The use of intravascular ultrasound during percutaneous coronary intervention does not reduce all cause in-hospital mortality but doubles the cost, with higher utilization in privately insured patients.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Postepy W Kardiologii Interwencyjnej Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-13 DOI:10.5114/aic.2024.142231
Mohammad Reza Movahed, Allistair Nathan, Mehrtash Hashemzadeh
{"title":"The use of intravascular ultrasound during percutaneous coronary intervention does not reduce all cause in-hospital mortality but doubles the cost, with higher utilization in privately insured patients.","authors":"Mohammad Reza Movahed, Allistair Nathan, Mehrtash Hashemzadeh","doi":"10.5114/aic.2024.142231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The effect of using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on short-term mortality is not well established.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate any association between the use of IVUS vs. no IVUS during PCI and mortality in a large inpatient database.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for available ICD-10 codes from 2016-2020 for IVUS and PCIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10,059,56 PCIs were performed. In 206,910, IVUS-guided PCI was performed vs. 9,852,359 without IVUS. Mortality did not differ between the two groups, with 2.52% mortality in the IVUS arm vs. 2.59% in no IVUS cohort, <i>p</i> = 0.4. The mean age of patients with IVUS use was 65.5 vs. 70.1 years without IVUS, <i>p</i> < 0.001. Total in-hospital cost in the IVUS group was double that without IVUS ($141,920 vs. $71,568, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Furthermore, IVUS utilization was significantly higher in patients with private health insurance (28.3% vs. 17.2%, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In-patient all-cause mortality using IVUS during PCI was similar to that in patients without IVUS utilization, but the cost was doubled, with higher utilization in privately insured patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49678,"journal":{"name":"Postepy W Kardiologii Interwencyjnej","volume":"20 3","pages":"271-276"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy W Kardiologii Interwencyjnej","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/aic.2024.142231","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The effect of using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on short-term mortality is not well established.

Aim: To evaluate any association between the use of IVUS vs. no IVUS during PCI and mortality in a large inpatient database.

Material and methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for available ICD-10 codes from 2016-2020 for IVUS and PCIs.

Results: A total of 10,059,56 PCIs were performed. In 206,910, IVUS-guided PCI was performed vs. 9,852,359 without IVUS. Mortality did not differ between the two groups, with 2.52% mortality in the IVUS arm vs. 2.59% in no IVUS cohort, p = 0.4. The mean age of patients with IVUS use was 65.5 vs. 70.1 years without IVUS, p < 0.001. Total in-hospital cost in the IVUS group was double that without IVUS ($141,920 vs. $71,568, p < 0.001). Furthermore, IVUS utilization was significantly higher in patients with private health insurance (28.3% vs. 17.2%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In-patient all-cause mortality using IVUS during PCI was similar to that in patients without IVUS utilization, but the cost was doubled, with higher utilization in privately insured patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗过程中使用血管内超声并不能降低所有病因的院内死亡率,但会使费用增加一倍,私人保险患者的使用率更高。
简介:在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)过程中使用血管内超声(IVUS)对短期死亡率的影响尚未明确:在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)过程中使用血管内超声(IVUS)对短期死亡率的影响尚未明确。目的:在大型住院患者数据库中评估PCI过程中使用IVUS与不使用IVUS与死亡率之间的关系:我们使用了全国住院患者样本(NIS)数据库中2016-2020年IVUS和PCIs的可用ICD-10代码:共进行了 10,059,56 例 PCI。其中206910例在IVUS引导下进行了PCI,而9852359例未使用IVUS。两组死亡率无差异,IVUS引导组死亡率为2.52%,无IVUS引导组为2.59%,P = 0.4。使用IVUS的患者平均年龄为65.5岁,而未使用IVUS的患者平均年龄为70.1岁,P < 0.001。IVUS 组的院内总费用是未使用 IVUS 组的两倍(141,920 美元对 71,568 美元,p < 0.001)。此外,私人医疗保险患者使用IVUS的比例明显更高(28.3%对17.2%,p < 0.001):结论:PCI期间使用IVUS的住院全因死亡率与未使用IVUS的患者相似,但费用增加了一倍,私人医保患者的使用率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Postepy W Kardiologii Interwencyjnej
Postepy W Kardiologii Interwencyjnej 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
36
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Postępy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej/Advances in Interventional Cardiology is indexed in: Index Copernicus, Ministry of Science and Higher Education Index (MNiSW). Advances in Interventional Cardiology is a quarterly aimed at specialists, mainly at cardiologists and cardiosurgeons. Official journal of the Association on Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society.
期刊最新文献
A new and easy parameter to predict the requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation after transaortic valve implantation: aortic knob calcification. A treatment strategy using directional coronary atherectomy for percutaneous coronary intervention in calcified nodules. Cardiac troponin I release after transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects is associated with supraventricular arrhythmias on early follow-up. Commentary: A multi-center study of the MicroNET-covered stent in consecutive patients with acute carotid-related stroke: SAFEGUARD-STROKE. Efficacy of oral treprostinil for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1