Dataset Information

Association of Health Insurance Payer Type and Outcomes After Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: An Analysis of the STS-INTERMACS Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Due to the high cost of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy, payer type may be an important factor in determining eligibility. How payer type influences outcomes after LVAD implantation is unclear. We, therefore, aimed to study the association of health insurance payer type with outcomes after durable LVAD implantation.

Methods

Using STS-INTERMACS (Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support), we studied nonelderly adults receiving a durable LVAD from 2016 to 2018 and compared all-cause mortality and postindex hospitalization adverse event episode rate by payer type. Multivariable Fine-Gray and generalized linear models were used to compare the outcomes.

Results

Of the 3251 patients included, 26.0% had Medicaid, 24.9% had Medicare alone, and 49.1% had commercial insurance. Compared with commercially insured patients, mortality did not differ for patients with Medicaid (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.75-1.34], P=0.99) or Medicare (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.84-1.41], P=0.52). Medicaid was associated with a significantly lower adjusted incidence rate (incidence rate ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99], P=0.041), and Medicare was associated with a significantly higher adjusted incidence rate (incidence rate ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.03-1.30], P=0.011) of adverse event episodes compared with commercially insured patients.

Conclusions

All-cause mortality after durable LVAD implantation did not differ significantly by payer type. Payer type was associated with the rate of adverse events, with Medicaid associated with a significantly lower rate, and Medicare with a significantly higher rate of adverse event episodes compared with commercially insured patients.

SUBMITTER: Khatana SAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153026 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Health Insurance Payer Type and Outcomes After Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: An Analysis of the STS-INTERMACS Registry.

Khatana Sameed Ahmed M SAM Hanff Thomas C TC Nathan Ashwin S AS Dayoub Elias J EJ Grandin E Wilson EW Rame J Eduardo JE Fanaroff Alexander C AC Giri Jay J Groeneveld Peter W PW

Circulation. Heart failure 20210515 5

<h4>Background</h4>Due to the high cost of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy, payer type may be an important factor in determining eligibility. How payer type influences outcomes after LVAD implantation is unclear. We, therefore, aimed to study the association of health insurance payer type with outcomes after durable LVAD implantation.<h4>Methods</h4>Using STS-INTERMACS (Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support), we studied none ...[more]

PMID: 33993721

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation across a range of center surgical volumes.BackgroundIn order for a center to qualify for reimbursement, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires it to implant ≥10 LVADs or total artificial hearts over a 3-year period. The impact of center LVAD surgical volumes on patient outcomes has not been thoroughly scrutinized.MethodsCenter volumes were provided for 7,416 patients undergoing LVAD implantation who were enrolled in INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). Center LVAD volume was categorized as either very low (≤10 implants/year, n = 617), low (11 to 30 implants/year, n = 2,561), medium (31 to 50 implants/year, n = 2,458), or high (>50 implants/year, n = 1,750). The main outcome of interest was patient survival based on center volume derived from Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression.ResultsOverall survival was associated with center volume (p = 0.003), as follows: 71 ± 1.8% (very low volume), 81 ± 0.8% (low volume), 83 ± 0.8% (medium volume), and 79 ± 1.0% (high volume) at 1 year. Compared with medium volume centers, the 90-day mortality was higher in very low volume (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35; p = 0.04) and high volume (OR: 1.28; p = 0.018) VAD centers. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11 to 1.56), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.21), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.30) for very low, low, and high volume centers, respectively. Center volume did not predict mortality (p = 0.25; n = 3,688) in INTERMACS profile 1 patients (patients who had sustained cardiogenic shock) and profile 2 patients (patients with progressive hemodynamic decline despite inotropes).ConclusionsCenter volume correlates with post-VAD survival, with worse survival noted at very-low volume centers. These findings suggest that current U.S. VAD center standards warrant reconsideration.

Project description:BackgroundOur current understanding of right heart failure (RHF) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is lacking. Recently, a new Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support definition of RHF was introduced. Based on this definition, we investigated natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of post-LVAD RHF.MethodsPatients implanted with continuous flow LVAD between June 2, 2014, and June 30, 2016 and registered in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were included. RHF incidence and predictors, and survival after RHF were assessed. The manifestations of RHF which were separately analyzed were elevated central venous pressure, peripheral edema, ascites, and use of inotropes.ResultsAmong 5537 LVAD recipients (mean 57±13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of 1-month RHF was 24%. Of these, RHF persisted at 12 months in 5.3%. In contrast, de novo RHF, first identified at 3 months, occurred in 5.1% and persisted at 12 months in 17% of these, and at 6 months occurred in 4.8% and persisted at 12 months in 25%. Higher preimplant blood urea nitrogen (ORs,1.03-1.09 per 5 mg/dL increase; P<0.0001), previous tricuspid valve repair/replacement (ORs, 2.01-10.09; P<0.001), severely depressed right ventricular systolic function (ORs,1.17-2.20; P=0.004); and centrifugal versus axial LVAD (ORs,1.15-1.78; P=0.001) represented risk factors for RHC incidence at 3 months. Patients with persistent RHF at 3 months had the lowest 2-year survival (57%) while patients with de novo RHF or RHF which resolved by 3 months had more favorable survival outcomes (75% and 78% at 2 years, respectively; P<0.001).ConclusionsRHF at 1 or 3 months post-LVAD was a common and frequently transient condition, which, if resolved, was associated with relatively favorable prognosis. Conversely, de novo, late RHF post-LVAD (>6 months) was more frequently a persistent disorder and associated with increased mortality. The 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points may be used for RHF assessment and risk stratification in LVAD recipients.

Dataset Information

Association of Health Insurance Payer Type and Outcomes After Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: An Analysis of the STS-INTERMACS Registry.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Association of Health Insurance Payer Type and Outcomes After Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: An Analysis of the STS-INTERMACS Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets