Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri; Center for Value and Innovation, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri; Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute and the University of Missouri - Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri.
Am J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;125(3):354-361. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.10.019. Epub 2019 Oct 26.
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admissions are common and costly. The association between comprehensive ACS care pathways, outcomes, and costs are lacking. From 434,172 low-risk, uncomplicated ACS patients eligible for early discharge (STEMI 35%, UA/NSTEMI 65%) from the Premier database, we identified ACS care pathways, by stratifying low-risk, uncomplicated STEMI and UA/NSTEMI patients by access site for PCI (trans-radial intervention [TRI] vs transfemoral intervention [TFI]) and by length of stay (LOS). Associations with costs and outcomes (death, bleeding, acute kidney injury, and myocardial infarction at 1-year) were tested using hierarchical, mixed-effects regression, and projections of cost savings with change in care pathways were obtained using modeling. In low-risk uncomplicated STEMI patients, compared with TFI and LOS ≥3 days, a strategy of TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days were associated with cost savings of $6,206 and $4,802, respectively. Corresponding cost savings for UA/NSTEMI patients were $7,475 and $6,169, respectively. These care-pathways did not show an excess risk of adverse outcomes. We estimated that >$300 million could be saved if prevalence of the TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days strategies are modestly increased to 20% and 70%, respectively. In conclusion, we demonstrate the potential opportunity of cost savings by repositioning ACS care pathways in low-risk and uncomplicated ACS patients, toward transradial access and a shorter LOS without an increased risk of adverse outcomes.
急性冠状动脉综合征 (ACS) 患者的住院率高且费用昂贵。目前尚缺乏关于综合 ACS 护理路径、结果和成本之间的关联的研究。我们从 Premier 数据库中筛选出 434172 例符合条件(ST 段抬高型心肌梗死 [STEMI] 占 35%,非 ST 段抬高型急性冠脉综合征 [UA/NSTEMI] 占 65%)的低危、非复杂 ACS 患者,对其 ACS 护理路径进行了分析,采用分层分析方法,根据经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 (PCI) 的入路(经桡动脉介入治疗 [TRI] 与经股动脉介入治疗 [TFI])和住院时间(LOS),将低危、非复杂 STEMI 和 UA/NSTEMI 患者分为不同亚组。采用分层、混合效应回归分析评估与成本和结果(1 年时的死亡、出血、急性肾损伤和心肌梗死)的相关性,并采用建模方法预测护理路径改变带来的成本节约。在低危非复杂 STEMI 患者中,与 TFI 和 LOS≥3 天相比,TRI 联合 LOS<3 天和 TFI 联合 LOS<3 天的策略分别可节省 6206 美元和 4802 美元。对于 UA/NSTEMI 患者,相应的成本节约分别为 7475 美元和 6169 美元。这些护理路径并未显示出不良结局风险增加。我们估计,如果 TRI 联合 LOS<3 天和 TFI 联合 LOS<3 天的策略的流行率适度增加到 20%和 70%,则可以节省超过 3 亿美元。总之,我们通过将低危和非复杂 ACS 患者的 ACS 护理路径重新定位为经桡动脉入路和较短的 LOS(不增加不良结局风险),证明了通过改变护理路径实现成本节约的潜在机会。