Lipitz-Snyderman Allison, Ma Qinli, Pollack Michael F, Barron John, Elkin Elena B, Bach Peter B, Malin Jennifer L
Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; HealthCore, Wilmington DE; and Anthem, Indianapolis, IN
Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; HealthCore, Wilmington DE; and Anthem, Indianapolis, IN.
J Oncol Pract. 2015 Nov;11(6):505-10. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.004796. Epub 2015 Aug 11.
Despite some advantages to their use, long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are associated with complications for patients who require chemotherapy. Understanding of these risks in commercially insured populations is limited. This information can inform medical policies that ensure the appropriate use of venous access devices. This study's objectives were to assess the extent of variation in use of long-term CVCs in a cohort of commercially insured women with breast cancer, and to assess risks of associated complications.
Retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using health insurance claims between January 2006 and October 2013. The cohort included commercially insured women age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with breast cancer who received infusion chemotherapy (N = 31,047). We conducted matched and case-mix adjusted Cox proportional hazard modeling to assess differences in bloodstream infections and thrombovascular complications between patients using long-term CVCs and those using temporary intravenous catheters.
Approximately two thirds of the cohort had a long-term CVC, although rates varied across regions (57% to 75%), health plans (65% to 70%), and insurance coverage (63% to 68%). After propensity score matching, the adjusted hazard ratio for infection was 2.70 (95% CI, 2.31 to 3.16) and thrombovascular complications, 2.61 (95% CI, 2.33 to 2.93) in patients with long-term CVCs compared with those with temporary intravenous catheters.
Although long-term CVCs may have benefits, they are associated with increased morbidity. Regional and health plan variation in long-term CVC insertion suggests that some of their use reflects provider- or institution-driven variation in practice. Evidence-based guidelines and tools may help decrease discretionary use of long-term CVCs.
尽管长期中心静脉导管(CVC)的使用存在一些优势,但对于需要化疗的患者而言,其与并发症相关。对于商业保险人群中这些风险的了解有限。这些信息可为确保静脉通路装置合理使用的医疗政策提供依据。本研究的目的是评估一组患有乳腺癌的商业保险女性中长期CVC使用的差异程度,并评估相关并发症的风险。
使用2006年1月至2013年10月期间的健康保险理赔数据进行回顾性队列分析。该队列包括年龄≥18岁、被诊断患有乳腺癌且接受输注化疗的商业保险女性(N = 31,047)。我们进行了匹配和病例组合调整的Cox比例风险模型分析,以评估使用长期CVC的患者与使用临时静脉导管的患者在血流感染和血栓血管并发症方面的差异。
尽管不同地区(57%至75%)、健康计划(65%至70%)和保险范围(63%至68%)的使用率有所不同,但该队列中约三分之二的患者使用了长期CVC。倾向得分匹配后,与使用临时静脉导管的患者相比,使用长期CVC的患者感染的调整后风险比为2.70(95%CI,2.31至3.16),血栓血管并发症的调整后风险比为2.61(95%CI,2.33至2.93)。
尽管长期CVC可能有好处,但它们与发病率增加相关。长期CVC插入在地区和健康计划方面的差异表明,其部分使用反映了提供者或机构在实践中的差异。基于证据的指南和工具可能有助于减少长期CVC的随意使用。