Department of Surgery, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, University of Illinois at Chicago, Park Ridge, IL.
FTI Consulting, San Francisco, CA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Jan;70:349-354. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.06.038. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
Percutaneous peripheral intervention (PPI) is often the first mode of therapy for patients with symptomatic arterial occlusive disease. Technical success generally remains high although "failure-to-cross" still complicates 5-20% of cases. Extended efforts to cross long, occlusive lesions can utilize significant hospital and practitioner resources. The hospital is typically reimbursed for this effort as facility fees are charged by the hour and materials are charged per use. However, given the lack of a CPT® code for "failure-to-cross," practitioners are rarely appropriately compensated. The purpose of this study is to analyze the predictors, technical details, outcomes, and costs of "failure-to-cross" during PPI.
All PPI procedures over a 2-year period at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics, results, costs, and reimbursements obtained from hospital cost accounting were compared among successful therapeutic interventions, crossing failures, and diagnostic angiograms without attempted intervention.
A total of 146 consecutive PPIs were identified; the rate of "failure-to-cross" was 11.6% (17 patients). The majority of patients with "failure-to-cross" were male (82%) with single-vessel runoff (53%). Compared to successful interventions, the incidences of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (82% vs. 70%, P = 0.34) and infrapopliteal occlusive disease were similar (47% vs. 31%, P = 0.20). "Failure-to-cross" procedures were just as long as successful procedures; there were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (27 ± 10 vs. 24 ± 14 min, P = 0.52), in-room time (106 ± 98 vs. 103 ± 44 min, P = 0.84), or contrast dye volume utilization (73 ± 37 vs. 96 ± 54 mL, P = 0.12). As expected, "failure-to-cross" procedures incurred far higher hospital charges and costs compared to noninterventional diagnostic angiograms (charges $13,311 ± 6,067 vs. $7,690 ± 1,942, P < 0.01; costs $5,289 ± 2,099 vs. $2,826 ± 1,198, P < 0.01). Despite the additional time and effort spent attempting to cross difficult lesions, the operators were reimbursed at the same low rate as a purely diagnostic procedure (average fee charge $7,360; average reimbursement $992). After 1 year, the 17 patients in whom lesions could not be crossed were treated with advanced interventional procedures with success (n = 2), surgical bypass grafting (n = 5), extremity amputation (n = 4), or no additional intervention in their salvaged limb (n = 6).
Patients whose lesions cannot be crossed during PPI fare worse than patients undergoing successful interventions. Hospital costs and charges appropriately reflect the high technical difficulty and resource utilization of extended attempts at endovascular therapy. For practitioners, crossing lesions during PPI is truly a "pay-for-performance" procedure in that only successful procedures are reasonably reimbursed.
经皮外周介入(PPI)通常是有症状的动脉闭塞性疾病患者的首选治疗模式。尽管“未能通过”仍然使 5-20%的病例复杂化,但技术成功率通常仍然很高。为了延长对长闭塞病变的通过努力,可以利用大量的医院和医生资源。医院通常会按小时收取设施费,并按使用次数收取材料费用,以此来支付这些努力的费用。然而,由于缺乏“未能通过”的 CPT®代码,医生很少得到适当的补偿。本研究的目的是分析 PPI 中“未能通过”的预测因素、技术细节、结果和成本。
回顾性分析了一家医院 2 年内的所有 PPI 手术。对成功的治疗性干预、通过失败和无尝试干预的诊断性血管造影获得的临床特征、结果、成本和报销从医院成本核算中进行了比较。
共确定了 146 例连续 PPI;“未能通过”的发生率为 11.6%(17 例)。大多数“未能通过”的患者为男性(82%),单支血管流出(53%)。与成功的干预相比,慢性肢体威胁性缺血(82%与 70%,P=0.34)和膝下闭塞性疾病的发生率相似(47%与 31%,P=0.20)。“未能通过”的手术与成功的手术一样长;透视时间(27±10与 24±14 分钟,P=0.52)、室内时间(106±98 与 103±44 分钟,P=0.84)或造影剂用量(73±37 与 96±54 毫升,P=0.12)无显著差异。正如预期的那样,“未能通过”的手术比非介入性诊断性血管造影产生的医院费用和成本高得多(费用分别为 13311 美元±6067 美元和 7690 美元±1942 美元,P<0.01;成本分别为 5289 美元±2099 美元和 2826 美元±1198 美元,P<0.01)。尽管为了尝试通过困难的病变而花费了更多的时间和精力,但医生的报酬与纯粹的诊断性手术相同(平均费用 7360 美元;平均报销 992 美元)。在 1 年后,17 名未能通过病变的患者接受了先进的介入治疗,成功治疗(n=2)、手术旁路移植(n=5)、截肢(n=4)或在挽救的肢体中未进行进一步干预(n=6)。
在 PPI 期间未能通过病变的患者比接受成功干预的患者预后更差。医院成本和费用恰当地反映了延长血管内治疗尝试的高技术难度和资源利用。对于医生来说,在 PPI 期间通过病变确实是一种“按表现付费”的手术,只有成功的手术才能得到合理的报销。