Central venous access: evolving roles of radiology and other specialties nationally over two decades

Value of projectional imaging relative to cross-sectional imaging to assess catheter tip position in the superior vena cava: evaluation of reader variability

OBJECTIVES

The cavo-atrial junction (CAJ) is the most appropriate central venous catheters CVC tip location to reduce complications. Among chest X-ray (CXR) landmarks for tips assessment, only the pericardial reflection lies in the same plane as the vascular structures. We aimed to evaluate the observer variability to determine tip positioning on CXR, using CT as a gold standard.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 107 CT scans of patients with port catheters (January-December 2021). The tip to CAJ distance (DCAJ) was measured on both projectional (PJ) and cross-sectional (CS) CT images by 2 × 2 observers (within and between evaluations). Observational statistics included paired t-tests, repeatability coefficients (RC), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), with data visualized using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

All ICC were >0.9, indicating excellent reliability. The mean difference between observers comparing CS and PJ was 0.13 ± 0.80 cm (P = .10) with outer 95% confidence limits of 1.92 cm and -2.17 cm and an RC of 1.79 cm.

CONCLUSION

CXR provides a reliable method for CVC tip localization, though assessment variability is ±2 cm.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

CXR assessment of CVC tips shows both intra- and inter-individual variability, due to challenges in identifying the CAJ and catheter tip . While considering the 3 cm anatomical zone around the CAJ acceptable, operators should be aware of the 2 cm variability resulting from CXR assessment. To account for this variability and avoid the risk of positioning the tip beyond 3 cm from the CAJ, operators should reduce the CXR-based acceptable zone to 1 cm around the CAJ, impacting approximately 30% of procedures.

The Laterality of Port Catheter Placement in Breast Cancer Patients: Investigating the Impact of Side Selection

Breast cancer, the most prevalent malignancy in women, has witnessed an increased incidence alongside the rising use of port catheters and chemotherapy. Despite the conventional practice of contralateral port placement, the impact of side selection on complications remains unclear, necessitating a nuanced investigation. This prospective cross-sectional study, conducted from 2021 to 2022, involved 100 females over 18 undergoing port catheter placements for breast cancer. Meticulous data collection included patient demographics, procedure details, and postoperative complications. Statistical analyses were employed to assess variables, and ethical principles were followed. Findings revealed no statistically significant differences in complication rates between ipsilateral and contralateral placements. The absence of infections, fractures, thrombosis, or catheter displacement underscored overall safety. Intriguingly, no discernible impact on breast cancer subtype distribution was observed, challenging conventional assumptions. This investigation into the laterality of port catheter placement in breast cancer patients yielded promising outcomes. The absence of significant complications and the negligible impact on cancer subtype distribution underscore the safety and efficacy of this intervention. However, individual patient characteristics and procedural nuances should guide decisions about port catheter placement, contributing valuable insights to optimize strategies for improved patient outcomes.

Beyond the Procedure Log: Using Individualized Learning Plans to Set Learner-Specific Milestones for Procedural Skills Acquisition

ABSTRACT

Procedural training for nonsurgical fields, such as internal medicine, is an important component of medical education. However, recent changes to accreditation guidelines have resulted in less formal guidance on procedural competency, not only leading to opportunities for individualizing training but also creating potential problems for trainees and training programs. In this article, the authors use internal medicine as an exemplar to review current strategies for procedural education in nonsurgical fields, including procedural simulation, dedicated procedural rotations, and advanced subspecialty training, and highlight an emerging need for learner-specific terminal milestones in procedural training. Individualized learning plans (ILPs), collections of trainee-specific objectives for learning, are arguably a useful strategy for organizing procedural training. The role of ILPs as a framework to support setting learner-specific terminal milestones, guide skill acquisition, and allocate procedural learning opportunities based on trainees' anticipated career plans is subsequently explored, and how an ILP-based approach might be implemented within the complex educational milieu of a clinical training program is examined. The limitations and pitfalls of an ILP-based approach, including the need for development of coaching programs, are considered. The authors conclude that, despite the limitations of ILPs, when combined with other current strategies for building trainees' procedural competence, these plans may help trainees maximize the educational benefits of their training period and can encourage effective, safer, and equitable allocation of procedural practice opportunities.

Comparison of ECG Saline-Conduction Technique and ECG Wire-Based Technique for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is commonly used in medicine. The tip position was shown to be a major determinant in PICC function and related complications. Recent advances in ECG guidance might facilitate daily practice. This study aimed to compare two ECG techniques, in terms of their tip-position accuracy, puncture site layout, and signal quality; (2) Methods: This randomized open study (1:1) included 320 participants. One PICC guidance technique used ECG signal transmission with saline (ST); the other technique used a guidewire (WT). Techniques were compared by the distance between the catheter tip and the cavoatrial junction (DCAJ) on chest X-rays, insertion-point hemostasis time, and the extracorporeal catheter length between the hub and the insertion point; (3) Results: The mean DCAJs were significantly different between ST (1.36 cm, 95% CI: 1.22-1.37) and WT (1.12 cm, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; p = 0.013) groups. When DCAJs were classified as optimal, suboptimal, or inadequate, the difference between techniques had limited clinical impact (p = 0.085). However, the hemostasis time at the puncture site was significantly better with WT (no delay in 82% of patients) compared to ST (no delay in 50% of patients; p < 0.001). Conversely, ST achieved optimal and suboptimal extracorporeal lengths significantly more frequently than WT (100% vs. 66%; p < 0.001); (4) Conclusions: ECG guidance technologies achieved significantly different tip placements, but the difference had minimal clinical impact. Nevertheless, each technique displayed an important drawback at the PICC insertion point: the extracorporeal catheter was significantly longer with WT and the hemostasis delay was significantly longer with ST.

