The Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in Washington, D.C., offered some reassuring findings on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) this week, but that doesn’t mean it is a green light for expanded indications.

When choosing a device-based treatment for patients with peripheral artery disease, physicians may find themselves in a quandary. A cost-effectiveness model found that the best deal from a payer’s perspective was the worst option for the provider, according to a presentation Sept. 13 at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics scientific session.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Periprocedural complications to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can account for more than $10,000 of costs, an analysis of data from the CoreValve extreme risk cohort demonstrated. The findings were presented Sept. 14 at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics scientific session.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) proved cost effective in an analysis of data from the US CoreValve High Risk trial. Study investigator Matthew R. Reynolds, MD, MSc, of the Harvard Clinical Research Institute in Boston, discussed the results with Cardiovascular Business.

The cost-effectiveness of a thrombolytic agent used to treat stroke is all but a slam dunk from a payer’s perspective, according to a study published online Sept. 4 in Stroke. The authors recommended using their updated cost analysis to inform future reimbursement policies.

By participating on finance committees, cardiologists may guide hospital’s financial decisions rather than merely abide by them. Reginald J. Blaber, MD, a physician executive, pushes colleagues to dig into spreadsheets to find savings and opportunities to improve their cardiovascular service line.

Better documentation and billing practices are key to securing reimbursement, avoiding denials and protecting diminishing margins for catheterization laboratories. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will shut down the Open Payments website twice again “for maintenance.” The latest setback prompted the American Medical Association (AMA) to call for a six-month delay in the program launch.