Raising hemoglobin levels to normal range for chronic kidney failure patients may be too risky

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/01/2007 - 06:00
Display Headline
Raising hemoglobin levels to normal range for chronic kidney failure patients may be too risky

Hemoglobin concentrations in the high normal range in patients with anemia due to chronic kidney disease result in an excess risk of major adverse events, reported Arintaya Phrommintikul, MD, and colleagues from Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Adverse events include death, arteriovenous access thrombosis, and poorly controlled hypertension.

The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled studies that enrolled 5143 patients treated with recombinant human erythropoietin.

Patients in the group targeted for a higher hemoglobin level (120-160 g/L) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality than patients in the lower hemoglobin target group (< 120 g/L) (risk ratio 1.17, P = 0.031).

There was also a higher risk for arteriovenous access thrombosis (risk ratio 1.34, P=0.0001) as well as a significantly higher risk of poorly controlled blood pressure (risk ratio 1.27, P=0.004) in the higher hemoglobin target group. The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar in the two groups.

Current guidelines recommend the maintenance of hemoglobin concentrations at 110 g/L or higher, based mainly on evidence of benefit in quality-of-life measures.

Current guidelines do not include an upper limit for the target hemoglobin concentration. The authors suggest that an upper limit should be added in future revisions of guideline recommendations.

The study was published in the 3 February 2007 issue of Lancet

Publications
Topics

Hemoglobin concentrations in the high normal range in patients with anemia due to chronic kidney disease result in an excess risk of major adverse events, reported Arintaya Phrommintikul, MD, and colleagues from Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Adverse events include death, arteriovenous access thrombosis, and poorly controlled hypertension.

The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled studies that enrolled 5143 patients treated with recombinant human erythropoietin.

Patients in the group targeted for a higher hemoglobin level (120-160 g/L) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality than patients in the lower hemoglobin target group (< 120 g/L) (risk ratio 1.17, P = 0.031).

There was also a higher risk for arteriovenous access thrombosis (risk ratio 1.34, P=0.0001) as well as a significantly higher risk of poorly controlled blood pressure (risk ratio 1.27, P=0.004) in the higher hemoglobin target group. The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar in the two groups.

Current guidelines recommend the maintenance of hemoglobin concentrations at 110 g/L or higher, based mainly on evidence of benefit in quality-of-life measures.

Current guidelines do not include an upper limit for the target hemoglobin concentration. The authors suggest that an upper limit should be added in future revisions of guideline recommendations.

The study was published in the 3 February 2007 issue of Lancet

Hemoglobin concentrations in the high normal range in patients with anemia due to chronic kidney disease result in an excess risk of major adverse events, reported Arintaya Phrommintikul, MD, and colleagues from Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Adverse events include death, arteriovenous access thrombosis, and poorly controlled hypertension.

The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled studies that enrolled 5143 patients treated with recombinant human erythropoietin.

Patients in the group targeted for a higher hemoglobin level (120-160 g/L) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality than patients in the lower hemoglobin target group (< 120 g/L) (risk ratio 1.17, P = 0.031).

There was also a higher risk for arteriovenous access thrombosis (risk ratio 1.34, P=0.0001) as well as a significantly higher risk of poorly controlled blood pressure (risk ratio 1.27, P=0.004) in the higher hemoglobin target group. The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar in the two groups.

Current guidelines recommend the maintenance of hemoglobin concentrations at 110 g/L or higher, based mainly on evidence of benefit in quality-of-life measures.

Current guidelines do not include an upper limit for the target hemoglobin concentration. The authors suggest that an upper limit should be added in future revisions of guideline recommendations.

The study was published in the 3 February 2007 issue of Lancet

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Raising hemoglobin levels to normal range for chronic kidney failure patients may be too risky
Display Headline
Raising hemoglobin levels to normal range for chronic kidney failure patients may be too risky
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Isosorbide dinitrate-hydralazine improves outcomes in African Americans with heart failure

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/18/2018 - 14:21
Display Headline
Isosorbide dinitrate-hydralazine improves outcomes in African Americans with heart failure
Interpreting the African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT)
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Monica Colvin-Adams, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine/Cardiology; Medical Director, Cardiac Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Anne L. Taylor, MD
Professor of Medicine/Cardiology and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, University of Minnesota Medical School; Codirector, University of Minnesota National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health; Chair, Steering Committee, African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT)

Address: Anne L. Taylor, MD, University of Minnesota Medical School, C694 Mayo Memorial Building, Mayo Mail Code 293, 420 Delaware Street, S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455; e-mail: taylo135@umn.edu

Dr. Taylor has indicated that she has received research support and consulting fees from the NitroMed corporation, which also sponsored the African-American Heart Failure Trial.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
227-234
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Monica Colvin-Adams, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine/Cardiology; Medical Director, Cardiac Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Anne L. Taylor, MD
Professor of Medicine/Cardiology and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, University of Minnesota Medical School; Codirector, University of Minnesota National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health; Chair, Steering Committee, African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT)

Address: Anne L. Taylor, MD, University of Minnesota Medical School, C694 Mayo Memorial Building, Mayo Mail Code 293, 420 Delaware Street, S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455; e-mail: taylo135@umn.edu

Dr. Taylor has indicated that she has received research support and consulting fees from the NitroMed corporation, which also sponsored the African-American Heart Failure Trial.

