Publications by Year: 2020

2020

Holtzman, Jessica N, Rishi K Wadhera, Eunhee Choi, Tianyi Zhao, Eric A Secemsky, Ariane M Fraiche, Changyu Shen, and Daniel B Kramer. (2020) 2020. “Trends in Utilization and Spending on Remote Monitoring of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Medicare Beneficiaries.”. Heart Rhythm 17 (11): 1917-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.05.044.

BACKGROUND: National trends and costs associated with remote and in-office interrogations of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have not been previously described.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate utilization and Medicare spending for remote monitoring and in-office interrogations for pacemakers and ICDs.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of claims and spending for remote and in-office interrogations of pacemakers and ICDs for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015. Aggregate and per-beneficiary claims and spending were calculated for each device type.

RESULTS: Among all patients, 41.9% were female and the mean age was 78.3 years. From 2012 to 2015, remote monitoring utilization increased sharply. Aggregate professional remote monitoring claims for pacemakers increased by 61.3% and for ICDs by 5.6%, with an increase in technical claims (combined for pacemakers and ICDs) of 32.8%. Spending on all remote and in-office interrogations for these devices totaled $160 million per year, with remote costs increasing nearly 25% from $45.4 million in 2012 to $56.7 million in 2015. At the beneficiary level, remote interrogations increased for pacemakers from 0.6 to 0.9 per year, and for ICDs from 1.3 to 1.4 per year, whereas in-office interrogations decreased from 2.8 to 2.7 per year and from 3.0 to 2.9 per year, respectively. Beneficiary-level analysis revealed increased expenditures on remote interrogation offset by decreases in in-office expenditures, with total annual spending decreasing by $2 and $5 per beneficiary, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring utilization increased substantially from 2012 to 2015, whereas annual costs per beneficiary decreased.

Kundi, Harun, Peter A Noseworthy, Linda R Valsdottir, Changyu Shen, Xiaoxi Yao, Robert W Yeh, and Daniel B Kramer. (2020) 2020. “Relation of Frailty to Outcomes After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.”. The American Journal of Cardiology 125 (9): 1317-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.01.049.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) improves outcomes compared with medical treatment alone. Risk stratification for outcomes following AF ablation remains an important area of uncertainty. This analysis evaluated the association between frailty and outcomes following AF ablation. We evaluated US inpatients receiving AF ablation between January 1, 2016 and December 1, 2016 using Medicare fee-for-service billing codes. Diagnosis codes were used to calculate patients' Hospital Frailty Risk Score, with the cohort divided according to established cut-points of low (<5), intermediate (5 to 15), and high (>15) risk for frailty. The primary outcome was survival. Among 5,070 in patients treated with catheter ablation (mean age 74.9 ± 6.8 years, 51.1% female), 38.6% were defined as frail with a Hospital Frailty Risk Score >5, including 8.3% at high risk. Mortality rates (up to 630 days) were 5.8% in the low-risk group, 23.4% in the intermediate-risk group, and 42.2% in the high-risk group (log-rank p values <0.001 for comparison between categories). In restricted cubic spline regression analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios for long-term mortality monotonically increased with increasing values of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (adjusted hazard ratio 1.065, 95% confidence interval 1.054 to 1.077). In secondary end points, frailty was independently associated with length of stay, postprocedure 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission and postdischarge 30-day mortality rates. In conclusion, frailty as assessed by a claims-based score is common in inpatient recipients of AF ablation, and provides risk stratification for mortality and other key clinical outcomes.

Stone, J, P Priya, M. Wong, P Stanbrige, N Lee-Walsh, and A Li. 2020. “Povutpat Egestas Erat Rhoncus Dapibus Senectus Fringippa..”
Turpis senectus amet tortor in sodates odio tettus. Pretium id amet, euismod sceteriscue vetit. Imperdiet senectus ornare augue donec cuis. Uttrices ut nist egestas eros, nam sceteriscue. Uttricies tacus, nutta cras eget dotor ptacerat. Et in nutta fetis pettentescue augue. Porttitor hendrerit congue morbi proin aticuam.
Stone, J, P Priya, M. Wong, P Stanbrige, N Lee-Walsh, and A Li. 2020. “Povutpat Egestas Erat Rhoncus Dapibus Senectus Fringippa..”
Turpis senectus amet tortor in sodates odio tettus. Pretium id amet, euismod sceteriscue vetit. Imperdiet senectus ornare augue donec cuis. Uttrices ut nist egestas eros, nam sceteriscue. Uttricies tacus, nutta cras eget dotor ptacerat. Et in nutta fetis pettentescue augue. Porttitor hendrerit congue morbi proin aticuam.
Stone, J, P Priya, M. Wong, P Stanbrige, N Lee-Walsh, and A Li. 2020. “Povutpat Egestas Erat Rhoncus Dapibus Senectus Fringippa..”
Turpis senectus amet tortor in sodates odio tettus. Pretium id amet, euismod sceteriscue vetit. Imperdiet senectus ornare augue donec cuis. Uttrices ut nist egestas eros, nam sceteriscue. Uttricies tacus, nutta cras eget dotor ptacerat. Et in nutta fetis pettentescue augue. Porttitor hendrerit congue morbi proin aticuam.
Stone, J, P Priya, M. Wong, P Stanbrige, N Lee-Walsh, and A Li. 2020. “Povutpat Egestas Erat Rhoncus Dapibus Senectus Fringippa..”
Turpis senectus amet tortor in sodates odio tettus. Pretium id amet, euismod sceteriscue vetit. Imperdiet senectus ornare augue donec cuis. Uttrices ut nist egestas eros, nam sceteriscue. Uttricies tacus, nutta cras eget dotor ptacerat. Et in nutta fetis pettentescue augue. Porttitor hendrerit congue morbi proin aticuam.