Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead

Sarah Hussain, Liza Moorman, J. Randall Moorman, John P. Dimarco, Rohit Malhotra, Andrew Darby, Kenneth Bilchick, J. Michael Mangrum, John D. Ferguson, Pamela K. Mason

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California) were recalled in 2011 due to increased risk of insulation failure leading to externalized cables. Fluoroscopic screening can identify insulation failure, although the relation between mechanical failure and electrical failure is unclear. At the time of the recall, the University of Virginia developed a screening program, including fluoroscopic evaluation, education sessions, device interrogation, and remote monitoring for patients with this defibrillator lead. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes of the screening program, including costs, which were absorbed by our institution. Costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement estimates. Forty-eight patients participated in the screening program. At initial screening, 31% were found to have evidence of insulation failure but electrical function was normal in all leads. The cost of this program was $35,358.72. The cost per diagnosis of mechanical lead failure was $2,357.25. During 2 years of follow-up, 1 patient experienced Riata lead electrical failure without fluoroscopic evidence of insulation failure. Patients were more likely to have a lead revision if there was evidence of insulation failure. Lead revisions occurred at the time of generator change in 88% of patients with insulation failure but in only 14% of patients with a fluoroscopically normal lead (p = 0.04). The cost of recall-related defibrillator lead revisions was $81,704.55. In conclusion, our Riata screening program added expense without clear benefit to patients. In fact, patients may have been put at more risk by undergoing defibrillator lead revisions based solely on the results of the fluoroscopic screening.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)206-208
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume115
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 15 2015

Fingerprint

Defibrillators
Costs and Cost Analysis
Physiologic Monitoring
Medicare
Lead
Education
Equipment and Supplies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Hussain, S., Moorman, L., Moorman, J. R., Dimarco, J. P., Malhotra, R., Darby, A., ... Mason, P. K. (2015). Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead. American Journal of Cardiology, 115(2), 206-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.028
Hussain, Sarah ; Moorman, Liza ; Moorman, J. Randall ; Dimarco, John P. ; Malhotra, Rohit ; Darby, Andrew ; Bilchick, Kenneth ; Mangrum, J. Michael ; Ferguson, John D. ; Mason, Pamela K. / Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead. In: American Journal of Cardiology. 2015 ; Vol. 115, No. 2. pp. 206-208.
@article{3f8f75d8fb6d4c1999b34eff30193f3b,
title = "Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead",
abstract = "Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California) were recalled in 2011 due to increased risk of insulation failure leading to externalized cables. Fluoroscopic screening can identify insulation failure, although the relation between mechanical failure and electrical failure is unclear. At the time of the recall, the University of Virginia developed a screening program, including fluoroscopic evaluation, education sessions, device interrogation, and remote monitoring for patients with this defibrillator lead. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes of the screening program, including costs, which were absorbed by our institution. Costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement estimates. Forty-eight patients participated in the screening program. At initial screening, 31{\%} were found to have evidence of insulation failure but electrical function was normal in all leads. The cost of this program was $35,358.72. The cost per diagnosis of mechanical lead failure was $2,357.25. During 2 years of follow-up, 1 patient experienced Riata lead electrical failure without fluoroscopic evidence of insulation failure. Patients were more likely to have a lead revision if there was evidence of insulation failure. Lead revisions occurred at the time of generator change in 88{\%} of patients with insulation failure but in only 14{\%} of patients with a fluoroscopically normal lead (p = 0.04). The cost of recall-related defibrillator lead revisions was $81,704.55. In conclusion, our Riata screening program added expense without clear benefit to patients. In fact, patients may have been put at more risk by undergoing defibrillator lead revisions based solely on the results of the fluoroscopic screening.",
author = "Sarah Hussain and Liza Moorman and Moorman, {J. Randall} and Dimarco, {John P.} and Rohit Malhotra and Andrew Darby and Kenneth Bilchick and Mangrum, {J. Michael} and Ferguson, {John D.} and Mason, {Pamela K.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.028",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "115",
pages = "206--208",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Hussain, S, Moorman, L, Moorman, JR, Dimarco, JP, Malhotra, R, Darby, A, Bilchick, K, Mangrum, JM, Ferguson, JD & Mason, PK 2015, 'Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead', American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 206-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.028

Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead. / Hussain, Sarah; Moorman, Liza; Moorman, J. Randall; Dimarco, John P.; Malhotra, Rohit; Darby, Andrew; Bilchick, Kenneth; Mangrum, J. Michael; Ferguson, John D.; Mason, Pamela K.

In: American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 115, No. 2, 15.01.2015, p. 206-208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost of a recall of a single-center experience managing the riata defibrillator lead

AU - Hussain, Sarah

AU - Moorman, Liza

AU - Moorman, J. Randall

AU - Dimarco, John P.

AU - Malhotra, Rohit

AU - Darby, Andrew

AU - Bilchick, Kenneth

AU - Mangrum, J. Michael

AU - Ferguson, John D.

AU - Mason, Pamela K.

PY - 2015/1/15

Y1 - 2015/1/15

N2 - Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California) were recalled in 2011 due to increased risk of insulation failure leading to externalized cables. Fluoroscopic screening can identify insulation failure, although the relation between mechanical failure and electrical failure is unclear. At the time of the recall, the University of Virginia developed a screening program, including fluoroscopic evaluation, education sessions, device interrogation, and remote monitoring for patients with this defibrillator lead. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes of the screening program, including costs, which were absorbed by our institution. Costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement estimates. Forty-eight patients participated in the screening program. At initial screening, 31% were found to have evidence of insulation failure but electrical function was normal in all leads. The cost of this program was $35,358.72. The cost per diagnosis of mechanical lead failure was $2,357.25. During 2 years of follow-up, 1 patient experienced Riata lead electrical failure without fluoroscopic evidence of insulation failure. Patients were more likely to have a lead revision if there was evidence of insulation failure. Lead revisions occurred at the time of generator change in 88% of patients with insulation failure but in only 14% of patients with a fluoroscopically normal lead (p = 0.04). The cost of recall-related defibrillator lead revisions was $81,704.55. In conclusion, our Riata screening program added expense without clear benefit to patients. In fact, patients may have been put at more risk by undergoing defibrillator lead revisions based solely on the results of the fluoroscopic screening.

AB - Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California) were recalled in 2011 due to increased risk of insulation failure leading to externalized cables. Fluoroscopic screening can identify insulation failure, although the relation between mechanical failure and electrical failure is unclear. At the time of the recall, the University of Virginia developed a screening program, including fluoroscopic evaluation, education sessions, device interrogation, and remote monitoring for patients with this defibrillator lead. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes of the screening program, including costs, which were absorbed by our institution. Costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement estimates. Forty-eight patients participated in the screening program. At initial screening, 31% were found to have evidence of insulation failure but electrical function was normal in all leads. The cost of this program was $35,358.72. The cost per diagnosis of mechanical lead failure was $2,357.25. During 2 years of follow-up, 1 patient experienced Riata lead electrical failure without fluoroscopic evidence of insulation failure. Patients were more likely to have a lead revision if there was evidence of insulation failure. Lead revisions occurred at the time of generator change in 88% of patients with insulation failure but in only 14% of patients with a fluoroscopically normal lead (p = 0.04). The cost of recall-related defibrillator lead revisions was $81,704.55. In conclusion, our Riata screening program added expense without clear benefit to patients. In fact, patients may have been put at more risk by undergoing defibrillator lead revisions based solely on the results of the fluoroscopic screening.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84919681023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84919681023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.028

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.028

M3 - Article

C2 - 25479754

AN - SCOPUS:84919681023

VL - 115

SP - 206

EP - 208

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 2

ER -