Author and Disclosure Information

Monica Colvin-Adams, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine/Cardiology; Medical Director, Cardiac Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Anne L. Taylor, MD
Professor of Medicine/Cardiology and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, University of Minnesota Medical School; Codirector, University of Minnesota National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health; Chair, Steering Committee, African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT)

Address: Anne L. Taylor, MD, University of Minnesota Medical School, C694 Mayo Memorial Building, Mayo Mail Code 293, 420 Delaware Street, S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455; e-mail: taylo135@umn.edu

Dr. Taylor has indicated that she has received research support and consulting fees from the NitroMed corporation, which also sponsored the African-American Heart Failure Trial.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Interpreting the African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT)
Interpreting the African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Page Number
227-234
Page Number
227-234
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Isosorbide dinitrate-hydralazine improves outcomes in African Americans with heart failure
Display Headline
Isosorbide dinitrate-hydralazine improves outcomes in African Americans with heart failure
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

If you have celiac disease

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/18/2018 - 13:57
Display Headline
If you have celiac disease
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
216
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Page Number
216
Page Number
216
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
If you have celiac disease
Display Headline
If you have celiac disease
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Update on hormonal contraception

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/18/2018 - 13:38
Display Headline
Update on hormonal contraception
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Nziavake Masimasi, MD
Women’s Health Fellow, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Mala S. Sivanandy, MD
Women’s Health Fellow, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Holly L. Thacker, MD
Director, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center; Associate Professor of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University

Address: Holly L. Thacker, MD, Women’s Health Center, A10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: thackeh@ccf.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
186, 188-190, 193-194, 197-198
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Nziavake Masimasi, MD
Women’s Health Fellow, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Mala S. Sivanandy, MD
Women’s Health Fellow, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Holly L. Thacker, MD
Director, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center; Associate Professor of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University

Address: Holly L. Thacker, MD, Women’s Health Center, A10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: thackeh@ccf.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Nziavake Masimasi, MD
Women’s Health Fellow, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Mala S. Sivanandy, MD
Women’s Health Fellow, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Holly L. Thacker, MD
Director, Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Center; Associate Professor of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University

Address: Holly L. Thacker, MD, Women’s Health Center, A10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail: thackeh@ccf.org

Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Page Number
186, 188-190, 193-194, 197-198
Page Number
186, 188-190, 193-194, 197-198
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Update on hormonal contraception
Display Headline
Update on hormonal contraception
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

An elderly woman with severe anemia

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/18/2018 - 13:30
Display Headline
An elderly woman with severe anemia
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Emil Hayek, MD
Assistant professor of Medicine, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH; Cardiologist, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH

Address: Emil Hayek, MD, Akron General Medical Center, 400 Wabash Avenue, Akron, OH 44307; e-mail: hayeke@adelphia.net

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
172, 175-176, 177, 181-182, 184
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Emil Hayek, MD
Assistant professor of Medicine, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH; Cardiologist, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH

Address: Emil Hayek, MD, Akron General Medical Center, 400 Wabash Avenue, Akron, OH 44307; e-mail: hayeke@adelphia.net

Author and Disclosure Information

Emil Hayek, MD
Assistant professor of Medicine, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH; Cardiologist, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH

Address: Emil Hayek, MD, Akron General Medical Center, 400 Wabash Avenue, Akron, OH 44307; e-mail: hayeke@adelphia.net

Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Page Number
172, 175-176, 177, 181-182, 184
Page Number
172, 175-176, 177, 181-182, 184
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
An elderly woman with severe anemia
Display Headline
An elderly woman with severe anemia
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Erratum (2007;79:33-36)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 12:10
Display Headline
Erratum (2007;79:33-36)

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Cutis - 79(3)
Publications
Page Number
235
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF
Article PDF

Issue
Cutis - 79(3)
Issue
Cutis - 79(3)
Page Number
235
Page Number
235
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Erratum (2007;79:33-36)
Display Headline
Erratum (2007;79:33-36)
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Current and Emerging Therapeutic Modalities for Hyperhidrosis, Part 1: Conservative and Noninvasive Treatments

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 03/08/2019 - 16:55
Display Headline
Current and Emerging Therapeutic Modalities for Hyperhidrosis, Part 1: Conservative and Noninvasive Treatments

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Ram R, Lowe NJ, Yamauchi PS

Issue
Cutis - 79(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
211-217
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Ram R, Lowe NJ, Yamauchi PS

Author and Disclosure Information

Ram R, Lowe NJ, Yamauchi PS

Article PDF
Article PDF

Issue
Cutis - 79(3)
Issue
Cutis - 79(3)
Page Number
211-217
Page Number
211-217
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Current and Emerging Therapeutic Modalities for Hyperhidrosis, Part 1: Conservative and Noninvasive Treatments
Display Headline
Current and Emerging Therapeutic Modalities for Hyperhidrosis, Part 1: Conservative and Noninvasive Treatments
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

EXCLUSIVELY ON THE WEBCo-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier ... Delay doesn't change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 08/28/2018 - 10:54
Display Headline
EXCLUSIVELY ON THE WEB
Co-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier ... Delay doesn't change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion

Co-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier

Q. I was called in to provide intraoperative consultation for a neighboring general surgeon. He had performed an exploratory laparotomy, and the only finding was a pedunculated fibroid. I performed a myomectomy, assisted by the general surgeon. He had begun the procedure with his physician assistant and finished assisted by the PA after I finished my part. What is the best way to code for this situation?

