High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism

Richard H White, Estella Marie Geraghty, Ann Brunson, Susan Murin, Theodore Wun, Fred Spencer, Patrick S Romano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The extent to which vena cava filter (VCF) use varies between hospitals in the management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is not clear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study that compared the frequency of VCF use among California hospitals from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Using administrative hospital discharge data, we followed explicit criteria to identify nontrauma patients with acute VTE, and determined the frequency of VCF placement in each of the hospitals that admitted more than 55 VTE patients. Multivariable hierarchical regression models to predict VCF use included important clinical and demographic variables as fixed effects and hospital as a random effect. Results: Among the 263 hospitals included, 130 643 acute VTE hospitalizations occurred with the placement of 19 537 VCFs (14.95%). Variation in the percentage of acute VTE hospitalizations that included VCF placement was very high, from 0% to 38.96% (interquartile range, 6.23%-18.14%), with 18.49% of the observed variation due to differences among the hospitals that provided care. Significant clinical predictors of VCF use included acute bleeding at the time of admission (odds ratio, 3.4 [95% CI, 3.2-3.6]), a major operation after admission for VTE (3.4 [3.3-3.5]), presence of metastatic cancer (1.7 [1.6-1.8]), and extreme severity of illness (2.5 [2.3-2.7] vs mild). Insertion of VCFs occurred more frequently than expected in 109 hospitals and less frequently in 59. Hospital characteristics associated with VCF use included a small number of beds (odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.2-0.4], <100 vs >400 beds), a rural location (0.4 [0.2-0.5]), and other private vs Kaiser hospitals (1.5 [1.1-2.0]). Use of VCFs varied widely even in geographically proximate areas. Conclusions: The frequency of VCF use in patients with acute VTE varied widely and depended on which hospital provided the care, even after adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to determine whether this variation is associated with local cultural differences between hospitals or with differences in the availability of interventional radiologists or specialists, or whether it reflects the absence of highquality evidence that VCFs are effective.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)506-512
Number of pages7
JournalJAMA Internal Medicine
Volume173
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 8 2013

Fingerprint

Vena Cava Filters
Venous Thromboembolism
Hospitalization
Odds Ratio
Bleeding Time
Observational Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism. / White, Richard H; Geraghty, Estella Marie; Brunson, Ann; Murin, Susan; Wun, Theodore; Spencer, Fred; Romano, Patrick S.

In: JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol. 173, No. 7, 08.04.2013, p. 506-512.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{654cee38b217484487cdce135fa063f9,
title = "High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism",
abstract = "Background: The extent to which vena cava filter (VCF) use varies between hospitals in the management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is not clear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study that compared the frequency of VCF use among California hospitals from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Using administrative hospital discharge data, we followed explicit criteria to identify nontrauma patients with acute VTE, and determined the frequency of VCF placement in each of the hospitals that admitted more than 55 VTE patients. Multivariable hierarchical regression models to predict VCF use included important clinical and demographic variables as fixed effects and hospital as a random effect. Results: Among the 263 hospitals included, 130 643 acute VTE hospitalizations occurred with the placement of 19 537 VCFs (14.95{\%}). Variation in the percentage of acute VTE hospitalizations that included VCF placement was very high, from 0{\%} to 38.96{\%} (interquartile range, 6.23{\%}-18.14{\%}), with 18.49{\%} of the observed variation due to differences among the hospitals that provided care. Significant clinical predictors of VCF use included acute bleeding at the time of admission (odds ratio, 3.4 [95{\%} CI, 3.2-3.6]), a major operation after admission for VTE (3.4 [3.3-3.5]), presence of metastatic cancer (1.7 [1.6-1.8]), and extreme severity of illness (2.5 [2.3-2.7] vs mild). Insertion of VCFs occurred more frequently than expected in 109 hospitals and less frequently in 59. Hospital characteristics associated with VCF use included a small number of beds (odds ratio, 0.2 [95{\%} CI, 0.2-0.4], <100 vs >400 beds), a rural location (0.4 [0.2-0.5]), and other private vs Kaiser hospitals (1.5 [1.1-2.0]). Use of VCFs varied widely even in geographically proximate areas. Conclusions: The frequency of VCF use in patients with acute VTE varied widely and depended on which hospital provided the care, even after adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to determine whether this variation is associated with local cultural differences between hospitals or with differences in the availability of interventional radiologists or specialists, or whether it reflects the absence of highquality evidence that VCFs are effective.",
author = "White, {Richard H} and Geraghty, {Estella Marie} and Ann Brunson and Susan Murin and Theodore Wun and Fred Spencer and Romano, {Patrick S}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2352",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "173",
pages = "506--512",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism

