Bypassing the intensive care unit for patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to large-vessel occlusion

OBJECTIVE Endovascular mechanical thrombectomy is safe and effective for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO). Still, despite high rates of procedural success, it is routine practice to uniformly admit postthrombectomy patients to an intensive care unit (ICU) for postoperative observation. Predictors of ICU criteria and care requirements in the postmechanical thrombectomy ischemic stroke patient population are lacking. The goal of the present study is to identify risk factors associated with requiring ICU-level intervention following mechanical thrombectomy. METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed data from 245 patients undergoing thrombectomy for AIS from anterior circulation LVO at a comprehensive stroke and tertiary care center from January 2015 to March 2020. Clinical variables that predicted the need for critical care intervention were identified and compared. The performance of a binary classification test constructed from these predictive variables was also evaluated using a validation cohort. RESULTS Seventy-six patients (31%) required critical care interventions. A recanalization grade lower than modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scale grade 2B (odds ratio [OR] 3.625, p = 0.001), Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) < 8 (OR 3.643, p < 0.001), and presence of hyperdensity on postprocedure cone-beam CT (OR 2.485, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with the need for postthrombectomy critical care intervention. When applied to a validation cohort, a clearance classification scheme using these three variables demonstrated high positive predictive value (0.88). CONCLUSIONS A recanalization grade lower than mTICI 2B, ASPECTS < 8, and postprocedure hyperdensity on cone-beam CT were shown to be independent predictors of requiring ICU-level care. Routine admission to ICU-level care can be costly and confer increased risk for hospital-acquired conditions. Safely and reliably identifying low-risk patients has the potential for cost savings, value-based care, and decreasing hospital-acquired conditions.

Measurement matters: changing penalty calculations under the hospital acquired condition reduction program (HACRP) cost hospitals millions

Background Since October 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has penalized 25% of U.S. hospitals with the highest rates of hospital-acquired conditions under the Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program (HACRP). While early evaluations of the HACRP program reported cumulative reductions in hospital-acquired conditions, more recent studies have not found a clear association between receipt of the HACRP penalty and hospital quality of care. We posit that some of this disconnect may be driven by frequent scoring updates. The sensitivity of the HACRP penalties to updates in the program’s scoring methodology has not been independently evaluated. Methods We used hospital discharge records from 14 states to evaluate the association between changes in HACRP scoring methodology and corresponding shifts in penalty status. To isolate the impact of changes in scoring methods over time, we used FY2018 hospital performance data to calculate total HAC scores using FY2015 through FY2018 CMS scoring methodologies. Results Comparing hospital penalty status based on various HACRP scoring methodologies over time, we found a significant overlap between penalized hospitals when using FY 2015 and 2016 scoring methodologies (95%) and between FY 2017 and 2018 methodologies (46%), but substantial differences across early vs later years. Only 15% of hospitals were eligible for penalties across all four years. We also found significant changes in a hospital’s (relative) ranking across the various years, indicating that shifts in penalty status were not driven by small changes in HAC scores clustered around the penalty threshold. Conclusions HACRP penalties have been highly sensitive to program updates, which are generally announced after performance periods are concluded. This disconnect between performance and penalties calls into question the ability of the HACRP to improve patient safety as intended.

Measurement Matters: Changing Penalty Calculations under the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) Cost Hospitals Millions

BackgroundSince October 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has penalized 25% of U.S. hospitals with the highest rates of hospital-acquired conditions under the Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program (HACRP). While early evaluations of the HACRP program reported cumulative reductions in hospital-acquired conditions, more recent studies have not found a clear association between receipt of the HACRP penalty and hospital quality of care. We posit that some of this disconnect may be driven by frequent scoring updates. The sensitivity of the HACRP penalties to updates in the program’s scoring methodology has not been independently evaluated.MethodsWe used hospital discharge records from 14 states to evaluate the association between changes in HACRP scoring methodology and corresponding shifts in penalty status. To isolate the impact of changes in scoring methods over time, we used FY2018 hospital performance data to calculate total HAC scores using FY2015 through FY2018 CMS scoring methodologies.ResultsComparing hospital penalty status based on various HACRP scoring methodologies over time, we found a significant overlap between penalized hospitals when using FY 2015 and 2016 scoring methodologies (95%) and between FY 2017 and 2018 methodologies (46%), but substantial differences across early vs later years. Only 15% of hospitals were eligible for penalties across all four years. We also found significant changes in a hospital’s (relative) ranking across the various years, indicating that shifts in penalty status were not driven by small changes in HAC scores clustered around the penalty threshold.ConclusionsHACRP penalties have been highly sensitive to program updates, which are generally announced after performance periods are concluded. This disconnect between performance and penalties calls into question the ability of the HACRP to improve patient safety as intended.