Resource utilization associated with hospital and office-based insertion of a miniaturized insertable cardiac monitor: results from the RIO 2 randomized US study

John D. Rogers, Christopher Piorkowski, M. Rizwan Sohail, Rishi Anand, Marcin Kowalski, Sarah Rosemas, Kurt Stromberg, Prashanthan Sanders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Previous studies support operational benefits when moving insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) insertions outside the cardiac catheterization/electrophysiology laboratories, but this has not been directly assessed in a randomized trial or when the procedure is specifically moved to the office setting. To gain insight, the RIO 2 US study collected resource utilization and procedure time intervals for ICM insertion in-office and in-hospital and these data were used to calculate costs associated with staff time and supply use in each setting. Methods and results: The Reveal LINQ In-Office 2 US study (randomized [1:1], multicenter, unblinded) included 482 patients to undergo insertion of the ICM in-hospital (in an operating room or CATH/EP laboratory) (n = 231) or in-office (n = 251). Detailed information on resource utilization was collected prospectively by the study and used to compare resource utilization and procedure time intervals during ICM insertion procedures performed in-office vs. in-hospital. In addition, costs associated with staff time and supply use in each setting were calculated retrospectively. Total visit duration (check-in to discharge) was 107 min shorter in-office vs. in-hospital (95% CI = 97−116 min; p < 0.001). Patient preparation and education in-office were more likely to occur in the same room as the procedure, compared with in-hospital (91.6% vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001 and 87.3% vs. 22.1%, p < 0.001, respectively). There was a reduction in registered nurse and cardiovascular/operating room technologist involvement in-office, accompanied by higher physician and medical assistant participation. Overall staff time spent per case was 75% higher in-hospital, leading to 50% higher staffing costs compared to in-office. Conclusions: ICM insertion in a physician’s office vs. a hospital setting resulted in reduced patient visit time and reduced overall staff time, with a consequent reduction in staffing costs. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02395536.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)706-713
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Medical Economics
Volume23
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished or Issued - 2 Jul 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Insertable cardiac monitor
  • costs
  • hospital
  • office
  • resource utilization
  • staff
  • time

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this