A. Under CPT guidelines that were clarified in the American Medical Association’s May 1997 “CPT Assistant,” this is a co-surgery case because (1) establishing the operative site and exploration are integral to the procedure and (2) you both performed a distinct part of the procedure. You and the general surgeon would use the same surgical code with a modifier -62 [Two surgeons]. Your code choice for this procedure would be 58140 [Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 1 to 4 intramural myoma(s) with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myomas; abdominal approach].

The general surgeon should also bill for the surgical assistant services of the PA by adding a modifier AS [Physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist services for assistant at surgery] to this same surgical code. Some payers might deny an assistant in a co-surgery case, but the documentation in this situation would support the need because the PA assisted only when you were not present.

Delay doesn’t change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion

Q. I recently performed a suction D&C for an incomplete voluntary abortion done 2 months ago that was hemorrhaging and had retained products of conception. Our billing department coded this as 59840, but the payer rejected the claim, stating that they already paid the hospital for 59812, which I thought was reported only for a spontaneous abortion. Should we refile?

A. Yes. At this point, you are removing retained products of conception no matter what the patient intended 2 months ago. This means that you are performing a surgical treatment of an incomplete abortion, coded 59812. Code 59840 implies that you are the one inducing the abortion at this surgical session—not the case.

The diagnosis for bleeding after an abortion performed at a previous surgery is 639.1.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC-OGS, MA
Independent coding and documentation consultant; former program manager, Department of Coding and Nomenclature, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Issue
OBG Management - 19(03)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
e1-e1
Legacy Keywords
coding; documentation; reimbursement; CPT; Melanie Witt;RN; Witt M; Melanie Witt
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC-OGS, MA
Independent coding and documentation consultant; former program manager, Department of Coding and Nomenclature, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC-OGS, MA
Independent coding and documentation consultant; former program manager, Department of Coding and Nomenclature, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Article PDF
Article PDF

Co-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier

Q. I was called in to provide intraoperative consultation for a neighboring general surgeon. He had performed an exploratory laparotomy, and the only finding was a pedunculated fibroid. I performed a myomectomy, assisted by the general surgeon. He had begun the procedure with his physician assistant and finished assisted by the PA after I finished my part. What is the best way to code for this situation?

A. Under CPT guidelines that were clarified in the American Medical Association’s May 1997 “CPT Assistant,” this is a co-surgery case because (1) establishing the operative site and exploration are integral to the procedure and (2) you both performed a distinct part of the procedure. You and the general surgeon would use the same surgical code with a modifier -62 [Two surgeons]. Your code choice for this procedure would be 58140 [Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 1 to 4 intramural myoma(s) with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myomas; abdominal approach].

The general surgeon should also bill for the surgical assistant services of the PA by adding a modifier AS [Physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist services for assistant at surgery] to this same surgical code. Some payers might deny an assistant in a co-surgery case, but the documentation in this situation would support the need because the PA assisted only when you were not present.

Delay doesn’t change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion

Q. I recently performed a suction D&C for an incomplete voluntary abortion done 2 months ago that was hemorrhaging and had retained products of conception. Our billing department coded this as 59840, but the payer rejected the claim, stating that they already paid the hospital for 59812, which I thought was reported only for a spontaneous abortion. Should we refile?

A. Yes. At this point, you are removing retained products of conception no matter what the patient intended 2 months ago. This means that you are performing a surgical treatment of an incomplete abortion, coded 59812. Code 59840 implies that you are the one inducing the abortion at this surgical session—not the case.

The diagnosis for bleeding after an abortion performed at a previous surgery is 639.1.

Co-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier

Q. I was called in to provide intraoperative consultation for a neighboring general surgeon. He had performed an exploratory laparotomy, and the only finding was a pedunculated fibroid. I performed a myomectomy, assisted by the general surgeon. He had begun the procedure with his physician assistant and finished assisted by the PA after I finished my part. What is the best way to code for this situation?

A. Under CPT guidelines that were clarified in the American Medical Association’s May 1997 “CPT Assistant,” this is a co-surgery case because (1) establishing the operative site and exploration are integral to the procedure and (2) you both performed a distinct part of the procedure. You and the general surgeon would use the same surgical code with a modifier -62 [Two surgeons]. Your code choice for this procedure would be 58140 [Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 1 to 4 intramural myoma(s) with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myomas; abdominal approach].

The general surgeon should also bill for the surgical assistant services of the PA by adding a modifier AS [Physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist services for assistant at surgery] to this same surgical code. Some payers might deny an assistant in a co-surgery case, but the documentation in this situation would support the need because the PA assisted only when you were not present.

Delay doesn’t change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion

Q. I recently performed a suction D&C for an incomplete voluntary abortion done 2 months ago that was hemorrhaging and had retained products of conception. Our billing department coded this as 59840, but the payer rejected the claim, stating that they already paid the hospital for 59812, which I thought was reported only for a spontaneous abortion. Should we refile?

A. Yes. At this point, you are removing retained products of conception no matter what the patient intended 2 months ago. This means that you are performing a surgical treatment of an incomplete abortion, coded 59812. Code 59840 implies that you are the one inducing the abortion at this surgical session—not the case.