Central venous access in children: Placement trends over the last decade

PURPOSE

To evaluate central venous access placement trends for radiology and non-radiology services over the last decade.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children who had central venous access procedures included in a large administrative database of 49 pediatric institutions in the United States between 2010 and 2020 were included. Patient demographics and patient specific factors were compared between groups. The percentage of procedures performed by interventional radiology (IR) and non-radiology services were compared over time and by region.

RESULTS

A total of 483,181 vascular access encounters were recorded (45.3% female; median age 2 years (IQR 0-11 years)). Approximately one quarter of vascular access encounters were IR-led, with a slight increase of 3.8% between 2010 and 2020. Children who underwent IR-placed vascular access were older (median age of 4 years compared to 1 year in non-radiology encounters). Interventional radiology-placed access was greatest in the Midwest (33.5%) with a decrease of 5.9% over the study period; in the other three regions, IR-performed encounters increased. Patient comorbidities more prevalent in the IR encounters were technology dependence (42.4% of all radiology encounters), gastrointestinal (34.9%), respiratory (20.8%), and transplant (8.1%), while those which were more prevalent in the non-radiology encounters were nephrology/urology (21.4% of all non-radiology encounters), prematurity/neonatal (17.3%), and malignancy (17.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional radiology-provided vascular access services have slightly increased over the last decade without significant service-line transfer to other specialties. Underlying comorbidities in IR-led vascular access encounters vary across institutions based on referral patterns, possibly reflecting the adoption of ultrasound guidance by other pediatric subspecialties.

Professional Services Rendered by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Employed by Radiology Practices: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019

PURPOSE

With radiology practices increasingly employing nonphysician practitioners (NPPs), we aimed to characterize specific NPP clinical roles.

METHODS

Linking 2017 to 2019 Medicare data sets, we identified all claims-submitting nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together NPPs) employed by radiologists. NPP-billed services were identified, weighted by work relative value units, and categorized as (1) clinical evaluation and management (E&M), (2) invasive procedures, and (3) noninvasive imaging interpretation. NPP practice patterns were assessed temporally and using frequency analysis.

RESULTS

As the number of radiologist-employed NPPs submitting claims increased 16.3% (from 523 in 2017 to 608 in 2019), their aggregate Medicare fee-for-service work relative value units increased 17.3% (+40.0% for E&M [from 79,540 to 111,337]; +5.6% for procedures [from 179,044 to 189,003]; and +74.0% for imaging [from 5,087 to 8,850]). The number performing E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation increased 7.6% (from 329 to 354), 18.3% (from 387 to 458), and 31.8% (from 85 to 112), with 58.2%, 75.3%, and 18.4% billing those services in 2019. Paracentesis and thoracentesis were the most frequently billed invasive procedures. Fluoroscopic swallowing and bone densitometry examinations were the most frequently billed imaging services. By region, NPPs practicing as majority clinical E&M providers were most common in the Midwest (33.5%) and South (33.0%), majority proceduralists in the South (53.1%), and majority image interpreters in the Midwest (50.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

As radiology practices employ more NPPs, radiologist-employed NPPs' aggregate services have increased for E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation. Most radiologist-employed NPPs perform invasive procedures and E&M. Although performed by a small minority, imaging interpretation has shown the largest relative service growth.

Usefulness of peripherally inserted central catheter port system (PICC-PORT) implantation in the sitting position: a new technique for cases unsuitable for conventional implantation

PURPOSE

Totally implantable central venous access port implantation is typically performed in the supine position. However, some patients cannot adopt the supine position due to severe pain and/or dyspnea. The present study evaluated the technical feasibility of peripherally inserted central catheter port system (PICC-PORT) implantation in the sitting position in such cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the sitting position method, PICC-PORT implantation was performed with the patients seated on a videofluoroscopy chair positioned between the limbs of an angiographic C-arm and the operative upper arm positioned on an arm stand. From January 2019 to September 2021, eight patients underwent PICC-PORT implantations using this sitting method. We also evaluated 251 consecutive patients with conventional supine position PICC-PORT implantation as controls. Differences in technical success, procedure time and complications were retrospectively assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS

Procedural success rates were 100% in both groups. Median procedure times in the sitting and conventional groups were 42 and 44 min, respectively. No complications were observed in the sitting group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in procedure time (p = 0.674) and complications (p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of PICC-PORT in the sitting position is technically feasible and useful.

Interventional radiologists have equitable outcomes and lower costs from totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) placement compared to operating room placement

PURPOSE

Compare the cost and outcomes of surgical and interventional radiology (IR) placement of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) within a large regional health system to determine the service line with better outcomes and lower costs to the health system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all chest port placements performed in the operating room (OR) and the IR suite over 12 months was conducted at a large, integrated health system with six major hospitals. Secondary electronic health record (EHR) and cost data were used to identify TIVAD placements, follow-up procedures indicating port malfunction, early adverse events (within 1-month post-surgery), late adverse events (2-12 months post-procedure), and health system cost of TIVAD placement and management.

RESULTS

For 799 total port placements included in this analysis, the rate of major adverse events was 1.3% for IR and 1.9% for OR during early follow-up (p=0.5655) and 4.9% for IR and 2.8% for OR during late follow-up (p=0.5437). Malfunction-related follow-up procedure rates were 1.8% for IR and 2.6% for OR during early follow-up (p=0.4787), and 12.4% for IR and 10.5% for OR during late follow-up (p=0.4354). The mean cost of port placement per patient was $4,509 for IR and $5,247 for OR. The difference in per-patient cost of port placement was $1,170 greater for OR (p=0.0074).

