Using Medicare Claims to Identify Acute Clinical Events Following Implantation of Leadless Pacemakers
Received 3 December 2019
Accepted for publication 17 February 2020
Published 28 February 2020 Volume 2020:11 Pages 19—26
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor David Price
Kael Wherry,1 Kurt Stromberg,1 Jennifer A Hinnenthal,1 Lisa A Wallenfelsz,1 Mikhael F El-Chami,2 Lindsay Bockstedt1,3
1Medtronic, Plc, Mounds View, MN, USA; 2Division of Cardiology, Section of Electrophysiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; 3Medtronic, Plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Correspondence: Kael Wherry
Medtronic, Plc, 8200 Coral Sea Street NE, Mounds View, MN 55112, USA
Tel +1 763.526.2288
Background: There is heightened interest in how real-world data (RWD) can be used to supplement or replace traditional mechanisms for collecting clinical information. A critical component in evaluating utility of RWD is assessing the validity and reliability of event measurement. Only two studies have validated Medicare claims with physician-adjudicated data collected in a clinical study and none in the pacemaker patient population. This study compares events identified in physician-adjudicated clinical registry data collected in the Micra Post-Approval Registry (PAR) with events identified via Medicare administrative claims in the Micra Coverage with Evidence (CED) Study.
Methods: Patients who were dually enrolled in the Micra CED and the Micra PAR between March 9, 2017 and December 1, 2017 were included in the validation analysis. All patients intended to be implanted with a Micra device were eligible for participation in the Micra PAR. All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries implanted with a Micra device who met the 12-month continuous enrollment criteria were included in the Micra CED. We compared the count of acute (30-day) complications identified in the Medicare claims and the physician-adjudicated PAR data to assess agreement between data sources.
Results: There were 230 patients dually enrolled in the Micra CED and Micra PAR studies during the study period. Overall, there were 17 acute events reported in either the Micra CED or the Micra PAR, with 95% agreement in the identification of events and absence of events between studies. Study disagreement between events reported in either study varied: arteriovenous fistula (50%), pulmonary embolism (67%), hemorrhage/hematoma (75%), and deep vein thrombosis (100%). Among physician-adjudicated events, there was no disagreement between the Micra CED and Micra PAR studies in any event type.
Conclusion: Findings from this study demonstrate high agreement in event identification between Medicare claims data and registries for patients implanted with Micra leadless pacemakers.
Keywords: administrative claims, validation, Medicare, registry, leadless pacemaker
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]