Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 151 No. 1112 (2021)

Continuous versus routine EEG in critically ill adults: reimbursement analysis of a randomised trial

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2021.20477
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2021;151:w20477
Published
16.03.2021

Summary

BACKGROUND

Continuous EEG (cEEG) is increasingly used in critically ill patients, but it is more resource-intensive than routine EEG (rEEG). In the US, cEEG generates increased hospitalisation charges. This study analysed hospital-related reimbursement for participants in a Swiss multicentre randomised controlled trial that assessed the relationship of cEEG versus repeated rEEG with outcome.

METHODS

We used data of the CERTA study (NCT03129438), including demographics, clinical variables and reimbursement for acute hospitalisations after the Swiss Diagnosis Related Groups billing system. In addition to a comparison between EEG intervention groups, we explored correlations with several clinical variables, using uni- and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 366 adults were analysed (184 cEEG, 182 rEEG); 123 (33.6%) were women, mean age was 63.8 years (± 15). Median hospitalisation reimbursement was comparable across EEG groups in univariate analysis: cEEG CHF 89,631 (interquartile range [IQR] 45,635–159,994); rEEG CHF 73,017 (IQR 43,031–158,565); p = 0.432. However, multivariate regression disclosed that increasing reimbursement mostly correlated with longer acute hospitalisation (p <0.001), but also with cEEG (p = 0.019) and lack of seizure / status epilepticus detection (a surrogate of survival, p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

In a Swiss Diagnosis Related Groups billing system applied to critically ill adults, reimbursement largely depends on duration of acute hospital stay, whereas cEEG and lack of seizure/ status epilepticus detection also contribute to the bill. This differs from the USA, where charges are directly increased by cEEG.

References

  1. Ney JP, van der Goes DN, Nuwer MR, Nelson L, Eccher MA. Continuous and routine EEG in intensive care: utilization and outcomes, United States 2005-2009. Neurology. 2013;81(23):2002–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000436948.93399.2a
  2. Hilkman DM, van Mook WN, van Kranen-Mastenbroek VH. Continuous electroencephalographic-monitoring in the ICU: an overview of current strengths and future challenges. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30(2):192–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000443
  3. Rossetti AO, Schindler K, Alvarez V, Sutter R, Novy J, Oddo M, et al. Does Continuous Video-EEG in Patients With Altered Consciousness Improve Patient Outcome? Current Evidence and Randomized Controlled Trial Design. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;35(5):359–64. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000467
  4. Hirsch LJ, LaRoche SM, Gaspard N, Gerard E, Svoronos A, Herman ST, et al. American Clinical Neurophysiology Society’s Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology: 2012 version. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;30(1):1–27. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0b013e3182784729
  5. Claassen J, Taccone FS, Horn P, Holtkamp M, Stocchetti N, Oddo M ; Neurointensive Care Section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Recommendations on the use of EEG monitoring in critically ill patients: consensus statement from the neurointensive care section of the ESICM. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1337–51. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2938-4
  6. Hill CE, Blank LJ, Thibault D, Davis KA, Dahodwala N, Litt B, et al. Continuous EEG is associated with favorable hospitalization outcomes for critically ill patients. Neurology. 2019;92(1):e9–18. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006689
  7. Hilkman DMW, van Mook WNKA, Mess WH, van Kranen-Mastenbroek VHJM. The Use of Continuous EEG Monitoring in Intensive Care Units in The Netherlands: A National Survey. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29(2):195–202. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-018-0525-9
  8. Singh J, Britton J, Alwaki A, Singh P. After-Hours EEG: Relative Value of Emergent Routine Versus Prolonged EEG Recordings. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2019;36(1):32–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000529
  9. Abend NS, Topjian AA, Williams S. How much does it cost to identify a critically ill child experiencing electrographic seizures? J Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;32(3):257–64. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000170
  10. Busse R, Geissler A, Aaviksoo A, Cots F, Häkkinen U, Kobel C, et al. Diagnosis related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency, and quality in hospitals? BMJ. 2013;346(jun07 3):f3197. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3197
  11. Scheller-Kreinsen D, Quentin W, Busse R. DRG-based hospital payment systems and technological innovation in 12 European countries. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1166–72. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.07.001
  12. Wild V, Pfister E, Biller-Andorno N. Les DRG: l’éthique contre l’économie? Bull ASSM. 2009;09(1):1–5.
  13. Mathauer I, Wittenbecher F. Hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups: experiences in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(10):746–56A. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.12.115931
  14. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicaid. Feb 2020 [June 2020]; Available from: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/index.html.
  15. Crepeau AZ, Fugate JE, Mandrekar J, White RD, Wijdicks EF, Rabinstein AA, et al. Value analysis of continuous EEG in patients during therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2014;85(6):785–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.01.019
  16. Rossetti AO, Schindler K, Sutter R, Rüegg S, Zubler F, Novy J, et al. Continuous vs Routine Electroencephalogram in Critically Ill Adults With Altered Consciousness and No Recent Seizure. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(10):1225–32. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2264

Most read articles by the same author(s)