CONCLUSIONS

The similar rates of adverse events and follow-up procedures and significant differences in insertion cost suggest that IR TIVAD placement may be more cost-efficient than surgical placement without impacting quality.

Growth in Thoracentesis and Paracentesis Performed by Radiology and Advanced Practice Providers: Medicare Volume and Reimbursement Trends From 2012 to 2018

PURPOSE

To study trends in volume and reimbursement for paracentesis and thoracentesis by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) after the introduction of discreet Current Procedural Terminology codes for image-guidance.

METHODS

Medicare claims for 2012 to 2018 (paracentesis) and 2013 to 2018 (thoracentesis) were extracted using Current Procedural Terminology codes for blind and image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis. Total volumes were analyzed by provider specialty. Nonfacility reimbursement and relative value units were compared.

RESULTS

For blind paracentesis, volume decreased from 17,393 to 12,226 procedures from 2012 to 2018. Conversely, volume of image-guided paracentesis increased from 171,631 to 253,834 procedures. Radiology performed the majority of image-guide paracentesis (83.9% in 2012 and 77.1% in 2018). Volume and relative share for APPs dramatically increased (from 10.2% to 15.8%). For blind thoracentesis, volume decreased from 26,716 to 15,075 procedures from 2013 to 2018. Conversely, volume of image-guided thoracentesis increased from 187,168 to 222,673 procedures. Radiology performed the majority of image-guided thoracentesis (73.6% in 2013 and 66.2% in 2018). Volume and relative share for APPs dramatically increased (from 7.7% to 12.9%). Although reimbursement for both image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis decreased, their reimbursement remained higher than that of blind paracentesis and thoracentesis throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

A higher percentage of these procedures are being performed using image guidance; radiologists performed a growing number but declining percentage of image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis. APPs are playing an increasing role, particularly using image-guidance. Given decreasing reimbursement for these procedures, APPs can provide a large cost advantage in procedural radiology practices.

Pre-Procedure Thrombocytopenia and Leukopenia Association with Risk for Infection in Image-Guided Tunneled Central Venous Catheter Placement

Placement of image-guided tunneled and non-tunneled large-bore central venous catheters (CVCs) are common procedures in interventional radiology. Although leukopenia and/or thrombocytopenia are common at the time of placement, the roles these factors may have in subsequent catheter-related infection have yet to be investigated. A single-institution retrospective review was performed in patients who underwent CVC placement in interventional radiology between 11/2018–6/2019. The electronic medical record was used to obtain demographics, procedure details, pre-placement laboratory values, and the subsequent 90-day follow-up. A total of 178 tunneled and non-tunneled CVCs met inclusion criteria during this time period. White blood cell (WBC) and platelet counts were found to be significant risk factors for subsequent infection. Administration of pre-procedure antibiotics was not found to be a significant factor for subsequent infection (p = 0.075). Leukopenia and thrombocytopenia at the time of CVC placement are both risk factors of line infection for tunneled large-bore CVCs. This should lead to the consideration of using a non-tunneled CVC when clinically feasible, or the delayed placement of these catheters until counts recover.

Nationwide Trends in Catheter-Directed Therapy Utilization for the Treatment of Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Medicare Beneficiaries

PURPOSE

To determine overall and provider specialty trends in the use of catheter-directed therapy for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) treatment in the Medicare population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data obtained from 2007-2017 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 5% research identifiable files, all claims associated with acute and chronic lower extremity DVT were identified. The annual volume of 2 services-venous percutaneous transluminal thrombectomy (current procedural terminology [CPT] code 37187) and venous infusion for thrombolysis (CPT code 37201 from 2007 to 2012 and CPT code 37212 from 2013 to 2017)-was examined for trends in DVT intervention. Utilization rates based on region and the place of service were calculated. The results were further categorized based on primary operator type (radiology, cardiology, surgery, and other).

RESULTS

The total number of DVT interventions increased over time, with 4.27 service counts per 100,000 beneficiaries in 2007 increasing to 13.4 by 2017, a growth rate of 12.09%. Radiologists performed the majority of interventions each year, except in 2013, in which they performed 46.6% of interventions, whereas surgeons and cardiologists combined performed the other 53.4%. In 2017, radiologists performed 7.56 services per 100,000 beneficiaries, which was 56.8% of the total count, more than those performed by surgeons, cardiologists, and unspecified providers combined.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter-directed therapy is increasingly being used for the treatment of DVT, with its use undergoing a nearly 12-fold increase from 2007 to 2017 in the Medicare population. Radiologists remained the dominant provider of these services throughout the majority of study period, with a relative reduction in market share from 72% in 2007 to 57% in 2017.

An expanding role for interventional radiology: Medicare trends in fluoroscopic, endoscopic, and surgical enteric tube placement and maintenance from 2010 to 2018

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to provide an update on trends in physician volume and payments for enteric tube placement and maintenance procedures by method, provider specialty, and practice setting amongst Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Claims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File (PSPSMF) for the years 2010 to 2018 were extracted using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for gastrostomy and jejunostomy placement, as well as conversion of gastrostomy to gastrojejunostomy, fluoroscopy guided and non-image guided replacement. Total volumes and provider reimbursement were analyzed by provider specialty and practice setting.

