Telemedicine Critical Care-Mediated Mortality Reductions in Lower-Performing Patient Diagnosis Groups: A Prospective, Before and After Study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies evaluating telemedicine critical care (TCC) have shown mixed results. We prospectively evaluated the impact of TCC implementation on risk-adjusted mortality among patients stratified by pre-TCC performance. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, before and after study. SETTING: Three adult ICUs at an academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 2,429 patients in the pre-TCC (January to June 2016) and 12,479 patients in the post-TCC (January 2017 to June 2019) periods. INTERVENTIONS: TCC implementation which included an acuity-driven workflow targeting an identified "lower-performing" patient group, defined by ICU admission in an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation diagnoses category with a pre-TCC standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of greater than 1.5. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was risk-adjusted hospital mortality. Risk-adjusted hospital length of stay (HLOS) was also studied. The SMR for the overall ICU population was 0.83 pre-TCC and 0.75 post-TCC, with risk-adjusted mortalities of 10.7% and 9.5% (p = 0.09). In the identified lower-performing patient group, which accounted for 12.6% (n = 307) of pre-TCC and 13.3% (n = 1671) of post-TCC ICU patients, SMR decreased from 1.61 (95% CI, 1.21-2.01) pre-TCC to 1.03 (95% CI, 0.91-1.15) post-TCC, and risk-adjusted mortality decreased from 26.4% to 16.9% (p < 0.001). In the remaining ("higher-performing") patient group, there was no change in pre- versus post-TCC SMR (0.70 [0.59-0.81] vs 0.69 [0.64-0.73]) or risk-adjusted mortality (8.5% vs 8.4%, p = 0.86). There were no pre- to post-TCC differences in standardized HLOS ratio or risk-adjusted HLOS in the overall cohort or either performance group. CONCLUSIONS: In well-staffed and overall higher-performing ICUs in an academic medical center, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation granularity allowed identification of a historically lower-performing patient group that experienced a striking TCC-associated reduction in SMR and risk-adjusted mortality. This study provides additional evidence for the relationship between pre-TCC performance and post-TCC improvement.

Reversing the "Risk-Treatment Paradox" of Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Risk-Concordant Use of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies Is Associated With Reduced Bleeding and Lower Costs.

Background Bleeding is a common, morbid, and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. While bleeding avoidance strategies ( BAS ) are effective, they are used paradoxically less in patients at high risk of bleeding. Whether a patient-centered approach to specifically increase the risk-concordant use of BAS and, thus, reverse the risk-treatment paradox is associated with reduced bleeding and costs is unknown. Methods and Results We implemented an intervention to reverse the bleeding risk-treatment paradox at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, and examined: (1) the temporal trends in BAS use and (2) the association of risk-concordant BAS use with bleeding and hospital costs of percutaneous coronary intervention. Among 3519 percutaneous coronary interventions, there was a significantly increasing trend ( P=0.002) in risk-concordant use of BAS . The bleeding incidence was 2% in the risk-concordant group versus 9% in the risk-discordant group (absolute risk difference, 7%; number needed to treat, 14). Risk-concordant BAS use was associated with a 67% (95% confidence interval, 52-78%; P<0.001) reduction in the risk of bleeding and a $4738 (95% confidence interval, 3353-6122; P<0.001) reduction in per-patient percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalization costs (21.6% cost-savings). Conclusions In this study, patient-centered care directly aimed to make treatment-related decisions based on predicted risk of bleeding, led to more risk-concordant use of BAS and reversal of the risk-treatment paradox. This, in turn, was associated with a reduction in bleeding and hospitalization costs. Larger multicentered studies are needed to corroborate these results. As clinical medicine moves toward personalization, both patients and hospitals can benefit from a simple practice change that encourages objectivity and mitigates variability in care.

Novel Patient-Centered Approach to Facilitate Same-Day Discharge in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge (SDD) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention is safe, less costly, and preferred by patients, but it is usually performed in low-risk patients, if at all. To increase the appropriate use of SDD in more complex patients, we implemented a "patient-centered" protocol based on risk of complications at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our objectives were as follows: (1) to evaluate time trends in SDD; (2) to compare (a) mortality, bleeding, and acute kidney injury, (b) patient satisfaction, and (c) hospital costs by SDD versus no SDD (NSDD); and (3) to compare SDD eligibility by our patient-centered approach versus Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines. Our patient-centered approach was based on prospectively identifying personalized bleeding, mortality, and acute kidney injury risks, with a personalized safe contrast limit and mitigating those risks. We analyzed Barnes-Jewish Hospital's National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2015 (N=1752). SDD increased rapidly from 0% to 77% (P<0.001), independent of radial access. Although SDD patients were comparable to NSDD patients, SDD was not associated with adverse outcomes (0% mortality, 0% bleeds, and 0.4% acute kidney injury). Patient satisfaction was high with SDD. Propensity score-adjusted costs were $7331 lower/SDD patient (P<0.001), saving an estimated $1.8 million annually. Only 16 patients (6.95%) met the eligibility for SDD by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines, implying our patient-centered approach markedly increased SDD eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: With a patient-centered approach, SDD rapidly increased and was safe in 75% of patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, despite patient complexity. Patient satisfaction was high, and hospital costs were lower. Patient-centered decision making to facilitate SDD is an important opportunity to improve the value of percutaneous coronary intervention.