Rafael N Miranda, Peter C Austin, Stephen E Fremes, Mamas A Mamas, Maneesh K Sud, David M J Naimark, Harindra C Wijeysundera
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣植入术中基于风险排序的等待时间基准:一项模拟研究。","authors":"Rafael N Miranda, Peter C Austin, Stephen E Fremes, Mamas A Mamas, Maneesh K Sud, David M J Naimark, Harindra C Wijeysundera","doi":"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50,000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as \"low-\", \"medium-\" and \"high-risk\", and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23% and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11869,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wait-times Benchmarks for risk-based prioritization in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Rafael N Miranda, Peter C Austin, Stephen E Fremes, Mamas A Mamas, Maneesh K Sud, David M J Naimark, Harindra C Wijeysundera\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50,000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as \\\"low-\\\", \\\"medium-\\\" and \\\"high-risk\\\", and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23% and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Wait-times Benchmarks for risk-based prioritization in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: a simulation study.
Background: Demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients.
Methods: We used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50,000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as "low-", "medium-" and "high-risk", and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups.
Results: Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23% and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.
Conclusions: Prioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.
期刊介绍:
European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes is an English language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing cardiovascular outcomes research. It serves as an official journal of the European Society of Cardiology and maintains a close alliance with the European Heart Health Institute. The journal disseminates original research and topical reviews contributed by health scientists globally, with a focus on the quality of care and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes at the hospital, national, and international levels. It provides a platform for presenting the most outstanding cardiovascular outcomes research to influence cardiovascular public health policy on a global scale. Additionally, the journal aims to motivate young investigators and foster the growth of the outcomes research community.