RESULTS

Volume of de novo placement of all enteric tubes decreased from 157,123 to 106,549 (-32.2%). While endoscopic placement decreased from 133,658 to 81,171 (-39.3%), the volume of fluoroscopic placement increased from 17,999 to 21,277 (18.2%). Fluoroscopic placement was largely performed by interventional radiology (IR) (91.7% in 2018). Surgical placement decreased from 5466 to 4101 (-25.0%). Volume of fluoroscopic replacement increased from 24,799 to 38,470 (55.1%), while non-image guided replacements decreased from 61,377 to 55,116 (-10.2%). Share of both fluoroscopic and non-image guided replacements by advanced practice providers (APPs) more than doubled over this time period.

CONCLUSION

De novo placement of enteric tubes decreased from 2010 to 2018, likely related to increased awareness of the complications and limited benefits in scenarios such as end of life care. In contrast to the diminishing volume for gastroenterologists, there was increased participation by IR in both placement and maintenance procedures under fluoroscopic guidance.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Decreasing placement of enteric tubes suggests shifting attitudes and recommendations around end-of-life care. Increase in role by IR/APPs highlights the need for comprehensive care in these patients.

Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900)

OBJECTIVES

PORTAS-3 was designed to compare the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax in a primary open versus closed strategy for port implantation.

BACKGROUND DATA

The implantation strategy for totally implantable venous access ports with the optimal benefit/risk ratio remains unclear.

METHODS

PORTAS-3 was a multicentre, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Adult patients with oncological disease scheduled for elective port implantation were randomized to a primary open or closed strategy. Primary endpoint was the rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax. Assuming a difference of 2.5% between the 2 groups, a sample size of 1154 patients was needed to prove superiority of the open group. A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Between November 9, 2014 and September 5, 2016, 1205 patients were randomized. Of these, 1159 (open n = 583; closed n = 576) were finally analyzed. The rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax was significantly reduced with the open strategy [odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.88; P = 0.029]. Operation time was shorter for the closed strategy. Primary success rates, tolerability, morbidity, dose rate of radiation, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSION

A primary open strategy by cut-down of the cephalic vein, if necessary enhanced by a modified Seldinger technique, reduces the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax after central venous port implantation significantly compared with a closed strategy by primary puncture of the subclavian vein without routine sonographic guidance. Therefore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable cohorts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS 00004900.

Appropriateness of Replacing Fluoroscopic Guidance With ECG-Electromagnetic Guidance for PICC Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE. Coupled ECG-electromagnetic (EM) guidance shows promise for use in placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) when compared with the classic blind technique. However, ECG-EM guidance has not been appropriately compared with the reference standard of fluoroscopy (FX) guidance. Here, we aimed to compare ECG-EM guidance with FX guidance with regard to the final tip position of PICCs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A total of 120 patients (age range, 19-94 years) referred for PICC placement were randomized to the ECG-EM or FX group. All interventions were performed by PICC team members who had the same standardized training and experience. Final tip position was assessed using chest radiography and was classified as optimal, suboptimal, or inadequate requiring repositioning on the basis of the distance from the PICC tip to the cavoatrial junction (CAJ). Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test for final catheter tip position (mean distance from CAJ) and Fisher and chi-square tests for proportions. RESULTS. PICCs were successfully inserted in 118 patients (53 men and 65 women). Catheter tip positions were optimal or suboptimal in 100% of the FX group and 77.2% of the ECG-EM group. Furthermore, precision of placement was significantly better (p = .004) in the FX group (mean distance from the PICC tip to the CAJ = 0.83 cm) than in the ECGEM group (mean distance from the PICC tip to the CAJ = 1.37 cm). Thirteen (22.8%) of the PICCs placed using ECG-EM guidance, all of which were inserted from the left side, were qualified as inadequate requiring repositioning and required another intervention. CONCLUSION. Our results revealed significant differences in final tip position between the ECG-EM and FX guidance techniques and indicate that ECG-EM guidance cannot appropriately replace FX guidance among unselected patients. However, ECGEM guidance could be considered as an acceptable technique for patients in whom the PICC could be inserted from the right side. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652727.

Totally implantable venous access port insertion via open Seldinger approach of the internal jugular vein-a retrospective risk stratification of 500 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

Modern oncological treatment algorithms require a central venous device in form of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP). While most commonly used techniques are surgical cutdown of the cephalic vein or percutaneous puncture of the subclavian vein, there are a relevant number of patients in which an additional strategy is needed. The aim of the current study is to present a surgical technique for TIVAP implantation via an open Seldinger approach of the internal jugular vein and to characterize risk factors, associated with primary failure as well as short- (< 30 days) and long-term (> 30 days) complications.

METHODS

A total of 500 patients were included and followed up for 12 months. Demographic and intraoperative data and short- as well as long-term complications were extracted. Primary endpoint was TIVAP removal due to complication. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze associated risk factors.

RESULTS

Surgery was primarily successful in all cases, while success was defined as functional (positive aspiration and infusion test) TIVAP which was implanted via open Seldinger approach of the jugular vein at the intended site. TIVAP removal due to complications during the 1st year occurred in 28 cases (5.6%) while a total of 4 (0.8%) intraoperative complications were noted. Rates for short- and long-term complications were 0.8% and 6.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While the presented technique requires relatively long procedure times, it is a safe and reliable method for TIVAP implantation. Our results might help to further introduce the presented technique as a secondary approach in modern TIVAP surgery.

Evolving Use of fMRI in Medicare Beneficiaries

Using the Medicare Physician-Supplier Procedure Summary Master File, we evaluated the evolving use of fMRI in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 2007 through 2017. Annual use rates (per 1,000,000 enrollees) increased from 17.7 to 32.8 through 2014 and have remained static since. Radiologists have remained the dominant specialty group from 2007 to 2017 (86.4% and 88.6% of all services, respectively), and the outpatient setting has remained the dominant place of service (65.4% and 65.4%, respectively).