The diagnosis for bleeding after an abortion performed at a previous surgery is 639.1.

Issue
OBG Management - 19(03)
Issue
OBG Management - 19(03)
Page Number
e1-e1
Page Number
e1-e1
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
EXCLUSIVELY ON THE WEB
Co-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier ... Delay doesn't change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion
Display Headline
EXCLUSIVELY ON THE WEB
Co-surgery: Both surgeons bill, with modifier ... Delay doesn't change coding for surgical tx of incomplete abortion
Legacy Keywords
coding; documentation; reimbursement; CPT; Melanie Witt;RN; Witt M; Melanie Witt
Legacy Keywords
coding; documentation; reimbursement; CPT; Melanie Witt;RN; Witt M; Melanie Witt
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures ... Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 08/28/2018 - 10:54
Display Headline
Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures ... Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe

Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures

Q. I have been injecting lidocaine in a grid pattern into the vulvar area of some of my patients to treat vestibulitis. Is there a specific CPT code for this procedure?

A. Although CPT includes codes for injection into nerves [eg, 64430, Injection, anesthetic agent; pudendal nerve], lesions [eg, 11900, Injection, intralesional; up to and including seven lesions], and trigger-point muscles [eg, 20552, Injection(s); single or multiple trigger point(s), one or two muscle(s)], it appears that the local anesthetic you are injecting is being placed subcutaneously. This means that code 90772 [Therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic injection (specify substance or drug); subcutaneous or intramuscular] is the correct code.

What may present a problem, however, is that you are administering lidocaine in several areas of the vulva. Many payers have a unit limitation for the number of injections you can bill at one time; if you use the same syringe and needle for injection at multiple sites, the payer may decide to reimburse for only a single injection.

Some practices have been successful in getting fair reimbursement by billing code 58999 [Unlisted procedure, female genital system (nonobstetrical)] for this treatment.

If you will be billing the injection procedure instead, note that the “J” code for lidocaine was deleted in 2006. To bill for lidocaine, report J3490 [Unclassified drugs]. Lidocaine would be included as a supply with code 58999 and therefore not separately billable.

Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe

Q. When a procedure (such as hysteroscopy) has no global days and the decision to perform the surgery was made at a previous visit (perhaps days or weeks before the procedure), can we bill a preoperative visit that is made the week of the surgery? This visit involves talking to the patient to answer any additional questions, taking a history and performing a physical exam, providing preadmission and preoperative instructions, and having her sign the informed consent form.

A. There isn’t any black-and-white answer; the payer determines the coverage. Many payers consider the service that you are describing integral to performing any surgery and therefore included in the billing for the procedure—especially if the visit occurred within 48 hours before planned surgery.

Some payers will reimburse for this visit, however, and you owe it to them to indicate the nature of the visit. This means that you should not provide a diagnosis code for the visit that is the actual reason for doing the surgery; instead, code V72.83 [other specified preop exam] or V72.84 [unspecified preop exam]. This allows the payer to apply its policy on this matter. A payer that includes the preop exam will deny the claim; one that doesn’t, will reimburse you.

There’s more Adviser for you on the Web

One surgery, two surgeons: How do both code to be reimbursed? Find the answer and read more “Reimbursement Adviser” on the Web at www.obgmanagement.com

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC-OGS, MA
Independent coding and documentation consultant; former program manager, Department of Coding and Nomenclature, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Issue
OBG Management - 19(03)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
71-71
Legacy Keywords
coding; documentation; reimbursement; CPT; Melanie Witt;RN; Witt M; Melanie Witt
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC-OGS, MA
Independent coding and documentation consultant; former program manager, Department of Coding and Nomenclature, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC-OGS, MA
Independent coding and documentation consultant; former program manager, Department of Coding and Nomenclature, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Article PDF
Article PDF

Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures

Q. I have been injecting lidocaine in a grid pattern into the vulvar area of some of my patients to treat vestibulitis. Is there a specific CPT code for this procedure?

A. Although CPT includes codes for injection into nerves [eg, 64430, Injection, anesthetic agent; pudendal nerve], lesions [eg, 11900, Injection, intralesional; up to and including seven lesions], and trigger-point muscles [eg, 20552, Injection(s); single or multiple trigger point(s), one or two muscle(s)], it appears that the local anesthetic you are injecting is being placed subcutaneously. This means that code 90772 [Therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic injection (specify substance or drug); subcutaneous or intramuscular] is the correct code.

What may present a problem, however, is that you are administering lidocaine in several areas of the vulva. Many payers have a unit limitation for the number of injections you can bill at one time; if you use the same syringe and needle for injection at multiple sites, the payer may decide to reimburse for only a single injection.

Some practices have been successful in getting fair reimbursement by billing code 58999 [Unlisted procedure, female genital system (nonobstetrical)] for this treatment.

If you will be billing the injection procedure instead, note that the “J” code for lidocaine was deleted in 2006. To bill for lidocaine, report J3490 [Unclassified drugs]. Lidocaine would be included as a supply with code 58999 and therefore not separately billable.

Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe

Q. When a procedure (such as hysteroscopy) has no global days and the decision to perform the surgery was made at a previous visit (perhaps days or weeks before the procedure), can we bill a preoperative visit that is made the week of the surgery? This visit involves talking to the patient to answer any additional questions, taking a history and performing a physical exam, providing preadmission and preoperative instructions, and having her sign the informed consent form.

