The combined annual meeting of the AAOS Outcomes Special
Download
1 / 66

The relative value of “all-inclusive” registries vs. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 84 Views
  • Uploaded on

The combined annual meeting of the AAOS Outcomes Special Interest Group and the HWB Foundation, San Diego, 2007. The relative value of “all-inclusive” registries vs. Focused prospective clinical research of all designs - not just RCT's. Henrik Malchau Professor, MD, PhD.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The relative value of “all-inclusive” registries vs.' - jason-patterson


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The combined annual meeting of the AAOS Outcomes Special Interest Group and the HWB Foundation, San Diego,2007

The relative value of “all-inclusive” registries vs.

Focused prospective clinical research of all designs - not just RCT's

Henrik Malchau

Professor, MD, PhD

Orthopaedic Biomechanics and

Biomaterials Laboratory

Massachusetts General Hospital


Disclosure research grants from biomet inc zimmer inc smith nephew inc rsa biomedical
DisclosureResearch grants from:Biomet IncZimmer IncSmith&Nephew IncRSA Biomedical


Acknowledgment all co workers in sweden mgh orthopedic staff the orthopedic surgeons in sweden
AcknowledgmentAll co-workers in Sweden&MGH Orthopedic Staff & The Orthopedic Surgeons in Sweden


The presentation
The Presentation

  • Introduction.

  • How the Register has changed the results of THR surgery in Sweden.

  • Registries in Sweden.

  • The Harris Joint Register @MGH.

  • Cost benefit of Registries

  • Conclusions.


Conclusion
Conclusion

  • In the (not too far) future Registries will be the main source of scientific information for decision support for both health administrators, physicians and patients in the field of reconstructive joint surgery.


Hwb mission statement
HWB Mission Statement

  • "The mission of the HWB foundation is to find methods to routinely collect well-specified, structured and privacy-protected clinical data from reliable sources and make that data, in quantities of statistical significance, available in the public domain where it may be interpreted from all points of view."


We are all obliged to build the clinical

treatment on evidence based principles



Evidence based medicine
Evidence based medicine follow-up!

  • Evidence based medicine and patient-derived outcomes assessment movements entered the scene in the 1980s and 1990s.

  • In the late 80s and early 90s critical research suggested that 40% of surgical procedures might be inappropriate and up to 85% of common medical treatments were not adequate validated.


The mission
The Mission follow-up!

  • To improve the outcome of total hip replacement.

  • Quality control with focus on the procedure - not an implant register!


The hypothesis
The Hypothesis follow-up!

  • Feed-back of analysed data stimulates the participating clinics to reflect and improve in accordance with the principle of the good example.


The Internet has substantially facilitated follow-up!

feedback of information

Available in English,

German, Italian, French,

Spanish and Swedish on: www.jru.orthop.gu.se


Base line level i data
Base line (level I) Data follow-up!

  • ID number (links to coming reoperations)

  • Gender, Age

  • Diagnose (ICD 10)

  • Implant details based on catalog numbers (scroll menu or barcode scanning).

  • Type of cement.

  • Type of incision & surgical technique.


Base line Data follow-up!

  • Simple and easily available in the medical record.

  • Physician compliance hardly needed to report the data.


The swedish tha register 1979 2005
The Swedish THA Register follow-up!1979 - 2005

  • 256.298 primary THR

  • 24.476 revision THR


Outcome results
Outcome results follow-up!

  • The Swedish experience is based on all performance in the country.

  • In USA 50% of the primary THR procedures are done by surgeons performing < 10 THR's annually.

  • The scientific results are typically presented from centers of excellence with dedicated, high volume surgeons (HHS, Mayo, MGH) – often with innovators in key roles.


Logistics of the study
Logistics of the study follow-up!

  • All departments in Sweden participate

  • The cohorts are the national production of primary and revision procedures.

  • The Registry is owned by the profession.


Failure definitions in registries
Failure definitions in Registries follow-up!

  • Most commonly used is revision.

  • Patient satisfaction and patient reported outcome used in Sweden since 2002.

  • Radiographic outcome based on large cohorts soon possible with modern image analysis tools.



The swedish tha register 1979 20051
The Swedish THA Register follow-up!1979 - 2005


Results of individual units all patients 1979 1991
Results of individual units follow-up! All patients 1979-1991

National average

1979-1991: (89,4%)

Proportion of units: Above 44%.

Below 19%.


Results of individual units all patients 1992 2004
Results of individual units follow-up!All patients 1992-2004

National average

1992-2004: (92,5%)

Proportion of units: Above 34%.

Below 13%.



Revision burden (%): years

Revision THA/

the total sum of primary and revision THA



Crude revision rate years

(JBJS(Am) 87-A, July 2005, 1487-1497)

Prevalence of Primary and Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States From 1990 Through 2002

Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K,Chan N, Lau E, and Halpern M.


Crude revision rate years

(JBJS(Am) 87-A, July 2005, 1487-1497)

Prevalence of Primary and Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States From 1990 Through 2002

Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K,Chan N, Lau E, and Halpern M.



In Sweden yearsThe Sulzer/Centerpulse experience

This problem was identified

@ 8 month by the Register


In USA yearsThe Sulzer/Centerpulse experience

This problem could have been identified

@ 4-6 month by a Register


Research opportunities cohort studies phd projects
Research opportunities yearsCohort studies – “PhD projects”

  • Periprosthetic fractures

  • Primary infection

  • Re-revisions

  • Below 50


The Clinical Value Compass years

Patient Satisfaction

Functional

Health

QoL

Clinical

Outcome

Cost and Utility

Batalden and Nelson,

Dartmouth Medical School.