Capacity Prioritization Initiative Reduced the Wait Time for Port Placement and Facilitated Increased Volume of Port Placements at a Large County Health System

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Wait time from request to placement of ports in interventional radiology had increased from 14 to 27 days over a 4-month period. The goal of this project was to reduce the wait time by 15% within 4 months while accommodating additional volume.

INSTITUIONAL APPROACH TO ADDRESS PROBLEM

Capacity analysis revealed 2 bottlenecks: (1) inadequate provider capacity for preprocedural visits in interventional radiology clinic and (2) inadequate number of spots for port placement in the angiography schedule. The intervention consisted of: (1) 2 reserved slots in the attending physician's morning clinic schedule and (2) 3 daily guaranteed spots for port placement in the angiography suite. Both changes were integrated into the electronic medical record scheduling system.

DESCRIPTION OF OUTCOMES

After the intervention, per biweekly period, the number of port requests increased by 17% (Preintervention: 16.6 ± 3.1, Postintervention: 20.1 ± 4.1, P = 0.03), the number of completed clinic visits increased by 19% (Preintervention: 16.7 ± 5.1, Postintervention: 20.5 ± 3.6, P = 0.05), and the number of port placements increased by 19% (Preintervention: 16.9 ± 3.9, Postintervention: 21.0 ± 3.5, P = 0.02). The average wait time from request to placement decreased by 22% (Preintervention: 22.2 ± 4.4 days, Postintervention: 18.3 ± 3.4 days, P = 0.03), driven by a 49% decrease in wait time between request and clinic visit (Preintervention: 11.0 ± 2.3 days, Postintervention: 7.4 ± 1.0 days, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritization of clinic and angiography suite capacity, integrated into the electronic scheduling system, significantly reduced the wait time for port placement, even with significant increases in the volume of port requests.

Effects of the MAGIC Guidelines on PICC Placement Volume: Advanced Practice Provider and Physician Trends Among Medicare Beneficiaries From 2010 to 2018

BACKGROUND. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) was published in 2015, recommending more restricted indications for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement, particularly for those placed by physicians. Changes in PICC placement volume since the publication of MAGIC is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to study the trends in volume and reimbursement for PICC placement by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) for Medicare enrollees from 2010 to 2018 with specific attention to the changes in volume after the publication of MAGIC in 2015. METHODS. Claims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File for the years 2010-2018 were extracted using the Current Procedural Terminology code for PICC placement. Total volume and payment amounts (for the professional component) were analyzed. Trendline slopes for volume per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries before and after the 2015 publication of MAGIC were compared. RESULTS. Volume for PICC placement by physicians and APPs steadily declined from 243,837 in 2010 to 130,361 in 2018 (46.5%). The PICC placement volume decreased sharply after the 2015 publication of the MAGIC guidelines. The slope of the trendline for all providers from 2010 to 2015 was -3.4 compared with -7.3 from 2015 to 2018. The change in slope was more pronounced for radiologists (-3.1 to -5.6) than for APPs (0.0 to -1.1). Professional payment per procedure for radiologists decreased from $78.04 in 2010 to $70.17 in 2018, and reimbursement for APPs proportionally decreased from $65.76 to $60.66 during this time. The relative share of PICC placement by radiologists declined from 77.0% in 2010 to 70.6% in 2018, with a corresponding increase in relative share by APPs from 13.5% to 18.4%. The percentage placed in outpatient procedures increased from 15.1% to 18.2%. CONCLUSION. The volume of PICC placements has steadily decreased since 2010, with a sharper decline between 2015 and 2016 corresponding with the publication of the MAGIC evidence-based guidelines. The role of APPs in PICC placement has increased over this time period. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings of this study suggest that evidence-based guidelines impact clinical practice on a national level.

Role of Venous Access Port Cultures in the Management of Port-Related Infections

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of port and catheter tip cultures on the clinical management of port-related infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients whose ports were removed for infection between January 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively identified. The study sample included 68 ports removed for suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and 27 ports removed for local infection. Port surface, catheter tip, and blood culture results were recorded. Antimicrobial therapy before and after port removal was recorded. The impact of culture results on port infection management was determined.

RESULTS

Of the 68 ports removed from patients with CRBSI, 78% received empiric antibiotics. Of these patients, blood cultures led to a change in therapy in 77%. Catheter tip cultures were positive in 32% whereas port surface cultures were positive in 53% of patients. Culture results did not influence antimicrobial therapy in any patient with CRBSI. Of 27 port removals performed for local infection, catheter tip cultures were positive in 41% whereas port surface cultures were positive in 59% of patients. Port surface cultures led to a change in therapy in 33% of local infections. Port surface cultures were significantly more likely to impact management if removal was performed for local infection than for CRBSI (33% vs. 0%, respectively; P < .001). Port surface cultures were inclusive of all positive catheter tip cultures.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with suspected CRBSI, blood cultures alone are sufficient to guide therapy. Port cultures may be justified in the setting of local infection. Catheter tip cultures are unnecessary if port surface cultures are performed.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Case Management

Anesthesiology teams care for children in diverse locations, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology units, and cardiac catheterization laboratories. To provide safe, high-quality care, anesthesiologists working in these environments must understand the unique environmental and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location and patient population. Once these variables are addressed, anesthesia and procedural teams can coordinate to ensure that patients and families receive the same high-quality care that they have come to expect in the operating room. This article also describes some of the considerations for anesthetic care in outfield locations.

