Cost awareness decreases total percutaneous coronary intervention procedural cost: The SHOPPING (Show How Options in Price for Procedures Can Be Influenced Greatly) trial. Issue 7 (10th November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Asher, Elad; Mansour, John; Wheeler, Adam; Kendrick, Daniel; Cunningham, Michael; Parikh, Sahil; Zidar, David; Harford, Todd; Simon, Daniel I.; Kashyap, Vikram S.
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 89:Issue 7(2017)
• Page Start: 1207
• Page End: 1212
• Publication Date: 2016-11-10
• Subjects: PCI ‐ Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) -- CATH ‐ Catheterization -- Diagnostic -- ECO ‐ Economica/Cost-Effectiveness; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26835
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: We initiated the SHOPPING Trial (Show How Options in Price for Procedures can be InflueNced Greatly) to see if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures can be performed at a lower cost in a single institution. Background: Procedural practice variability is associated with inefficiency and increased cost. We hypothesized that announcing costs for all supplies during a catheterization procedure and reporting individual operator cost relative to peers would spur cost reduction without affecting clinical outcomes. Methods: Baseline costs of 10 consecutive PCI procedures performed by 9 interventional cardiologists were documented during a 90‐day interval. Costs were reassessed after instituting cost announcing and peer reporting the next quarter. The intervention involved labeling of all endovascular supplies, equipment, devices, and disposables in the catheterization laboratory and announcement of the unit price for each piece when requested. For each interventionalist, procedure time and costs were measured and analyzed prior to and after the intervention. Results: We found that total PCI procedural cost was significantly reduced by an average of $234.77 ( P = 0.01), equating to a total savings of $21, 129.30 over the course of 90 PCI procedures. Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE) rates were similar during both periods (2.3% vs. 3.5%, P = NS). Conclusions: Announcing costs in the catheterization laboratory during single vessel PCI and peer reporting leads to cost reduction without affecting clinical outcomes. This intervention may have a role in more complex coronary and peripheral interventional procedures, and in other procedural areas where multiple equipment and device alternatives with variable costs are available. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.