ArticleCureus2022
Changes to Drug-Coated Balloon Reimbursement Affect Peripheral Arterial Disease Patient Care: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBalloon angioplasty (BA) and stenting have long been the mainstays of endovascular therapy in peripheral arterial disease (PAD). However, the rise of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has revolutionized care in recent years, with multiple clinical trials showing superiority over BA in maintaining primary patency and freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR). With the recent drop of the add-on payment for DCBs, a barrier for their use and consequently reduced therapy adoption in PAD might arise. We assessed if this affected physicians' behavior and hospital administration towards stocking and using DCBs.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective study evaluated DCB utilization in 2017 versus 2018. Data were collected in two groups: 1) July 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017 - with pass-through code (PTC) - prior medical billing reimbursement - and 2) January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018 - without PTC - markedly reduced reimbursement. Patients treated for superficial femoral artery (SFA) or popliteal artery (POP) disease were included. The study aimed to determine changes in DCB utilization between the years with and without PTC, and we investigated the treatments that have replaced DCBs. Additionally, we aimed to collect data on readmissions and procedure costs compared to national data.
resultsFrom July through December 2017, 350 DCBs were used in 209 patients (1.675 DCBs per patient), while from January through June 2018, 256 DCBs were used in 180 patients (1.422 DCBs per patient) - a 15.07% reduction in DCBs per patient. The detailed numbers of DCB-treated patients were presented as fractions of total interventions in the groups with and without PTC.
conclusionThe findings of this study show a statistically significant reduction in DCB usage following PTC withdrawal. There are several ethical implications to these findings, primarily highlighting patient beneficence and justice. Moving forward, it will be important to determine if this shift in treatment is owed to other treatment strategies such as BA, BA and atherectomy, BA and bare-metal stents (BMS), or BA and drug-eluting-stents (DES). The next steps should also include determining procedure costs and comparing readmission rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.