The Bigger the Better? Center Volume Dependent Effects on Procedural and Functional Outcome in Established Endovascular Stroke Centers

Neurointerventional payment for out-of-network mechanical thrombectomy in the era of the No Surprises Act

BACKGROUND

Congress enacted the No Surprises Act (NSA) in 2021. The NSA relies on the ability for providers to appeal their out-of-network (OON) payment through an arbitration process known as Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR). This study was designed to evaluate the effective access to IDR for mechanical thrombectomy (MT).

METHODS

This study uses a simulation to model the likelihood that neurointerventionalists have financially viable access to the NSA IDR process to seek adequate payment for MT OON claims.

RESULTS

When evaluating professional claims, for only batches of four or more claims, would the expected payment recovery exceed the expected IDR costs. For global claims (both professional and technical components), a batch size of two claims would be required for the expected payment recovery to exceed expected IDR costs.For the 1000 simulations at large MT centers (300 MT annually), there were no instances where it would have been financially viable to submit professional-only OON claims to the IDR process. For global claims, it would have been financially viable to submit to IDR for only 13.2% of these claims. For smaller stroke centers, there were also no instances where it would have been financially viable to submit professional-only claims. For global claims, it would have been financially viable for only 3.3-6.1% of claims.

CONCLUSIONS

The NSA process was designed to protect patients from unexpected bills following non-elective medical services. Given the emergent nature of many neuroendovascular cases and the lack of access to the IDR process as this model illustrates, the field is at risk for under-reimbursement due to NSA legislation.

Workflow and Short-Term Functional Outcomes in Simultaneous Acute Code Stroke Activation and Stroke Reperfusion Therapy

The burden of simultaneous acute code stroke activation (ACSA) is not known. We aim to assess the effect of simultaneous ACSA on workflow metrics and home time at 90 days in patients undergoing reperfusion therapies in the emergency department. Simultaneous ACSA was defined as code activation within 60 min of the arrival of any patient receiving intravenous thrombolysis, within 150 min of the arrival of any patient receiving endovascular thrombectomy, within 45 min of the arrival of any patient receiving no reperfusion therapies (based on mean local door-to-needle and door-to-puncture times). Simultaneous ACSA was further graded as 1, 2 and 3. We assessed workflow metrics as door-to-CT (DTC) time, in minutes, and functional outcome as home time at 90 days. A total of 2605 patients were assessed as ACSA at a mean ± SD activations of 130.8 ± 17.1/month and 859 (33%) were simultaneous. Among all ACSA, 545 (20.9%) underwent acute reperfusion therapy with a mean age of 70.6 ± 14.2 years, 45.9% (n = 254) were female with a median (IQR) NIHSS of 13 (8-18). A total of 220 (40.4%) patients underwent simultaneous treatments. The median DTC time, in minutes, was prolonged in grade 3 simultaneous ACSA (18 (13, 28)) compared to non-simultaneous ACSA (15 (11, 21) β = 0.23, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the median home time at 90 days between the simultaneous (58, 0-84.5 days) and non-simultaneous (54, 0-85 days) patients. Simultaneous ACSA is frequent in patients receiving acute reperfusion therapies. An optimal workflow in high-volume centers may help mitigate the clinical and system burden associated with simultaneity.

The evolution of acute stroke care in Germany from 2019 to 2021: analysis of nation-wide administrative datasets

BACKGROUND

The treatment of ischemic stroke (IS) has changed considerably in recent years. Particularly the advent of mechanical thrombectomy (MTE) has revolutionized the available treatment options. Most patients in developed countries have access to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). However access to MTE remains restricted in some regions despite efforts to increase its availability. We performed an evaluation of national datasets to monitor improvements made in access to revascularization therapies for IS patients in Germany.

METHODS

We analyzed national datasets on German Diagnosis-Related Groups and structured quality reports by extracting information of patients admitted with stroke with and without IVT and MTE for the period of 2019-2021. Data from 2016 and limited data for 2022 were also included for comparison.

RESULTS

Admissions with ischemic stroke declined during the years of the COVID 19 pandemic by 4.5% from 227,258 in 2019 to 216,923 in 2021. IVT rates were stable with 16.3% being treated with IVT in 2019 and 2021. MTE rates continued to increase from 7.1 to 8.4% and the number of MTE centers increased by 14.8% in the same period. Over 87.3% of MTEs were performed in centers with a case volume exceeding 50 cases per year in 2021. The largest increase in the relative share of MTEs was seen in large MTE centers (n ≥ 200). Patient age for MTEs surpassed the age for IVTs in 2019 and the proportion of patients ≥ 80 years receiving MTE continued to increase. The proportion of regions in Germany with poor MTE rates (≤ 4.1%) decreased significantly from 2019 (12.3%) to 2021 (5.3%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found strong evidence that while IVT rates reached a temporary ceiling effect, both the absolute number of and access to MTEs continued to increase in Germany. Regional disparities have become less significant and the majority of MTEs are performed in centers with medium or high case volumes.

Performance of Thrombectomy-Capable, Comprehensive, and Primary Stroke Centers in Reperfusion Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Report From the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Registry

BACKGROUND

The thrombectomy-capable stroke center (TSC) is a recently introduced intermediate tier of accreditation for hospitals at which patients with acute ischemic stroke receive care. The comparative quality and clinical outcomes of reperfusion therapies at TSCs, primary stroke centers (PSCs), and comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) have not been well delineated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational, cohort study from 2018 to 2020 that included patients with acute ischemic stroke who received endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and intravenous thrombolysis reperfusion therapies at CSCs, TSCs, or PSCs. Participants were recruited from Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry. Study end points included timeliness of intravenous thrombolysis and EVT, successful reperfusion, discharge destination, discharge mortality, and functional independence at discharge.

