Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A W Simon

Publications and source records attributed to A W Simon.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Impact of patient characteristics, complications, and facility volume on the costs and time of cardiac catheterization and coronary angioplasty in 70 catheterization laboratories.

Although over 1 million procedures are performed in cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCLs) annually, little comparative data exist on costs or resource use in these settings. In this study, data from 70 CCLs were used to profile CCL times and total direct costs for 2 high-volume procedures: left heart catheterization (LHC) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with or without stent placement. In total, 70,677 consecutive patient examinations for a 12-month period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998 were analyzed. For LHC mean total direct costs averaged $306, whereas for PTCA catheterization laboratory costs averaged $3,172. The average total times for these procedures were 63 and 108 minutes, respectively. Seventy-two percent of the PTCA patients underwent coronary stenting with an associated incremental cost of $1,244. By multivariate linear regression, baseline patient characteristics such as age, gender, and clinical factors had little impact on total time and total costs. The major determinants of CCL time and cost were procedural factors (e.g., number and type of interventions) and in-lab complications, including profound hypotension, abrupt vessel closure, and emergency bypass surgery. Using facility procedure volume as a proxy for potential economies of scale, we found no relation between CCL volume and total direct CCL costs. There did appear to be a significant inverse relation between facility volume and total procedural time with CCLs that performed the highest volumes of LHC and PTCA procedures saving an average of 5 to 9 minutes per procedure. These findings may be useful in defining specific time and cost benchmarks for these commonly performed procedures and serve to underscore the critical role of reducing complications in both quality improvement and cost-saving efforts.

Aged↗

A retrospective study of 6,671 patients comparing coronary stenting and balloon angioplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether coronary stenting, compared to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, reduces the incidence of five clinical endpoints during a six-month follow-up period. BACKGROUND: There is considerable debate concerning whether coronary stents improve clinical outcomes, especially given the rapid growth in the use of coronary stents and their economic impact. METHODS: Study population included a total of 6,671 consecutive patients at 32 hospitals in 16 different states who underwent single or multi-vessel revascularization during 1997. Patients were divided into one of two groups: those who only underwent standard balloon angioplasty (PTCA) for all treated vessels and those who received coronary stents (STENT) in all treated vessels. RESULTS: STENT patients were significantly less likely to have emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) (p = 0.001) or die during initial procedure (p = 0.034) but were more likely than PTCA patients to be treated for hematoma (p = 0.002) and bradycardia (p = 0.004). After accounting for difference in patient characteristics, risk factors, procedure complications, and number of devices utilized, the estimated odds-ratio indicates that coronary stenting, compared to PTCA, significantly (p < 0.05) reduced adverse outcomes for only one clinical event, myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to balloon angioplasty patients, coronary stent patients have no statistically significant differences in regard to additional percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass during a six-month follow-up period. Since direct cardiac catheterization lab costs associated with coronary stenting is nearly 2.5 times greater than standard balloon angioplasty, our results suggest the cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting, especially for "hard" clinical outcomes, needs to be established.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗

Use of a mechanical pressure device for hemostasis following cardiac catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular complications that can occur after cardiac catheterization are costly and cause patient discomfort. OBJECTIVES: To determine the difference in frequency of vascular complications in a convenience sample of cardiac catheterization patients who had mechanical pressure vs digital pressure for postprocedural hemostasis. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used. The study group consisted of 100 patients on whom a mechanical clamp was used to effect hemostasis; the control group consisted of 100 patients who received digital pressure for hemostasis. Data from the control group were obtained retrospectively through review of cardiac catheterization charts. RESULTS: The two groups showed statistically significant differences for the number of catheters used, mean time elapsed between arterial entry and catheter removal, and compression time. There was no significant difference in complication rate between the groups. DISCUSSION: Complications including hematoma formation, arterial occlusion, ischemia and traumatic neuropathy were monitored. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical pressure device is a safe, cost-effective alternative to digital pressure for hemostasis following cardiac catheterization. Further studies are needed to verify these results and the effectiveness of the device following other percutaneous intra-arterial procedures.

Cardiac Catheterization↗