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

Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial

GRAPHICAL ABSTARCT

PURPOSE: To report the results of the first-in-human trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG) technique.

METHODS

A prospective, industry-sponsored single-arm clinical trial of PUG insertion was performed in 25 adult patients under investigational device exemption (mean age 64 ± 15 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m²). A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort of 25 patients who received percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) was generated as an institutional control (mean age 66 ± 14 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.0 ± 2.7 kg/m²). Primary outcomes included successful insertion and 30-day procedure-related adverse events (AE's). Secondary outcomes included procedural duration, sedation requirements, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

All PUG procedures were successful, including 3/25 [12%] performed bedside within the ICU. There was no significant difference between PUG and PRG in rates of mild AE's (3/25 [12%] for PUG and 7/25 [28%] for PRG, p = 0.16) or moderate AE's (1/25 [4%] for PUG and 0/25 for PRG, p = 0.31). There were no severe AE's or 30-day procedure-related mortality in either group. Procedural room time was longer for PUG (56.5 ± 14.1 min) than PRG (39.3 ± 15.0 min, p < 0.001). PUG procedure time was significantly shorter after a procedural enhancement, the incorporation of a Gauss meter to facilitate successful magnetic gastropexy. Length of stay for outpatients did not significantly differ (2.4 ± 0.5 days for PUG and 2.6 ± 1.0 days for PRG, p = 0.70).

CONCLUSION

PUG appears effective with a safety profile similar to PRG. Bedside point-of-care gastrostomy tube insertion using the PUG technique shows promise.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03575754.

Comparing the Safety and Cost of Image-Guided Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tube Placement in the Outpatient Versus Overnight Observation Setting in a Single-Center Retrospective Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Historically, patients undergoing image-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement have been admitted overnight with feeds commencing 12-24 hours postprocedure. With new expedited feeding protocols starting 3-4 hours postprocedure, same-day discharge is now possible. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost of image-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement as an outpatient procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 131 patients (age 63.9 ± 11.6; 34% female) underwent gastrostomy tube placement as an outpatient procedure with expedited feeding protocol versus 40 patients (age 61.3 ± 12.6; 38% female) who were hospitalized overnight with feeds starting at 12-24 hours, primarily based on operator preference. The two groups were compared regarding complications within 90 days of procedure. Using a subgroup of 33 consecutive patients, procedural costs (total combined insurer and patient payments for professional and hospital services) for outpatients vs. hospitalized patients were compared.

RESULTS

Complication rates were similar (p = 0.64) for gastrostomy tubes placed on outpatients (0.17 complications/procedure: 4 bleeding, 2 aspiration pneumonia, 1 abdominal abscess, 4 significant pain, 6 cellulitis, 1 surgical consult, 4 malpositioned/fractured tubes) and hospitalized patients (0.20 complications/procedure: 1 aspiration pneumonia, 1 significant pain, 3 cellulitis, 1 surgical consult, 2 fractured tubes). Total combined insurer and patient payments were similar ($2193/outpatient vs $2701/hospitalized patient; p= 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Outpatient image-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement with an expedited feeding protocol is a safe and cost-comparable alternative to historic overnight hospitalization. Further prospective investigation with a larger sample is warranted.

Nationwide Trends in Tube-Related Genitourinary Interventions for Medicare Beneficiaries

PURPOSE

To evaluate national trends in tube-related genitourinary interventions, with specific attention to primary operator specialty.

METHODS

Using a 5% national sample of Medicare claims data from 2005 to 2015, all claims associated with nephrostomy tube, nephro-ureteral tube, and ureteral stent placement and exchange were identified. The annual volume of the nine billable procedures were analyzed to evaluate trends in the number of procedures performed and primary operator specialty over time. The Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to evaluate patient comorbidities and to determine differences in patient populations treated by interventional radiologists and urologists.

RESULTS

The total volume of tube-related genitourinary interventions has increased over the course of the study period, representing 455.0 services per 100,000 Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries in 2005 to 607.2 services in 2015, an increase of 33.4%. Interventional radiologists performed the majority of all procedures in all procedure types and for each year (>90%) with the exception of nephro-ureteral catheter placement or ureteral stent placement, for which urologists performed the overwhelming majority of procedures each year (>85%). Interventional radiologists performed 63% of their total number of procedures on patients with a CCI = 3 or higher, and urologists performed 42% of their total number of procedures on patients with a CCI = 3 or higher (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Tube-related genitourinary interventions have demonstrated persistent growth over the 2005 to 2015 decade. Interventional radiologists are the dominant providers for the majority of these interventions compared with urologists while delivering care to a patient population with a higher number of comorbidities.

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.

Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging Services are Significant Sources of Medicare Revenue for Highly Reimbursed Nonradiologist Providers

INTRODUCTION

Nonradiologist providers increasingly perform diagnostic imaging examinations and imaging-guided interventions traditionally performed by radiologists, which have raised concerns regarding appropriate utilization and self-referral. The purpose of this study was to assess the contribution of imaging studies to Medicare reimbursements for highly compensated nonradiologist providers in specialties often performing imaging studies.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database was queried for provider information regarding overall reimbursement for providers in anesthesiology, cardiology, emergency medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, neurology, and vascular surgery. Information regarding imaging studies reported and payment amounts were extracted for the 25 highest-reimbursed providers. Data were analyzed for relative contribution of imaging payments to overall medical Medicare payments.

RESULTS

Significant differences between numbers of imaging studies, types of imaging, and payment amounts were noted based on provider specialty (p < 0.001). Highest-reimbursed cardiologists received the greatest percentage of Medicare payments from imaging (18.3%) followed by vascular surgery (11.6%), obstetrics and gynecology (10.9%), orthopedic surgery (9.6%), emergency medicine (8.7%), neurology (7.8%), and anesthesiology (3.2%) providers. Mean imaging payments amongst highly reimbursed nonradiologists were greatest for cardiology ($578,265), vascular surgery ($363,912), and orthopedic surgery ($113,634). Amongst highly reimbursed specialists, most common nonradiologist imaging payments were from ultrasound (45%) and cardiac nuclear medicine studies (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonradiologist performed imaging payments comprised substantial proportions of overall Medicare reimbursement for highly reimbursed physicians in several specialties, especially cardiology, vascular surgery, and orthopedic surgery. Further investigation is needed to better understand the wider economic implications of nonradiologist imaging study performance and self-referral beyond the Medicare population.