A. There isn’t any black-and-white answer; the payer determines the coverage. Many payers consider the service that you are describing integral to performing any surgery and therefore included in the billing for the procedure—especially if the visit occurred within 48 hours before planned surgery.

Some payers will reimburse for this visit, however, and you owe it to them to indicate the nature of the visit. This means that you should not provide a diagnosis code for the visit that is the actual reason for doing the surgery; instead, code V72.83 [other specified preop exam] or V72.84 [unspecified preop exam]. This allows the payer to apply its policy on this matter. A payer that includes the preop exam will deny the claim; one that doesn’t, will reimburse you.

There’s more Adviser for you on the Web

One surgery, two surgeons: How do both code to be reimbursed? Find the answer and read more “Reimbursement Adviser” on the Web at www.obgmanagement.com

Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures

Q. I have been injecting lidocaine in a grid pattern into the vulvar area of some of my patients to treat vestibulitis. Is there a specific CPT code for this procedure?

A. Although CPT includes codes for injection into nerves [eg, 64430, Injection, anesthetic agent; pudendal nerve], lesions [eg, 11900, Injection, intralesional; up to and including seven lesions], and trigger-point muscles [eg, 20552, Injection(s); single or multiple trigger point(s), one or two muscle(s)], it appears that the local anesthetic you are injecting is being placed subcutaneously. This means that code 90772 [Therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic injection (specify substance or drug); subcutaneous or intramuscular] is the correct code.

What may present a problem, however, is that you are administering lidocaine in several areas of the vulva. Many payers have a unit limitation for the number of injections you can bill at one time; if you use the same syringe and needle for injection at multiple sites, the payer may decide to reimburse for only a single injection.

Some practices have been successful in getting fair reimbursement by billing code 58999 [Unlisted procedure, female genital system (nonobstetrical)] for this treatment.

If you will be billing the injection procedure instead, note that the “J” code for lidocaine was deleted in 2006. To bill for lidocaine, report J3490 [Unclassified drugs]. Lidocaine would be included as a supply with code 58999 and therefore not separately billable.

Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe

Q. When a procedure (such as hysteroscopy) has no global days and the decision to perform the surgery was made at a previous visit (perhaps days or weeks before the procedure), can we bill a preoperative visit that is made the week of the surgery? This visit involves talking to the patient to answer any additional questions, taking a history and performing a physical exam, providing preadmission and preoperative instructions, and having her sign the informed consent form.

A. There isn’t any black-and-white answer; the payer determines the coverage. Many payers consider the service that you are describing integral to performing any surgery and therefore included in the billing for the procedure—especially if the visit occurred within 48 hours before planned surgery.

Some payers will reimburse for this visit, however, and you owe it to them to indicate the nature of the visit. This means that you should not provide a diagnosis code for the visit that is the actual reason for doing the surgery; instead, code V72.83 [other specified preop exam] or V72.84 [unspecified preop exam]. This allows the payer to apply its policy on this matter. A payer that includes the preop exam will deny the claim; one that doesn’t, will reimburse you.

There’s more Adviser for you on the Web

One surgery, two surgeons: How do both code to be reimbursed? Find the answer and read more “Reimbursement Adviser” on the Web at www.obgmanagement.com

Issue
OBG Management - 19(03)
Issue
OBG Management - 19(03)
Page Number
71-71
Page Number
71-71
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures ... Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe
Display Headline
Multisite injection might not be reimbursed as multiple procedures ... Split preop visit from surgery? Maybe
Legacy Keywords
coding; documentation; reimbursement; CPT; Melanie Witt;RN; Witt M; Melanie Witt
Legacy Keywords
coding; documentation; reimbursement; CPT; Melanie Witt;RN; Witt M; Melanie Witt
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Brief Report

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/02/2017 - 19:34
Display Headline
What are the disadvantages of sliding‐scale insulin?

Tight glycemic control in the hospitalized patient is not a simple task. Hospitalized patients are characterized by high levels of counterregulatory hormones (catecholamines, cortisol, and growth hormone) and cytokines that vary greatly in the context of sepsis, burns, hypoxia, cardiovascular disease, pain, surgery, and trauma. In addition, inpatients have unpredictable eating times and little to no physical activity. Each of the major classes of oral glycemic agents has significant limitations for inpatient use and provides little flexibility or opportunity for titration in a setting where acute changes demand these qualities. As a result, sliding‐scale insulin (SSI) regimens are often used to treat hyperglycemia in patients with or without diabetes in these clinical situations.

SSI usually consists of rapid‐acting or regular insulin ordered in a specified number of units for a given degree of hyperglycemia without regard to the timing of food, any preexisting insulin administration, or even individualization of a patient's sensitivity to insulin. This is not a physiologic approach to insulin management and not an ideal strategy for managing hyperglycemia. Because many SSI regimens do not initiate therapy until the blood glucose level is more than 200 mg/dL, SSI uses hyperglycemia as a threshold. This allows hyperglycemia to persist for long periods without intervention. In turn, SSI is reactive instead of proactive. With SSI, the current dose of insulin is based on the inadequacy of the previous dose, creating a chase‐your‐tail phenomenon. In addition, once the SSI regimen begins, glycemic control is rarely assessed by a physician until blood glucose is dangerously low or high (<60 or >400 mg/dL). Finally, SSI provides no basal insulin. Hospitalized patients with stress‐induced hyperglycemia require not only postprandial insulin but also basal insulin to control blood glucose between meals and at night.

