4.4 Article

Placement and Removal of Inferior Vena Cava Filters: National Trends in the Medicare Population

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.12.021

关键词

Inferior vena cava filter placement; inferior vena cava filter removal; procedure utilization; socioeconomic trends

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate trends in the placement and removal of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the Medicare population. Methods: Summary Medicare claims data from 1999 through 2008 were used to identify the frequency of IVC filter placement procedures by specialty (radiology, surgery, cardiology, and all others) and site of service. Claims from 2003 (the first year the FDA cleared retrievable labeling for filters) through 2008 were used to identify intravascular foreign body retrieval procedures, and modeling was used estimate a frequency range of removal procedures. Trends over time were evaluated. Results: Between 1999 and 2008, total Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary frequency of IVC filter placement procedures increased by 111.5% (30,756 to 65,041). Volumes increased for radiologists (16,531 to 36,829 [+122.8%]), surgeons (11,295 to 22,606 [+100.1%]), and cardiologists (1,025 to 4,236 [+313.3%]). Relative specialty market shares changed little over time. Volumes increased by 114.2% (26,511 to 56,774) and 229.1% (2,286 to 7,524) for hospital inpatients and outpatients, respectively, and decreased by 62.1% (1,959 to 743) for those in all other locations combined. In 2008, with 65,041 filters placed, only an estimated 801 to 3,339 (1.2 to 5.1%) were removed. Conclusion: The frequency of IVC filter placement has doubled over the past decade, and radiologists continue to perform more than half of all procedures. Although volume has more than tripled in hospital outpatients, the inpatient setting remains by far the most common site of service. In the Medicare population, IVC filters are not commonly removed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据