Sanghavi, Devang

Background: Overall inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) utilization has decreased in the United States since the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication. The FDA renewed this safety warning in 2014 with additional mandates on reporting IVCF-related adverse events. We evaluated the impact of the FDA recommendations on IVCF placements for different indications from 2010 to 2019 and further assessed utilization trends by region and hospital teaching status. Methods: Inferior vena cava filter placements between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database using the associated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and Tenth Revision codes. Inferior vena cava filter placements were categorized by indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) “treatment” in patients with VTE diagnosis and contraindication to anticoagulation and “prophylaxis” in patients without VTE. Generalized linear regression was used to analyze utilization trends. Results: A total of 823 717 IVCFs were placed over the study period, of which 644 663 (78.3%) were for VTE treatment and 179 054 (21.7%) were for prophylaxis indications. The median age for both categories of patients was 68 years. The total number of IVCFs placed for all indications decreased from 129 616 in 2010 to 58 465 in 2019, with an aggregate decline rate of −8.4%. The decline rate was higher between 2014 and 2019 than between 2010 and 2014 (−11.6% vs −7.2%). From 2010 to 2019, IVCF placement for VTE treatment and prophylaxis trended downward at rates of −7.9% and −10.2%, respectively. Urban nonteaching hospitals saw the highest decline for both VTE treatment (−17.2%) and prophylactic indications (−18.0%). Hospitals located in the Northeast region had the highest decline rates for VTE treatment (−10.3%) and prophylactic indications (−12.5%). Conclusion: The higher decline rate in IVCF placements between 2014 and 2019 compared with 2010 and 2014 suggests an additional impact of the renewed 2014 FDA safety indications on national IVCF utilization. Variations in IVCF use for VTE treatment and prophylactic indications existed across hospital teaching types, locations, and regions. Clinical Impact Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are associated with medical complications. The 2010 and 2014 FDA safety warnings appeared to have synergistically contributed to a significant decline in IVCF utilization rates from 2010 – 2019 in the US. IVC filter placements in patients without venous thromboembolism (VTE) declined at a higher rate than VTE. However, IVCF utilization varied across hospitals and geographical locations, likely due to the absence of universally accepted clinical guidelines on IVCF indications and use. Harmonization of IVCF placement guidelines is needed to standardize clinical practice, thereby reducing the observed regional and hospital variations and potential IVC filter overutilization.

IMPORTANCE: High safety-net burden hospitals (HBHs) treating large numbers of uninsured or Medicaid-insured patients have generally been linked to worse clinical outcomes. However, limited data exist on the impact of the hospitals’ safety-net burden on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) outcomes in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To compare the differences in survival to discharge, routine discharge home, and healthcare resource utilization between patients at HBH with those treated at low safety-net burden hospital (LBH). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study across hospitals in the United States: Hospitalized patients greater than or equal to 18 years that underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) between 2008 and 2018 identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Database. Data analysis was conducted in January 2022. EXPOSURE: IHCA. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome is survival to hospital discharge. Other outcomes are routine discharge home among survivors, length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization cost RESULTS: From 2008 to 2018, an estimated 555,016 patients were hospitalized with IHCA, of which 19.2% occurred at LBH and 55.2% at HBH. Compared with LBH, patients at HBH were younger (62 ± 20 yr vs 67 ± 17 yr) and predominantly in the lowest median household income (< 25th percentile). In multivariate analysis, HBH was associated with lower chances of survival to hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85–0.96) and lower odds of routine discharge (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.47–0.75), compared with LBH. In addition, IHCA patients at publicly owned hospitals and those with medium and large hospital bed size were less likely to survive to hospital discharge, while patients with median household income greater than 25th percentile had better odds of hospital survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study suggests that patients who experience IHCA at HBH may have lower rates and odds of in-hospital survival and are less likely to be routinely discharged home after CPR. Median household income and hospital-level characteristics appear to contribute to survival.

Palliative care is an ever-increasing need in India, with its large population and rising burden of chronic illness. India ranks 67thout of 80 countries in the quality of death index, which measures the availability and quality of palliative care. Community-led projects in Kerala have proven successful in improving palliative care access with modest resources and volunteer involvement. In India, the number of hospice facilities is increasing; however, <1% of the Indian population has access to palliative care. Financial and human resources limitations in the health-care system, poverty and high health-care expenditure, the lack of awareness among the public about end-of-life care, hesitance to seek care due to social stigma, strict laws regarding opiates that hinder adequate pain relief and the apparent conflict between traditional social values and western values regarding death are the major obstacles to improving palliative care. Significant efforts focused on public awareness of end-of-life care and locally-tailored programmes with family and community involvement are necessary to address this issue and integrate palliative care into the primary care system. Furthermore, we discuss the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic that has been managed effectively by palliative care involvement.