Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2017 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Cost-benefit analysis of establishing an inferior vena cava filter clinic

Pages
37–42
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Given the adverse event profile of retrievable IVCFs, strategic efforts such as these ultimately can improve quality care for patients with in-dwelling IVCFs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE Adverse events associated with retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) have generated an increased interest in improving IVCF retrieval rates to improve patient safety and quality care.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to demonstrate the cost-benefit of implementing an IVCF clinic to improve patient care in an institution in the United States.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Given the adverse event profile of retrievable IVCFs, strategic efforts such as these ultimately can improve quality care for patients with in-dwelling IVCFs.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE Adverse events associated with retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) have generated an increased interest in improving IVCF retrieval rates to improve patient safety and quality care. This study aims to demonstrate the cost-benefit of implementing an IVCF clinic to improve patient care in an institution in the United States. METHODS An IVCF clinic was established at a single institution in September 2012 and for ten months referring physicians were contacted to facilitate retrieval when appropriate. Additionally, a retrospective review was conducted on filter placements over the eight preclinic months. Cost-benefit analysis was conducted by creating a model, which incorporated the average cost and reimbursement for permanent and retrievable IVCFs. RESULTS A total of 190 IVCFs (152 retrievable IVCFs and 38 permanent IVCFs) were implanted during the IVCF clinic period. Twenty-nine percent of the retrievable IVCFs were successfully retrieved compared to 10 of 119 retrievable IVCFs placed during the preclinic period (8.4%). Cost-benefit analysis, using the average of the institution's six most common reimbursement schedules, demonstrated an average net financial loss per permanent or retrievable IVCF not removed. However, a net financial gain was realized for each retrievable IVCF removed. The additional hospital cost to maintain the IVCF clinic was offset by removing an additional 3.1 IVCFs per year. CONCLUSION An IVCF clinic significantly increases retrieval rates, promotes patient safety, and is economically feasible. Given the adverse event profile of retrievable IVCFs, strategic efforts such as these ultimately can improve quality care for patients with in-dwelling IVCFs.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOWELL, J. D., SHAH, S. H., COOPER, K. J., YILDIZ, V., PAN, X. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis of establishing an inferior vena cava filter clinic. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 37–42. https://ajindex.com/articles/350099

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Helling TS, Kaswan S, Miller SL, Tretter JF. Practice patterns in the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a trauma population: A single-center experience. J Trauma 2009
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Tschoe M, Kim HS, Brotman DJ, Streiff MB. Retrievable vena cava filters: a clinical review. J Hosp Med 2009
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Athanasoulis CA, Kaufman JA, Halpern EF, Waltman AC, Geller SC, Fan CM. Inferior vena caval filters: Review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology 2000
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Van Ha, TG. Complications of inferior vena caval filters. Semin Intervent Radiol 2006
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: initial communication. United States Food and Drug Administration Alerts and Notices (Medical Devices). http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm396377. htm. Accessed 6 May 2014. 6. Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A, et al. Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: Impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010
  6. [CrossRef] 7. Ryu RK, Parikh P, Gupta R, et al. Optimizing IVC filter utilization: A prospective study of the impact of interventional radiologist consultation. J Am Coll Radiol 2012
  7. [CrossRef] 8. McLoney ED, Krishnasamy VP, Castle JC, Yang X, Guy G. Complications of Celect, Günther tulip, and Greenfield inferior vena cava filters on CT follow-up: A single-institution experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013
  8. [CrossRef] 9. D'Othee BJ, Faintuch S, Reedy AW, et al. Retrievable versus permanent caval filter procedures: when are they cost-effective for interventional radiology? J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008
  9. [CrossRef] 10. Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB, et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006
  10. [CrossRef] 11. Smith SC, Shanks C, Guy G, Yang X, Dowell JD. Social and demographic factors influencing inferior vena cava filter retrieval at a single institution in the United States. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 2015
  11. [CrossRef] 12. Uberoi R, Taping CR, Chalmers N, Allgar V. British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter registry. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 2013
  12. [CrossRef] 13. Sutphin PD, Reis SP, McKune A, Ravanzo M, Kalva SP. Impro