Trends in Central Venous Catheter Insertions by Anesthesia Providers: An Analysis of the Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary From 2007 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Central line insertion is a core skill for anesthesiologists. Although recent technical advances have increased the safety of central line insertion and reduced the risk of central line-associated infection, noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring and improved intravenous access techniques have also reduced the need for perioperative central venous access. We hypothesized that the number of central lines inserted by anesthesiologists has decreased over the past decade. To test our hypothesis, we reviewed the Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) database from 2007 to 2016.

METHODS

Claims for central venous catheter placement were identified in the Medicare PSPS database for nontunneled and tunneled central lines. Pulmonary artery catheter insertion was included as a nontunneled line claim. We stratified line insertion claims by specialty for Anesthesiology (including Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists and Anesthesiology Assistants), Surgery, Radiology, Pulmonary/Critical Care, Emergency Physicians, Internal Medicine, and practitioners who were not anesthesia providers such as Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) and Physician Assistants (PAs). Utilization rates per 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries were then calculated by specialty and year. Time-based trends were analyzed using Joinpoint linear regression, and the Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) was calculated.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2016, total claims for central venous catheter insertions of all types decreased from 440.9 to 325.3 claims/10,000 beneficiaries (AAPC = -3.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6 to -3.2: P < .001). When analyzed by provider specialty and year, the number of nontunneled line insertion claims fell from 43.1 to 15.9 claims/10,000 (AAPC = -7.1; -7.3 to -7.0: P < .001) for surgeons, from 21.3 to 18.5 claims/10,000 (AAPC = -2.5; -2.8 to -2.1: P < .001) for radiologists, and from 117.4 to 72.7 claims/10,000 (AAPC = -5.2; 95% CI, -6.3 to -4.0: P < .001) for anesthesia providers. In contrast, line insertions increased from 18.2 to 26.0 claims/10,000 (AAPC = 3.2; 2.3-4.2: P < .001) for Emergency Physicians and from 3.2 to 9.3 claims/10,000 (AAPC = 6.0; 5.1-6.9: P < .001) for PAs and APNs who were not anesthesia providers. Among anesthesia providers, the share of line claims made by nurse anesthetists increased by 14.5% over the time period.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a 38.3% decrease in claims for nontunneled central lines placed by anesthesiologists from 2007 to 2016. These findings have implications for anesthesiology resident training and maintenance of competence among practicing clinicians. Further research is needed to clarify the effect of decreasing line insertion numbers on line insertion competence among anesthesiologists.

Pipe-Cleaning Plugged Portacaths: How to Unclog an Implanted Port After Development of a Fibrin Sheath

Industry has long fought the battle to design a vascular catheter that is less thrombogenic. Indwelling catheters provide long-term central venous access, but they develop fibrin sheaths as the vascular system recognizes them as foreign bodies. Peripheral catheters and central catheters can be changed over a guidewire when they form a fibrin sheath or otherwise malfunction. However, totally implantable venous access devices such as a port cannot be easily exchanged over a wire. Therefore, when a port malfunctions, thrombolytics are usually the only option attempted before the port is explanted and a new site is prepared for access. We present a minimally invasive technique demonstrating port salvage that does not require explant.

[Central venous access in interventional radiology]

Some patients require iteratives intravenous administrations on a central catheter, for example in oncology or infectiology, which represents a challenge for ambulatory treatment. Interventional radiology could provide solutions with the implant and monitoring of PICC-lines and ports. These are implanted in sterile environment and under imaging guidance in an interventional radiology room by an operator and with a paramedical team that need to be experienced. This development focus on the interest of one method with respect to the other, as well as the differents ways to do, the complications that could arise and the monitoring of these devices.

Placement of Subcutaneous Central Venous Ports in Breast Cancer Patients: Does Side Matter?

BACKGROUND

Central venous ports placed for breast cancer treatment have traditionally been placed contralateral to the disease. This is done out of concern for the possibility of an increased risk of complications with ipsilateral port placement. There have been only a few small studies evaluating complication rates between ports placed ipsilateral versus contralateral to the breast cancer. We sought to determine if there was a difference in port complications or lymphedema rates by location.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective review was conducted of adult (aged >18 y) females undergoing central venous port placement for breast cancer treatment from 2012 to 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 581 females were identified with a mean age of 52.9 ± 11.7 y. Ipsilateral ports were placed in 41 patients (7.1%). Ipsilateral ports were more likely to be placed via the internal jugular vein (56.1%), whereas contralateral ports were more likely to be placed in the subclavian vein (67.2%; P = 0.002). There was no difference between stage at diagnosis (P = 0.059), type of breast surgery (P = 0.999), axillary surgery (P = 0.087), or administration of radiation therapy (P = 0.684) between the groups. Ipsilateral ports were more likely to be on the right side, 73.2% versus 51.1% (P = 0.006). Port complications requiring intervention occurred in 3 patients (7.3%) with ipsilateral port and 33 patients (6.1%) with contralateral ports (P = 0.73). Lymphedema occurred in 8 patients (20%) with ipsilateral ports and 118 patients (21.9%) with contralateral ports (P = 0.639). On multivariable analysis, the type of axillary surgery (P = 0.003) was associated with upper extremity lymphedema, whereas port sidedness (P = 0.26) was not.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in port complications or lymphedema rates between patients who had ports placed on the ipsilateral side compared with the contralateral side for breast cancer treatment.

Characteristics of MR Neuroimaging Services Billed by Radiologists versus Nonradiologists

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although most neuroimaging examinations are interpreted by radiologists, many nonradiologists provide interpretation services. We studied day of the week, site of service, and patient complexity differences for common Medicare MR neuroimaging examinations interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using carrier claims files for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 to 2014, we identified all claims for brain and lumbar spine MR imaging examinations. Services were categorized by physician specialty, day of the week, and the site of service. Patient complexity was calculated using Charlson Comorbidity Indices. The χ² was performed to test statistical significance.