  • Outcome that matters most years

    • To patients

      • pain relief and satisfaction?

    • To health care providers

      • Cost?

    • To surgeons?

      • Documentation, follow up and evidence/result??


The Clinical Value Compass years

Hypothesis

  • The Registry concept with added patient reported outcome data can potentially improve the overall process and all dimensions in the “compass”.

  • We can even perform cost-utility studies based on large cohorts.


Registries in sweden
Registries in Sweden years

  • Based on the experience from the Hip Register more than 50 registries has been established in the past 15 years


Registries in sweden1
Registries in Sweden years

  • Cardiac

    • AMI, Bypass, pacemaker, “Heart surgery”, Stroke.

  • Diabetes

    • PCP treatment, complications.

  • Surgery

    • Vascular, Hernia,


Effect of registries in sweden
Effect of Registries in Sweden years

  • Decreased mortality after AMI and less variance among the units.

  • 50% reduction in reoperations after surgery for hernia.

  • Decreased mortality and less morbidity after stroke.

  • Significant reduction of diabetes complications.



1978 to 1987 years

Sweden, Finland, Norway


1988 to 1997 years

Denmark, New Zealand


1998 to 2003 years

Hungary, Australia, Canada, Romania


2003 to Present years

Czech Republic, Turkey, Slovakia, Moldova, Austria, England, Wales, France, Germany(?), USA(?), Holland !


Resurfacing tha

Resurfacing THA years

“New” Procedure with Unanswered Questions

Short Term – Intermediate F/U Studies

More Difficult Surgical Procedures

Higher Complication Rate vs. THA

Patient selection issues


Resurfacing for the young revision rates by age and gender the australian register
Resurfacing for the young? yearsRevision rates by age and gender The Australian Register


Cumulative revision in conventional primary thr and resurfacing hip the australian register 2005
Cumulative Revision in conventional Primary THR and Resurfacing Hip The Australian Register 2005




Outcome analyses engine @ MGH longitudinal study??

  • IRB approved data repository at MGH.

  • Web based system collecting clinical

  • and radiographic data semi automatically.


www.jointoutcomes.org/pv longitudinal study??


Harris joint registry @ mgh interfaces to
Harris Joint registry @ MGH longitudinal study??interfaces to

  • OR scheduling (MOSAIC)

  • Anesthesia database (SATURN)

  • Longitudinal Medical Record (LMR)

  • Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR)

  • Radiology image repository (AMICAS)

  • Patient reported outcome

Patient data, medical records and radiographs available

in one data base for simultaneous review


Patient reported outcome
Patient reported outcome longitudinal study??

  • Touch-screen entry for questionnaires

    • Patients can enter questionnaires by touch-screen when they come for a clinic visit

  • Online Questionnaires

    • Patients can enter questionnaires through the Internet at home

  • Conventional paper forms


Minimize manual data entry
Minimize manual data entry longitudinal study??

  • Less than 10 percent of the data will be entered manually


Projects
Projects longitudinal study??

  • The Shoulder, Spine, Sports and Tumor services @ MGH in different stages of incorporation.

  • A state-wide register in Virginia in pilot-phase.

  • Two Industry partners:

    • Monitoring clinical multicenter studies.


There should be longitudinal study??NO alternatives to the principles of

Evidence based Medicine


Governments have already longitudinal study??

started to implement physician

reimbursements based on

Evidence

Netherlands, Scotland, England, Canada

Japan, Germany, Switzerland

at least for some treatment methods for a

few common disorders


Evidence Based Medicine alternatives longitudinal study??

Eminence Based Medicine

-used by senior colleagues with ”experience"

- same mistakes again & again


Evidence Based Medicine alternatives longitudinal study??

Nervousness Based Medicine

-fear of litigation stimulates over investigation

and over treatment


Evidence Based Medicine alternatives longitudinal study??

Market Based Medicine

-believing what the ads tell you


Evidence Based Medicine alternatives longitudinal study??

Profit Based Medicine

-needs no explanation


Evidence Based Medicine longitudinal study??

  • Therefore - in order to:

    • - Globalize Evidence

  • - Localize decisions

  • - Improve information

  • - Reward proper care

  • Report to your regional/national Registry


  • Potential us savings initiate a register
    Potential US “savings” longitudinal study??Initiate a Register

    • For each percent lower (from 17.6%) the direct cost savings are estimated to $42.5 million - $112.6 million per year

    • A 10% reduction (to the Swedish level) could save $ 1 billion annually!

    Kurtz et al: NHDS data, JBJS (Am), 2005


    Conclusion1
    Conclusion longitudinal study??

    • For the healthcare providers the potential is large savings.

    • For the patient optimal treatment modalities can be identified.

    • For the professional community the research potential is obvious.


    Take home message
    Take home message longitudinal study??

    • In the (not too far) future Registries will be the main source of scientific information for decision support for both health administrators, physicians and patients in the field of reconstructive joint surgery.


    Thank You! longitudinal study??

    Orthopaedic Biomechanics and

    Biomaterials Laboratory

    Massachusetts General Hospital


    ad