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: 2.84). 06/2013; 10(8). DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.002
Source: PubMed


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.

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.

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.

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
37 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter or PICC Line and implanted subcutaneous ports are two types of central catheters allowing drug administration and blood samplings. These two devices are very controversial (because of infectious and thrombotic complications), it seemed interesting to estimate their cost of implantation and to correlate them with the reimbursement by the Health Insurance. Materials and methods Direct (material and drugs) and indirect (use of the room and staff) costs were prospectively evaluated for PICC Lines and implanted subcutaneous ports. Results The global costs of the implantation of a PICC Line and of an implanted subcutaneous port in the interventional radiology room and in the operating room were respectively evaluated at 220.2 €, 286.6 € and 666.3 €. Discussion-conclusion Only a PICC Line in outpatients can be reimbursed by the health insurance; which amounts to 110.4 €. The establishment therefore loses money with every implantation. However, PICC Lines offer to the patients a fast access to a central venous way and thus an optimal therapeutic care, fulfilling one of the main missions of the public health institutions. Implanted subcutaneous ports are economically worth being implanted only in ambulatory inpatients. Its implantation in radiology seemed more profitable because the indirect costs were much more moderate.
    Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises 09/2014; 73(3). DOI:10.1016/j.pharma.2014.08.001
  • 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 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The role of ultrasound examination in detection of postprocedure complications from totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) placement is still uncertain. In a cohort of 665 cancer outpatients, we assessed a quick ultrasound examination protocol in early detection of mechanical complications of catheterization. Immediately after TIVAD placement, an ultrasound examination and chest radiography were performed to detect hemothorax, pneumothorax, and catheter malposition. The two methods were compared. Of the 668 catheters inserted, 628 were placed into axillary veins and 40 into internal jugular veins. The ultrasound examination took 2.5 ± 1.1 min. No hemothorax was detected, and neither pneumothorax nor catheter malposition was evident among the 40 internal jugular vein cannulations. Ultrasound and chest radiography examinations of the 628 axillary vein cannulations detected five and four instances of pneumothorax, respectively. Ultrasound detected all six catheter malpositions into the internal jugular vein. However, ultrasound failed to detect two out of three malpositions in the contralateral brachiocephalic vein and one kinking inside the superior vena cava. Without revision surgery, the operating time was 34.1 ± 15.6 min. With revision surgery, the operating time was shorter when ultrasound detected catheter malposition than when chest radiography was used (96.8 ± 12.9 vs. 188.8 ± 10.3 min, p < 0.001). Postprocedure ultrasound examination is a quick and sensitive method to detect TIVAD-related pneumothorax. It also precisely detects catheter malposition to internal jugular vein thus reduces time needed for revision surgery while chest radiography remains necessary to confirm catheter final position.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2014; DOI:10.1245/s10434-014-4222-4 · 3.93 Impact Factor
Show more