RESULTS

A provider specialty could be identified for 568,423 brain and lumbar spine MR imaging examinations. Of weekday examinations, radiologists interpreted 475,288 (92.3%), and nonradiologists, 39,510 (7.7%). Of weekend examinations, radiologists interpreted 52,028 (97.0%) and nonradiologists 1597 (3.0%). Radiologists interpreted 145,904 (98.7%) examinations in the inpatient hospital and emergency department settings versus 1882 (1.3%) by nonradiologists. Of all examinations, 44,547 of those interpreted by radiologists (8.4%) were on the most clinically complex patients versus 2139 (5.2%) for nonradiologists. All interspecialty differences for day of the week, the site of service, and patient complexity were statistically significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although radiologists interpret most common MR neuroimaging examinations for Medicare beneficiaries, in contrast to nonradiologists, they disproportionately render those services on weekends, in higher acuity sites, and on more complex patients. To optimize access and minimize disparities in necessary neuroimaging, quality metrics should consider such service characteristics.

Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare.

Day of Week, Site of Service, and Patient Complexity Disparities in Musculoskeletal MRI Interpretations by Radiologists Versus Nonradiologists

OBJECTIVE

Although most musculoskeletal MRI examinations are interpreted by radiologists, some nonradiologists provide interpretations as well. We aimed to study day of week (weekday vs weekend), site of service, and patient complexity differences between radiologists and nonradiologists interpreting lower extremity MRI examinations on Medicare beneficiaries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using fee-for-service carrier claims for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries nationally from 2012 through 2014, we identified all lower extremity joint MRI examinations. Services were classified by physician specialty, day of week, and site of service. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) values were calculated for all patients. Chi-square statistical testing was performed.

RESULTS

Of all 125,800 billed lower extremity joint MRI examinations, 118,295 (94.0%) were performed on weekdays and 7505 (6.0%) on weekends. Of the weekday examinations, radiologists interpreted 85,991 (83.3%) and nonradiologists 17,260 (16.7%). Of the weekend examinations, radiologists interpreted 6212 (92.8%) and nonradiologists 485 (7.2%). Of examinations performed in inpatient hospital and emergency department settings, radiologists interpreted 6499 (99.2%) and nonradiologists 51 (0.8%). Of the examinations on the most clinically complex patients (CCI ≥ 3), radiologists interpreted 4228 (90.2%) and nonradiologists 461 (9.8%). All interspecialty differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the Medicare population, radiologists interpret most lower extremity joint MRI examinations. Compared with nonradiologists, radiologists disproportionately provide services on weekends, in the highest acuity settings, and on the most clinically complex patients. To promote patient access and minimize disparities, future pay-for-performance metrics should consider temporal, acuity, and complexity parameters.

Medicare Utilization of Vertebral Augmentation 2001 to 2014: Effects of Randomized Clinical Trials and Guidelines on Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty

PURPOSE

Vertebral fractures have a substantial impact on the health and quality of life of elderly individuals as one of the most common complications of osteoporosis. Vertebral augmentation procedures including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been supported as means of reducing pain and mitigating disability associated with these fractures. However, use of vertebroplasty is debated, with negative randomized controlled trials published in 2009 and divergent clinical guidelines. The effect of changing evidence and guidelines on different practitioners' utilization of both kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in the years after these developments and publication of data supporting their use is poorly understood.

METHODS

Using national aggregate Medicare claims data from 2002 through 2014, vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty procedures were identified by provider type. Changes in utilization by procedure type and provider were studied.

RESULTS

Total vertebroplasty billing increased 101.6% from 2001 (18,911) through 2008 (38,123). Total kyphoplasty billing frequency increased 17.2% from 2006 (54,329) through 2008 (63,684). Vertebroplasty billing decreased 60.9% from 2008 through 2014 to its lowest value (14,898). Kyphoplasty billing decreased 8.4% from 2008 (63,684) through 2010 (58,346), but then increased 7.6% from 2010 to 2013 (62,804).

CONCLUSIONS

Vertebroplasty billing decreased substantially beginning in 2009 and continued to decrease through 2014 despite publication of more favorable studies in 2010 to 2012, suggesting studies published in 2009 and AAOS guidelines in 2010 may have had a persistent negative effect. Kyphoplasty did not decrease as substantially and increased in more recent years, suggesting a clinical practice response to favorable studies published during this period.

Cost and morbidity analysis of chest port insertion in adults: Outpatient clinic versus operating room placement

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) represent a convenient way for the administration of medications or nutrients. Traditionally, chest ports have been positioned by surgeons in the operating room, however there has been a transition over the years to port insertion by interventional radiologists in the radiology suite. The optimal method for chest port placement is still under debate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on all adult patients undergoing isolated chest port placement at our institution in a 12-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The aim of this cohort study was to compare cost and morbidity for chest port insertion in two different settings: outpatient clinic and operating room.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2015 a total of 527 chest ports were placed in adult patients. Of them, 262 procedures were performed in the operating room and 265 procedures were undertaken in the outpatient clinic. Patient characteristics were similar and there was no significant difference in early (<30 days, p = 0.54) and late complications (30-120 days, p = 0.53). The average charge for placement of a chest port was 1270 Euros in the operating room versus 620 Euros in the outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that chest ports can be safely placed in most patients under local anesthesia in the office setting without fluoroscopy or ultrasound guidance. Future randomized controlled studies may evaluate if surgeons or interventional radiologists should routinely perform these procedures in a dedicated office setting and reserve more sophisticated facilities only for patients at high risk of technical failure.

