Suppr超能文献

可取出式与永久性腔静脉滤器置入术:何时对介入放射学具有成本效益?

Retrievable versus permanent caval filter procedures: when are they cost-effective for interventional radiology?

作者信息

Janne d'Othée Bertrand, Faintuch Salomao, Reedy Allen W, Nickerson Carl F, Rosen Max P

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008 Mar;19(3):384-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.09.024.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Because many retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed without ever being removed, placement of a retrievable device that is not removed incurs greater technical cost for the institution than a cheaper permanent filter (PF), with no clinical benefit for the patient and no additional professional or technical revenue for the interventional radiologist and institution. The purposes of this study are to identify patient characteristics associated with lack of removal of a retrievable filter (RF) and to develop a cost-effective strategy for placement of a retrievable IVC filter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of 160 consecutive patients who underwent IVC filter placement with or without removal in our interventional radiology (IR) unit over a period of 31 months was performed. Patient characteristics were identified that were associated with lack of removal of retrievable IVC filters, and the cost savings were calculated in the event that a PF had been substituted for an RF in these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 160 consecutive IVC filters were placed during the study period. Of these, 42 (26%) were PFs and 118 (74%) were RFs. During the study period, only 27 of the 118 RFs (23%) were subsequently removed. Factors associated with lack of removal of an RF included patient age (P = .003), presence of ongoing malignancy (P = .04), and indication for filter placement (P = .01). Retrospectively, the use of retrievable devices only in the presence of two of the three selection criteria (ie, age <65 years, no ongoing malignancy, prophylactic indication) would have resulted in a net incremental benefit of $59,562 for the IR service.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferential use of retrievable versus permanent devices for filter placement is financially advantageous for an IR unit only if at least 41% of them are eventually removed. The use of clinical criteria to select device type allows significant cost savings.

摘要

目的

由于许多可回收下腔静脉(IVC)滤器放置后从未取出,对于医疗机构而言,放置未取出的可回收装置比使用更便宜的永久性滤器(PF)产生更高的技术成本,对患者没有临床益处,对介入放射科医生和医疗机构也没有额外的专业或技术收入。本研究的目的是确定与可回收滤器(RF)未取出相关的患者特征,并制定一种具有成本效益的可回收IVC滤器放置策略。

材料与方法

对在31个月期间于我们介入放射科(IR)接受IVC滤器放置且有或没有取出的160例连续患者进行回顾性评估。确定与可回收IVC滤器未取出相关的患者特征,并计算在这些患者中用PF替代RF的情况下节省的成本。

结果

在研究期间共放置了160个连续的IVC滤器。其中,42个(26%)是PF,118个(74%)是RF。在研究期间,118个RF中只有27个(23%)随后被取出。与RF未取出相关的因素包括患者年龄(P = .003)、存在持续恶性肿瘤(P = .04)以及滤器放置指征(P = .01)。回顾性分析表明,仅在满足三个选择标准中的两个(即年龄<65岁、无持续恶性肿瘤、预防性指征)时使用可回收装置,将为IR服务带来59,562美元的净增量收益。

结论

对于IR科室而言,仅当至少41%的可回收装置最终被取出时,优先使用可回收装置而非永久性装置进行滤器放置在经济上才是有利的。使用临床标准来选择装置类型可显著节省成本。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验