Evidence supporting SSI as a primary method of blood glucose control in diabetic patients is lacking. A search of MEDLINE for the period from 1966 to 2003 with the terms sliding scale insulin, sliding scale, and sliding combined with insulin yielded a total of 52 publications, none of which showed a benefit of sliding‐scale insulin in improving glycemic control or clinical outcomes. Retrospective and nonrandomized studies confirmed that SSI is associated with more hyper‐ and hypoglycemia with longer hospital stays.13 Queale et al. published the largest prospective cohort study (n = 171) of diabetic patients on SSI.4 More than 40% had at least one episode of hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL), and 25% had more than one episode. Use of SSI alone increased the likelihood of hyperglycemia 3‐fold. Hypoglycemia occurred in 23%. Despite this poor performance in controlling blood glucose, the SSI remained unadjusted throughout the hospital stay for more than 80% of patients. In total, the clinical studies and clinical reviews on SSI confirmed that it is an inappropriate approach to blood glucose control in diabetic patients. Yet, SSI use in the inpatient setting continues to be a routine passed down from attending physicians to residents and medical students. In one recent study, 61% of diabetic patients admitted to the hospital for reasons other than metabolic control were on SSI.5 This sliding‐scale culture tolerates hyperglycemia and relieves the burden on the medical team to closely manage the glucose. Clinicians rely on the SSI to manage hyperglycemia rather than make frequent insulin adjustments.

Insulin, given either intravenously as a continuous infusion or subcutaneously, is the most effective agent for achieving glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Intravenous insulin infusions have been used for many years and have a proven track record for efficacy and safety. It does require frequent bedside blood glucose monitoring, which may limit its use on regular medical floors. The ideal frequency for monitoring has not been studied, but it is generally recommended that blood glucose be tested every hour until a stable infusion rate is reached. Unlike SSI, effective subcutaneous insulin therapy should define the dose components physiologically in the form of basal, nutritional or prandial, and correction doses (Fig. 1). Basal insulin is a patient's baseline level of insulin available throughout the day. Basal insulin gives the patient enough insulin to suppress hepatic glucose output, and it keeps the body from becoming hyperglycemic and ketoacidotic when not eating. Nutritional insulin is defined as the insulin needed to cover any intravenous glucose the patient is receiving, intravenous or enteral alimentation, and calories consumed in meals. If the patient is eating and is not receiving any other sources of calories, nutritional insulin would be the same as prandial insulin. In addition to basal and nutritional insulin requirements, patients often require supplemental or correction doses of insulin to treat unexpected hyperglycemia. Therefore, subcutaneous insulin can be given as a scheduled or programmed dose (basal + nutritional) and then a rapid‐acting supplemental (correction) dose to cover any hyperglycemia above target. The supplemental dose should not be confused with SSI, which does not provide any programmed basal and nutritional insulin. To provide the right amounts of basal and prandial insulin, you need to choose from the available therapies by examining their properties (Table 1). The ideal basal insulin should be long acting without identifiable peaks in concentration. For patients who are not eating, nutritional doses can be programmed with intermediate‐acting insulin. When giving insulin to patients before meals, rapid‐acting insulin analogs are best suited for the hospitalized patient because of their short onset of action. Regular insulin is also short acting, but it takes 30 minutes to take effect; thus, the dose needs to be timed at least a half hour prior to the meal. In addition, regular insulin can last for 6‐8 hours if large doses are used, which is not an ideal quality to have if trying to control postprandial glucose. The best way to mimic normal physiology is to use a combination of several types of insulin. A common strategy is to give a single daily injection of basal insulin (glargine/detimir) and then use rapid‐acting insulin analogs (lispro/aspart/glulisine) to cover prandial and correction doses.

Figure 1
Physiologic insulin requirements of healthy and sick patients.
Insulin Types
Time to Action Peak Duration
Lispro/aspart/glulisine 5‐15 minutes 1‐2 hours 3‐6 hours
Human NPH 1‐2 hours 4‐8 hours 10‐20 hours
Regular/human 30‐60 minutes 2‐4 hours 6‐10 hours
Glargine/detimir 1‐2 hours Flat 24 hours

The initial doses of scheduled subcutaneous insulin are based on previously established dose requirements, previous experience of the same patient during similar circumstances, requirements during a stable continuous insulin infusion, and/or knowledge of how stable medical condition and nutritional intake are. For patients whose insulin requirements are unknown and whose nutritional intake will be adequate, a reasonable assumption based on body weight is 0.5‐0.7 units/kg per 24 hours. Type 2 diabetics may need more, however; regardless, the patient's regimen should be started low and worked up to the dose to meet the demonstrated need. For type 1 diabetics with limited nutritional intake, the amount of scheduled insulin calculated by body weight should be reduced by 50%. For type 2 diabetics with limited nutritional intake, endogenous insulin may be adequate for basal requirements, and until results of monitoring indicate a further need for scheduled insulin, only correction doses should be used initially.

