Central Venous Access: Evolving Roles of Radiology and Other Specialties Nationally Over Two Decades

Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia, USA. Electronic address: .
Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR (Impact Factor: 2.28). 06/2013; 10(8). DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate national trends in central venous access (CVA) procedures over 2 decades with regard to changing specialty group roles and places of service. METHODS: Aggregated claims data for temporary central venous catheter and long-term CVA device (CVAD) procedures were extracted from Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1992 through 2011. Central venous catheter and CVAD procedure volumes by specialty group and place of service were studied. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 2011, temporary and long-term CVA placement procedures increased from 638,703 to 808,071 (+27%) and from 76,444 to 316,042 (+313%), respectively. For temporary central venous catheters, radiology (from 0.4% in 1992 to 32.6% in 2011) now exceeds anesthesiology (from 37% to 22%) and surgery (from 30.4% to 11.7%) as the dominant provider group. Surgery continues to dominate in placement and explantation of long-term CVADs (from 80.7% to 50.4% and from 81.6% to 47.7%, respectively), but radiology's share has grown enormously (from 0.7% to 37.6% and from 0.2% to 28.6%). Although volumes remain small (<10% of all procedures), midlevel practitioners have experienced >100-fold growth for most services. The inpatient hospital remains the dominant site for temporary CVA procedures (90.0% in 1992 and 81.2% in 2011), but the placement of long-term CVADs has shifted from the inpatient (from 68.9% to 45.2%) to hospital outpatient (from 26.9% to 44.3%) setting. In all hospital settings combined, radiologists place approximately half of all tunneled catheters and three-quarters all peripherally inserted central catheters. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 2 decades, CVA procedures on Medicare beneficiaries have increased considerably. Radiology is now the dominant overall provider.

Download full-text


Available from: Danny R. Hughes, Dec 19, 2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 10/2014; 12(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.021 · 2.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in diagnostic radiology resident and fellow workloads in recent years. Berenson-Eggers Type of Service categorization was applied to Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files to identify total and resident-specific claims for radiologist imaging services between 1998 and 2010. Data were extracted and subgroup analytics performed by modality. Volumes were annually normalized for active diagnostic radiology trainees. From 1998 to 2010, Medicare claims for imaging services rendered by radiologists increased from 78,901,255 to 105,252,599 (+33.4%). Service volumes increased across all modalities: for radiography from 55,661,683 to 59,654,659 (+7.2%), for mammography from 5,780,624 to 6,570,673 (+13.7%), for ultrasound from 5,851,864 to 9,853,459 (+68.4%), for CT from 9,351,780 to 22,527,488 (+140.9%), and for MR from 2,255,304 to 6,646,320 (+194.7%). Total trainee services nationally increased 3 times as rapidly. On an average per trainee basis, however, the average number of diagnostic services rendered annually to Medicare Part B beneficiaries increased from 499 to 629 (+26.1%). By modality, this represents an average change from 333 to 306 examinations (-8.1%) for radiography, from 20 to 18 (-7.4%) for mammography, from 37 to 56 (+49.7%) for ultrasound, from 88 to 202 (+129.1%) for CT, and from 20 to 47 (+132.0%) for MRI. Between 1998 and 2010, the number of imaging examinations interpreted by diagnostic radiology residents and fellows on Medicare beneficiaries increased on average by 26% per trainee, with growth largely accounted for by disproportionate increases in more complex services (CT and MRI). Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 05/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.02.009 · 2.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare complications and cost, from a hospital perspective, of chest port insertions performed in an interventional radiology (IR) suite versus in surgery in an operating room (OR). This study was approved by an institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Medical records were retrospectively searched on consecutive chest port placement procedures, in the IR suite and the OR, between October 22, 2010 and February 26, 2013, to determine patients' demographic information and chest port-related complications and/or infections. A total of 478 charts were reviewed (age range: 21-85 years; 309 women, 169 men). Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with an increased complication rate. Cost data on 149 consecutive Medicare outpatients (100 treated in the IR suite; 49 treated in the OR) who had isolated chest port insertions between March 2012 and February 2013 were obtained for both the operative services and pharmacy. Nonparametric tests for heterogeneity were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis method. Early complications occurred in 9.2% (22 of 239) of the IR patients versus 13.4% (32 of 239) of the OR patients. Of the 478 implanted chest ports, 9 placed in IR and 18 placed in surgery required early removal. Infections from the ports placed in IR versus the OR were 0.25 versus 0.18 infections per 1000 catheters, respectively. Overall mean costs for chest port insertion were significantly higher in the OR, for both room and pharmacy costs (P < .0001). Overall average cost to place chest ports in an OR setting was almost twice that of placement in the IR suite. Hospital costs to place a chest port were significantly lower in the IR suite than in the OR, whereas radiology and surgery patients did not show a significantly different rate of complications and/or infections. Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 06/2015; 12(6):563-571. DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.01.012 · 2.28 Impact Factor