronto, ON (P.C., M.K., L.H., D.S.L., D.T.K.). 5. Department of Medicine, University of Iowa (S.G.). 6. Comprehensive Access Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (S.G.). 7. Division of General Medicine, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (B.L.). 8. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health (D.S.L.), University of Toronto, ON. 9. Peter Munk Cardiac Centre and Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Toronto, ON (D.S.L.). 10. Division of Cardiology, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON (D.T.K.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovascular technologies with potential to benefit large numbers of patients. There are few population-based studies comparing utilization between countries. Our objective was to compare patient characteristics and utilization patterns of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using administrative data to identify all adults who received EVAR, LVAD, or TAVR in Ontario and New York between 2012 and 2015. We compared socio-demographics of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR recipients in Ontario and New York. We compared standardized utilization rates between jurisdictions for each procedure. We identified 3295 EVAR recipients from Ontario and 6236 from New York (mean age 74.6 versus 74.5 years; P=0.61): 136 LVAD recipients from Ontario and 686 from New York (age, 57.4 versus 57.7 years; P=0.80): 1708 TAVR recipients from Ontario and 4838 from New York (age, 83.1 versus 83.1; P=1.0). A significantly smaller percentage of EVAR and TAVR recipients in Ontario were female compared to New York (EVAR, 15.8% versus 22.1% female; P<0.001; TAVR, 45.9% versus 51.8%; P<0.001), but for LVAD the percentage female was similar (21.3% versus 20.8%; P=0.99). Utilization was significantly higher in New York for all procedures: EVAR (12.8 procedures per-100 000 adults per-year in Ontario, 20.2 in New York; P<0.001); LVAD (0.3 in Ontario versus 1.3 in New York; P<0.001); and TAVR (6.6 in Ontario, 14.3 in New York; P<0.001). Higher utilization of EVAR and TAVR in New York relative to Ontario increased substantially with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significantly higher utilization of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in New York compared to Ontario. Our results highlight important differences in how 2 different countries are using advanced cardiovascular therapies.
BACKGROUND:Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovascular technologies with potential to benefit large numbers of patients. There are few population-based studies comparing utilization between countries. Our objective was to compare patient characteristics and utilization patterns of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using administrative data to identify all adults who received EVAR, LVAD, or TAVR in Ontario and New York between 2012 and 2015. We compared socio-demographics of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR recipients in Ontario and New York. We compared standardized utilization rates between jurisdictions for each procedure. We identified 3295 EVAR recipients from Ontario and 6236 from New York (mean age 74.6 versus 74.5 years; P=0.61): 136 LVAD recipients from Ontario and 686 from New York (age, 57.4 versus 57.7 years; P=0.80): 1708 TAVR recipients from Ontario and 4838 from New York (age, 83.1 versus 83.1; P=1.0). A significantly smaller percentage of EVAR and TAVR recipients in Ontario were female compared to New York (EVAR, 15.8% versus 22.1% female; P<0.001; TAVR, 45.9% versus 51.8%; P<0.001), but for LVAD the percentage female was similar (21.3% versus 20.8%; P=0.99). Utilization was significantly higher in New York for all procedures: EVAR (12.8 procedures per-100 000 adults per-year in Ontario, 20.2 in New York; P<0.001); LVAD (0.3 in Ontario versus 1.3 in New York; P<0.001); and TAVR (6.6 in Ontario, 14.3 in New York; P<0.001). Higher utilization of EVAR and TAVR in New York relative to Ontario increased substantially with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significantly higher utilization of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in New York compared to Ontario. Our results highlight important differences in how 2 different countries are using advanced cardiovascular therapies.
Authors: Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Karen Y Fung; Eric J Holowaty; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Sindu M Kanjeekal Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jeffrey J Popma; G Michael Deeb; Steven J Yakubov; Mubashir Mumtaz; Hemal Gada; Daniel O'Hair; Tanvir Bajwa; John C Heiser; William Merhi; Neal S Kleiman; Judah Askew; Paul Sorajja; Joshua Rovin; Stanley J Chetcuti; David H Adams; Paul S Teirstein; George L Zorn; John K Forrest; Didier Tchétché; Jon Resar; Antony Walton; Nicolo Piazza; Basel Ramlawi; Newell Robinson; George Petrossian; Thomas G Gleason; Jae K Oh; Michael J Boulware; Hongyan Qiao; Andrew S Mugglin; Michael J Reardon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John Webb; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Stephen Fremes; Philippe Pibarot; Marc Ruel; Reda Ibrahim; Robert Welsh; Christopher Feindel; Samuel Lichtenstein Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Prateeti Khazanie; Bradley G Hammill; Chetan B Patel; Zubin J Eapen; Eric D Peterson; Joseph G Rogers; Carmelo A Milano; Lesley H Curtis; Adrian F Hernandez Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Darren Mylotte; Ruben L J Osnabrugge; Stephan Windecker; Thierry Lefèvre; Peter de Jaegere; Raban Jeger; Peter Wenaweser; Francesco Maisano; Neil Moat; Lars Søndergaard; Johan Bosmans; Rui C Teles; Giuseppe Martucci; Ganesh Manoharan; Eulogio Garcia; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; A Pieter Kappetein; Patrick W Serruys; Ruediger Lange; Nicolo Piazza Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Samir R Kapadia; E Murat Tuzcu; Raj R Makkar; Lars G Svensson; Shikhar Agarwal; Susheel Kodali; Gregory P Fontana; John G Webb; Michael Mack; Vinod H Thourani; Vasilis C Babaliaros; Howard C Herrmann; Wilson Szeto; Augusto D Pichard; Mathew R Williams; William N Anderson; Jodi J Akin; D Craig Miller; Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peter Cram; Bruce E Landon; John Matelski; Vicki Ling; Anthony V Perruccio; J Michael Paterson; Y Raja Rampersaud Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Peter Cram; Saket Girotra; John Matelski; Maria Koh; Bruce Landon; Lu Han; Douglas S Lee; Dennis T Ko Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-05-05
Authors: Peter Cram; Harry Selker; Jennifer Carnahan; Santiago Romero-Brufau; Michael A Fischer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Peter Cram; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Ko; Bruce E Landon; Bruce Hall; Timothy D Jackson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Peter Cram; Laura A Hatfield; Pieter Bakx; Amitava Banerjee; Christina Fu; Michal Gordon; Renaud Heine; Nicole Huang; Dennis Ko; Lisa M Lix; Victor Novack; Laura Pasea; Feng Qiu; Therese A Stukel; Carin Uyl de Groot; Lin Yan; Bruce Landon Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-05-04