Many patients will need to transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin therapy when transferred from the critical care unit to the regular nursing floor. To maintain effective blood levels of insulin, it is necessary to administer short‐ or rapid‐acting insulin subcutaneously 1‐2 hours before or intermediate‐ or long‐acting insulin 2‐3 hours before stopping the insulin infusion. Subcutaneous insulin with an appropriate duration of action may be administered as a single dose or repeatedly to maintain basal effect until the time of day when insulin or analog, whichever preferred for basal effect, normally would be provided. For example, patients who typically receive glargine at night but have their insulin infusion stopped at lunchtime could receive a one‐time dose of NPH before interruption of the insulin infusion.

Hypoglycemia is a concern in hospitalized patients with diabetes, and it has been a major barrier to aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia in the hospital. Yet hypoglycemia can be predicted and prevented. Factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in the hospital include inadequate glucose monitoring; lack of clear communication or coordination between dietary, transportation, and nursing staff; and illegible orders.6 Clear algorithms for insulin orders and clear hypoglycemia protocols will reduce the likelihood of severe hypoglycemia occurring.

Although most positive outcomes associated with the new glycemic targets are derived from the critical care setting, there is a rationale supporting their benefit for other patients. The current glycemic targets for hospitalized patients warrant an approach that stresses the use of insulin in a way that matches normal physiology. The traditional SSI regimen is ineffective, and using it to manage glucose in the inpatient setting can no longer be justified.

References
  1. Gearhart JG,Duncan JL,Replogle WH,Forbes RC,Walley EJ.Efficacy of sliding‐scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens.Fam Pract Res J.1994;14:313321.
  2. Smith WD,Winterstein AG,Johns T,Rosenberg E,Sauer B.Causes of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in adult inpatients.Am J Health Syst Pharm.2005;62:714719.
  3. Browning LA,Dumo P.Sliding‐scale insulin: an antiquated approach to glycemic control in hospitalized patients.Am J Health Syst Pharm.2004;61:16111614.
  4. Queale WS,Seidler AJ,Brancati FL.Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:545552.
  5. Moghissi E.Hospital management of diabetes: beyond the sliding scale.Cleve Clin J Med.2004;71:801808.
Article PDF
Publications
Page Number
20-22
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Tight glycemic control in the hospitalized patient is not a simple task. Hospitalized patients are characterized by high levels of counterregulatory hormones (catecholamines, cortisol, and growth hormone) and cytokines that vary greatly in the context of sepsis, burns, hypoxia, cardiovascular disease, pain, surgery, and trauma. In addition, inpatients have unpredictable eating times and little to no physical activity. Each of the major classes of oral glycemic agents has significant limitations for inpatient use and provides little flexibility or opportunity for titration in a setting where acute changes demand these qualities. As a result, sliding‐scale insulin (SSI) regimens are often used to treat hyperglycemia in patients with or without diabetes in these clinical situations.

SSI usually consists of rapid‐acting or regular insulin ordered in a specified number of units for a given degree of hyperglycemia without regard to the timing of food, any preexisting insulin administration, or even individualization of a patient's sensitivity to insulin. This is not a physiologic approach to insulin management and not an ideal strategy for managing hyperglycemia. Because many SSI regimens do not initiate therapy until the blood glucose level is more than 200 mg/dL, SSI uses hyperglycemia as a threshold. This allows hyperglycemia to persist for long periods without intervention. In turn, SSI is reactive instead of proactive. With SSI, the current dose of insulin is based on the inadequacy of the previous dose, creating a chase‐your‐tail phenomenon. In addition, once the SSI regimen begins, glycemic control is rarely assessed by a physician until blood glucose is dangerously low or high (<60 or >400 mg/dL). Finally, SSI provides no basal insulin. Hospitalized patients with stress‐induced hyperglycemia require not only postprandial insulin but also basal insulin to control blood glucose between meals and at night.

Evidence supporting SSI as a primary method of blood glucose control in diabetic patients is lacking. A search of MEDLINE for the period from 1966 to 2003 with the terms sliding scale insulin, sliding scale, and sliding combined with insulin yielded a total of 52 publications, none of which showed a benefit of sliding‐scale insulin in improving glycemic control or clinical outcomes. Retrospective and nonrandomized studies confirmed that SSI is associated with more hyper‐ and hypoglycemia with longer hospital stays.13 Queale et al. published the largest prospective cohort study (n = 171) of diabetic patients on SSI.4 More than 40% had at least one episode of hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL), and 25% had more than one episode. Use of SSI alone increased the likelihood of hyperglycemia 3‐fold. Hypoglycemia occurred in 23%. Despite this poor performance in controlling blood glucose, the SSI remained unadjusted throughout the hospital stay for more than 80% of patients. In total, the clinical studies and clinical reviews on SSI confirmed that it is an inappropriate approach to blood glucose control in diabetic patients. Yet, SSI use in the inpatient setting continues to be a routine passed down from attending physicians to residents and medical students. In one recent study, 61% of diabetic patients admitted to the hospital for reasons other than metabolic control were on SSI.5 This sliding‐scale culture tolerates hyperglycemia and relieves the burden on the medical team to closely manage the glucose. Clinicians rely on the SSI to manage hyperglycemia rather than make frequent insulin adjustments.