Radiology Trainee vs Faculty Radiologist Fluoroscopy Time for Imaging-Guided Procedures: A Retrospective Study of 17,966 Reports Over a 5.5-Year Period

To evaluate differences in fluoroscopy time (FT) for common vascular access and gastrointestinal procedures performed by radiology trainees vs faculty radiologists. Report information was extracted for all 17,966 index fluoroscopy services performed by trainees or faculty, or both from 2 university hospitals over 66 months. Various vascular access procedures (eg, peripherally inserted central catheters [PICCs] and ports) and gastrointestinal fluoroscopy procedures (eg, upper gastrointestinal and contrast enema studies) were specifically targeted. Statistical analysis was performed. FT was recorded in 17,549 of 17,966 reports (98%) The 1393 procedures performed by nonphysician providers or transitional year interns were excluded. Residents, fellows, and faculty were primary operators in 5066, 6489, and 4601 procedures, respectively. Average FT (in seconds) for resident and fellow services, respectively, was less than that of faculty only for PICCs (75 and 101 vs 148, P < 0.01). For all other procedures, average FT of trainee services was greater than that for faculty. This was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for fellows vs faculty port placement (121 vs 87), resident vs faculty small bowel series (130 vs 96), and both resident and fellow vs faculty esophagram procedures (143 and 183 vs 126 ). FT for residents was significantly less than that for fellows only for PICCs (75 vs 101, P < 0.01). For most, but not all, fluoroscopy procedures commonly performed by radiology trainees, FT is greater than that for procedures performed by faculty radiologists. Better awareness and understanding of such differences may aid training programs in developing benchmarks, protocols, and focused teaching in the safe use of fluoroscopy for patients and operators.

Radiology Education of Physician Extenders: What Role Should Radiologists Play?

As physician extenders (PEs) enter the medical community in large numbers, they have an increasing impact on imaging utilization and imaging-based procedures. Physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) have an advanced level of education and some practice autonomously. However, PA and NP programs are not required to provide any basic radiology education. For PEs who did receive basic radiology education during their graduate program, the curriculum is nonstandard and there is a wide variation. PEs working in primary care and nonradiology specialties place imaging orders, review report findings, and answer patient questions. Other PEs working within radiology practices operate as liaisons with patients in diagnostic radiology or perform an increasing number of interventional procedures. Basic radiology education in formal PE certificate programs as well as on-the-job education about radiology may benefit patients, radiologists, and the health-care system. What role, if any, should the radiologist assume for educating PE students and practicing PAs and NPs? This review analyzes the benefits and drawbacks of radiologists educating PEs.

Enteral Access Procedures: An 18-Year Analysis of Changing Patterns of Utilization in the Medicare Population

PURPOSE

To evaluate national trends in enteral access and maintenance procedures for Medicare beneficiaries with regard to utilization rates, specialty group roles, and sites of service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for the period 1994-2012, claims for gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy access and maintenance procedures were identified. Longitudinal utilization rates were calculated using annual enrollment data. Procedure volumes by site of service and medical specialty were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between 1994 and 2012, de novo enteral access procedure utilization decreased from 61.6 to 42.3 per 10,000 Medicare Part B beneficiaries (-31%). Gastroenterologists and surgeons performed > 80% of procedures (unchanged over study period) with 97% in the hospital setting. Over time, relative use of an endoscopic approach (62% in 1994; 82% in 2012) increased as percutaneous (21% to 12%) and open surgical (17% to 5%) procedures declined. Existing enteral access maintenance services increased 29% (from 20.1 to 25.9 per 10,000 beneficiaries). Radiologists (from 13% to 31%) surpassed gastroenterologists (from 36% to 21%) as dominant providers of maintenance procedures. Emergency physicians (from 8% to 23%) and nonphysician providers (from 0% to 6%) have seen rapid growth as maintenance services providers as these services have transitioned increasingly to the emergency department setting (from 18% to 32%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare beneficiaries, de novo enteral access procedures have declined in the last 2 decades as existing access maintenance services have increased. The latter are increasingly performed by radiologists, emergency physicians, and nonphysician providers.

Cost and Morbidity Analysis of Chest Port Insertion: Interventional Radiology Suite Versus Operating Room

PURPOSE

To compare complications and cost, from a hospital perspective, of chest port insertions performed in an interventional radiology (IR) suite versus in surgery in an operating room (OR).

METHODS

This study was approved by an institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Medical records were retrospectively searched on consecutive chest port placement procedures, in the IR suite and the OR, between October 22, 2010 and February 26, 2013, to determine patients' demographic information and chest port-related complications and/or infections. A total of 478 charts were reviewed (age range: 21-85 years; 309 women, 169 men). Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with an increased complication rate. Cost data on 149 consecutive Medicare outpatients (100 treated in the IR suite; 49 treated in the OR) who had isolated chest port insertions between March 2012 and February 2013 were obtained for both the operative services and pharmacy. Nonparametric tests for heterogeneity were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis method.

RESULTS

Early complications occurred in 9.2% (22 of 239) of the IR patients versus 13.4% (32 of 239) of the OR patients. Of the 478 implanted chest ports, 9 placed in IR and 18 placed in surgery required early removal. Infections from the ports placed in IR versus the OR were 0.25 versus 0.18 infections per 1000 catheters, respectively. Overall mean costs for chest port insertion were significantly higher in the OR, for both room and pharmacy costs (P < .0001). Overall average cost to place chest ports in an OR setting was almost twice that of placement in the IR suite.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital costs to place a chest port were significantly lower in the IR suite than in the OR, whereas radiology and surgery patients did not show a significantly different rate of complications and/or infections.