AU - White, Richard H

AU - Geraghty, Estella Marie

AU - Brunson, Ann

AU - Murin, Susan

AU - Wun, Theodore

AU - Spencer, Fred

AU - Romano, Patrick S

PY - 2013/4/8

Y1 - 2013/4/8

N2 - Background: The extent to which vena cava filter (VCF) use varies between hospitals in the management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is not clear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study that compared the frequency of VCF use among California hospitals from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Using administrative hospital discharge data, we followed explicit criteria to identify nontrauma patients with acute VTE, and determined the frequency of VCF placement in each of the hospitals that admitted more than 55 VTE patients. Multivariable hierarchical regression models to predict VCF use included important clinical and demographic variables as fixed effects and hospital as a random effect. Results: Among the 263 hospitals included, 130 643 acute VTE hospitalizations occurred with the placement of 19 537 VCFs (14.95%). Variation in the percentage of acute VTE hospitalizations that included VCF placement was very high, from 0% to 38.96% (interquartile range, 6.23%-18.14%), with 18.49% of the observed variation due to differences among the hospitals that provided care. Significant clinical predictors of VCF use included acute bleeding at the time of admission (odds ratio, 3.4 [95% CI, 3.2-3.6]), a major operation after admission for VTE (3.4 [3.3-3.5]), presence of metastatic cancer (1.7 [1.6-1.8]), and extreme severity of illness (2.5 [2.3-2.7] vs mild). Insertion of VCFs occurred more frequently than expected in 109 hospitals and less frequently in 59. Hospital characteristics associated with VCF use included a small number of beds (odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.2-0.4], <100 vs >400 beds), a rural location (0.4 [0.2-0.5]), and other private vs Kaiser hospitals (1.5 [1.1-2.0]). Use of VCFs varied widely even in geographically proximate areas. Conclusions: The frequency of VCF use in patients with acute VTE varied widely and depended on which hospital provided the care, even after adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to determine whether this variation is associated with local cultural differences between hospitals or with differences in the availability of interventional radiologists or specialists, or whether it reflects the absence of highquality evidence that VCFs are effective.

AB - Background: The extent to which vena cava filter (VCF) use varies between hospitals in the management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is not clear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study that compared the frequency of VCF use among California hospitals from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Using administrative hospital discharge data, we followed explicit criteria to identify nontrauma patients with acute VTE, and determined the frequency of VCF placement in each of the hospitals that admitted more than 55 VTE patients. Multivariable hierarchical regression models to predict VCF use included important clinical and demographic variables as fixed effects and hospital as a random effect. Results: Among the 263 hospitals included, 130 643 acute VTE hospitalizations occurred with the placement of 19 537 VCFs (14.95%). Variation in the percentage of acute VTE hospitalizations that included VCF placement was very high, from 0% to 38.96% (interquartile range, 6.23%-18.14%), with 18.49% of the observed variation due to differences among the hospitals that provided care. Significant clinical predictors of VCF use included acute bleeding at the time of admission (odds ratio, 3.4 [95% CI, 3.2-3.6]), a major operation after admission for VTE (3.4 [3.3-3.5]), presence of metastatic cancer (1.7 [1.6-1.8]), and extreme severity of illness (2.5 [2.3-2.7] vs mild). Insertion of VCFs occurred more frequently than expected in 109 hospitals and less frequently in 59. Hospital characteristics associated with VCF use included a small number of beds (odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.2-0.4], <100 vs >400 beds), a rural location (0.4 [0.2-0.5]), and other private vs Kaiser hospitals (1.5 [1.1-2.0]). Use of VCFs varied widely even in geographically proximate areas. Conclusions: The frequency of VCF use in patients with acute VTE varied widely and depended on which hospital provided the care, even after adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to determine whether this variation is associated with local cultural differences between hospitals or with differences in the availability of interventional radiologists or specialists, or whether it reflects the absence of highquality evidence that VCFs are effective.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876036075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876036075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2352

DO - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2352

M3 - Article

C2 - 23552572

AN - SCOPUS:84876036075

VL - 173

SP - 506

EP - 512

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 7

ER -