RESULTS

Among 84 903 patients, 48 682 received EVT, of whom 73% were treated at CSCs, 22% at PSCs, and 4% at TSCs. The median annual EVT volume was 76 for CSCs, 55 for TSCs, and 32 for PSCs. Patient differences by center status included higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, longer onset-to-arrival time, and higher transfer-in rates for CSCs, TSCs, and PSCs, respectively. In adjusted analyses, the likelihood of achieving the goal door-to-needle time was higher in CSCs compared with PSCs (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17-1.66]) and in TSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.08-1.96]). Likewise, the odds of achieving the goal door-to-puncture time were higher in CSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.13-2.21]). CSCs and TSCs also demonstrated better clinical efficacy outcomes compared with PSCs. The odds of discharge to home or rehabilitation were higher in CSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.06-1.31]), whereas the odds of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice were lower in both CSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81-0.94]) and TSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.98]). There were no significant differences in any of the quality-of-care metrics and clinical outcomes between TSCs and CSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study representing national US practice, CSCs and TSCs exceeded PSCs in key quality-of-care reperfusion metrics and outcomes, whereas TSCs and CSCs demonstrated a similar performance. With more than one-fifth of all EVT procedures during the study period conducted at PSCs, it may be desirable to explore national initiatives aimed at facilitating the elevation of eligible PSCs to a higher certification status.

Higher Procedural Volumes Are Associated with Faster Treatment Times, Better Functional Outcomes, and Lower Mortality in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to characterize the association of hospital procedural volumes with outcomes among acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using data prospectively collected from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 in the Get with the Guidelines-Stroke registry. Participants were derived from a cohort of 60,727 AIS patients treated with EVT within 24 hours at 626 hospitals. The primary cohort excluded patients with pretreatment National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) < 6, onset-to-treatment time > 6 hours, and interhospital transfers. There were 2 secondary cohorts: (1) the EVT metrics cohort excluded patients with missing data on time from door to arterial puncture and (2) the intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) metrics cohort only included patients receiving IVT ≤4.5 hours after onset.

RESULTS

The primary cohort (mean ± standard deviation age = 70.7 ± 14.8 years; 51.2% female; median [interquartile range] baseline NIHSS = 18.0 [13-22]; IVT use, 70.2%) comprised 21,209 patients across 595 hospitals. The EVT metrics cohort and IVT metrics cohort comprised 47,262 and 16,889 patients across 408 and 601 hospitals, respectively. Higher procedural volumes were significantly associated with higher odds (expressed as adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for every 10-case increase in volume) of discharge to home (1.03 [1.02-1.04]), functional independence at discharge (1.02 [1.01-1.04]), and lower rates of in-hospital mortality (0.96 [0.95-0.98]). All secondary measures were also associated with procedural volumes.

INTERPRETATION

Among AIS patients primarily presenting to EVT-capable hospitals (excluding those transferred from one facility to another and those suffering in-hospital strokes), EVT at hospitals with higher procedural volumes was associated with faster treatment times, better discharge outcomes, and lower rates of in-hospital mortality. ANN NEUROL 2023.

Performance of Thrombectomy-Capable, Comprehensive, and Primary Stroke Centers in Reperfusion Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Report from the Get With The Guidelines Stroke Registry: Stroke Outcomes Per Hospital Certification Status

Background

The thrombectomy-capable stroke center (TSC) is a recently introduced intermediate tier of accreditation for hospitals caring for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The comparative quality and clinical outcomes of reperfusion therapies at TSCs, primary stroke centers (PSCs), and comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) has not been well delineated.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, observational, cohort study from 2018-2020 that included patients with AIS who received endovascular (EVT) and/or intravenous (IVT) reperfusion therapies at CSC, TSC, or PSC. Participants were recruited from Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry. Study endpoints included timeliness of IVT and EVT, successful reperfusion, discharge destination, discharge mortality, and functional independence at discharge.

Results

Among 84,903 included patients, 48,682 received EVT, of whom 73% were treated at CSCs, 22% at PSCs, and 4% at TSCs. The median annual EVT volume was 76 for CSCs, 55 for TSCs, and 32 for PSCs. Patient differences by center status included higher NIHSS, longer onset-to-arrival time, and higher transfer-in rates for CSC/TSC/PSC, respectively. In adjusted analyses, the likelihood of achieving the goal door-to-needle time was higher in CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.17-1.66) and in TSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.08-1.96). Similarly, the odds of achieving the goal door-to-puncture time were higher in CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.13-2.21). CSCs and TSCs also demonstrated better clinical efficacy outcomes compared to PSCs. The odds of discharge to home or rehabilitation were higher in CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.06-1.31), while the odds of in-hospital mortality/discharge to hospice were lower in both CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and TSCs compared to PSCs (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.98). There were no significant differences in any of the quality-of-care metrics and clinical outcomes between TSCs and CSCs.

Conclusions

In this study representing national US practice, CSCs and TSCs exceeded PSCs in key quality-of-care reperfusion metrics and outcomes, whereas TSCs and CSCs demonstrated similar performance. Considering that over one-fifth of all EVT procedures during the study period were conducted at PSCs, it may be desirable to explore national initiatives aimed at facilitating the elevation of eligible PSCs to a higher certification status.