Stanford's Biodesign Innovation program: Teaching opportunities for value-driven innovation in surgery.

The Stanford Biodesign Innovation process, which identifies meaningful clinical needs, develops solutions to meet those needs, and plans for subsequent implementation in clinical practice, is an effective training approach for new generations of healthcare innovators. Continued success of this process hinges on its evolution in response to changes in healthcare delivery and an ever-increasing demand for economically viable solutions. In this article, we provide perspective on opportunities for value-driven innovation in surgery and relate these to value-related teaching elements currently integrated in the Stanford Biodesign process.

Repeat coronary revascularization procedures after successful bare-metal or drug-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess the rate and anatomical targets of repeat revascularization procedures in routine clinical practice after either bare-metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Randomized trials provide a reference standard for comparing outcomes after BMS or DES, but the rates of repeat revascularization procedures in clinical trials do not necessarily represent the rates in routine practice. METHODS: Baseline and 1-year follow-up angiographic data from a cardiac catheterization laboratory data registry with 31 participating hospitals were analyzed. RESULTS: In 17 hospitals 14,459 eligible patients had a BMS implanted between 1998 and 2003, and in 20 hospitals 9,575 eligible patients had a DES implanted in 2005. DES patients had more multivessel disease and diabetes than BMS patients, but fewer DES patients had all diseased vessels stented. Over the subsequent year, there were significantly fewer repeat procedures in the initially stented region after DES than BMS (4.7% vs. 8.1%), but significantly more procedures in previously unstented remote segments (7.8% vs. 4.3%). Consequently, the overall rate of additional percutaneous coronary intervention admissions was not reduced by DES (12.5% vs. 12.3%; p > 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of routine clinical practice DES reduced repeat intervention of the stented segment to a lesser extent than has been reported in randomized trials. For our cohort, the reduction in restenosis was offset by increased use of additional interventional procedures to treat remote segments, predominantly within the first 2 months after initial stenting.

International differences in patient and physician perceptions of "high quality" healthcare: a model from pediatric cardiology.

Although the quality of health care would logically seem to be a universal concept, this study hypothesized that physicians and their patients could differ in their perceptions of "high-quality care" and that those beliefs might vary by country. Such a mismatch in beliefs may be especially important as clinical practice guidelines developed in the United States are globalized. A survey of 20 statements describing various components of health care delivery and quality was sent to pediatric cardiologists in 33 countries, who ranked the statements in order of priority for ideal health care. Each participating physician administered the questionnaire to the parents of children with congenital heart disease; 554 questionnaires were received and analyzed. A subanalysis of 9 countries with the largest number of responses was done (Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Doctors and parents rated the same 4 statements among the top 5: "the doctor is skillful and knowledgeable"; "the doctor explains health problems, tests, and treatments in a way the patient can understand"; "a basic level of healthcare is available to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay"; and "treatment causes the patient to feel physically well." Overall, parents' responses differed more among countries than those of physicians; the magnitude of the difference between parents and physicians varied by country. This discrepancy highlights a potential mismatch between patients' and physicians' views about the desired components of health care delivery, in particular the application of American quality standards for health care to systems in other countries.

The drug-eluting stent information gap.

Drug-eluting stents are quickly replacing bare-metal stents as the arterial revascularization device of choice. Because nearly all the information we have about patient outcomes with drug-eluting stents is from trials designed for US Food and Drug Administration approval, we are missing some of the information critical to a more comprehensive understanding of how these new devices will perform at the population level.

Cost-effectiveness of bypass surgery versus stenting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical and angioplasty-based coronary artery revascularization techniques, in particular, angioplasty with primary stenting. METHODS: We used data from the Study of Economics and Quality of Life, a substudy of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI), to measure the outcomes and costs of angioplasty and bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who had not undergone prior coronary artery revascularization. Using a Markov decision model, we updated the outcomes and costs to reflect technology changes since the time of enrollment in BARI, and projected the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the two procedures from the time of initial treatment through death. We accounted for the effects of improved procedural safety and efficiency, and prolonged therapeutic effects of both surgery and stenting. This study was conducted from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Surgical revascularization was less costly and resulted in better outcomes than catheter-based intervention including stenting. It remained the preferred strategy after adjusting the stent outcomes to eliminate the costs and events associated with target lesion restenosis. Among angioplasty-based strategies, primary stent use cost an additional 189,000 US dollars per QALY gained compared with a strategy that reserved stent use for treatment of suboptimal balloon angioplasty results. CONCLUSION: Bypass surgery results in better outcomes than angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease, and at a lower cost.