Insulin, given either intravenously as a continuous infusion or subcutaneously, is the most effective agent for achieving glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Intravenous insulin infusions have been used for many years and have a proven track record for efficacy and safety. It does require frequent bedside blood glucose monitoring, which may limit its use on regular medical floors. The ideal frequency for monitoring has not been studied, but it is generally recommended that blood glucose be tested every hour until a stable infusion rate is reached. Unlike SSI, effective subcutaneous insulin therapy should define the dose components physiologically in the form of basal, nutritional or prandial, and correction doses (Fig. 1). Basal insulin is a patient's baseline level of insulin available throughout the day. Basal insulin gives the patient enough insulin to suppress hepatic glucose output, and it keeps the body from becoming hyperglycemic and ketoacidotic when not eating. Nutritional insulin is defined as the insulin needed to cover any intravenous glucose the patient is receiving, intravenous or enteral alimentation, and calories consumed in meals. If the patient is eating and is not receiving any other sources of calories, nutritional insulin would be the same as prandial insulin. In addition to basal and nutritional insulin requirements, patients often require supplemental or correction doses of insulin to treat unexpected hyperglycemia. Therefore, subcutaneous insulin can be given as a scheduled or programmed dose (basal + nutritional) and then a rapid‐acting supplemental (correction) dose to cover any hyperglycemia above target. The supplemental dose should not be confused with SSI, which does not provide any programmed basal and nutritional insulin. To provide the right amounts of basal and prandial insulin, you need to choose from the available therapies by examining their properties (Table 1). The ideal basal insulin should be long acting without identifiable peaks in concentration. For patients who are not eating, nutritional doses can be programmed with intermediate‐acting insulin. When giving insulin to patients before meals, rapid‐acting insulin analogs are best suited for the hospitalized patient because of their short onset of action. Regular insulin is also short acting, but it takes 30 minutes to take effect; thus, the dose needs to be timed at least a half hour prior to the meal. In addition, regular insulin can last for 6‐8 hours if large doses are used, which is not an ideal quality to have if trying to control postprandial glucose. The best way to mimic normal physiology is to use a combination of several types of insulin. A common strategy is to give a single daily injection of basal insulin (glargine/detimir) and then use rapid‐acting insulin analogs (lispro/aspart/glulisine) to cover prandial and correction doses.

Figure 1
Physiologic insulin requirements of healthy and sick patients.
Insulin Types
Time to Action Peak Duration
Lispro/aspart/glulisine 5‐15 minutes 1‐2 hours 3‐6 hours
Human NPH 1‐2 hours 4‐8 hours 10‐20 hours
Regular/human 30‐60 minutes 2‐4 hours 6‐10 hours
Glargine/detimir 1‐2 hours Flat 24 hours

The initial doses of scheduled subcutaneous insulin are based on previously established dose requirements, previous experience of the same patient during similar circumstances, requirements during a stable continuous insulin infusion, and/or knowledge of how stable medical condition and nutritional intake are. For patients whose insulin requirements are unknown and whose nutritional intake will be adequate, a reasonable assumption based on body weight is 0.5‐0.7 units/kg per 24 hours. Type 2 diabetics may need more, however; regardless, the patient's regimen should be started low and worked up to the dose to meet the demonstrated need. For type 1 diabetics with limited nutritional intake, the amount of scheduled insulin calculated by body weight should be reduced by 50%. For type 2 diabetics with limited nutritional intake, endogenous insulin may be adequate for basal requirements, and until results of monitoring indicate a further need for scheduled insulin, only correction doses should be used initially.

Many patients will need to transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin therapy when transferred from the critical care unit to the regular nursing floor. To maintain effective blood levels of insulin, it is necessary to administer short‐ or rapid‐acting insulin subcutaneously 1‐2 hours before or intermediate‐ or long‐acting insulin 2‐3 hours before stopping the insulin infusion. Subcutaneous insulin with an appropriate duration of action may be administered as a single dose or repeatedly to maintain basal effect until the time of day when insulin or analog, whichever preferred for basal effect, normally would be provided. For example, patients who typically receive glargine at night but have their insulin infusion stopped at lunchtime could receive a one‐time dose of NPH before interruption of the insulin infusion.

Hypoglycemia is a concern in hospitalized patients with diabetes, and it has been a major barrier to aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia in the hospital. Yet hypoglycemia can be predicted and prevented. Factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in the hospital include inadequate glucose monitoring; lack of clear communication or coordination between dietary, transportation, and nursing staff; and illegible orders.6 Clear algorithms for insulin orders and clear hypoglycemia protocols will reduce the likelihood of severe hypoglycemia occurring.

Although most positive outcomes associated with the new glycemic targets are derived from the critical care setting, there is a rationale supporting their benefit for other patients. The current glycemic targets for hospitalized patients warrant an approach that stresses the use of insulin in a way that matches normal physiology. The traditional SSI regimen is ineffective, and using it to manage glucose in the inpatient setting can no longer be justified.

Tight glycemic control in the hospitalized patient is not a simple task. Hospitalized patients are characterized by high levels of counterregulatory hormones (catecholamines, cortisol, and growth hormone) and cytokines that vary greatly in the context of sepsis, burns, hypoxia, cardiovascular disease, pain, surgery, and trauma. In addition, inpatients have unpredictable eating times and little to no physical activity. Each of the major classes of oral glycemic agents has significant limitations for inpatient use and provides little flexibility or opportunity for titration in a setting where acute changes demand these qualities. As a result, sliding‐scale insulin (SSI) regimens are often used to treat hyperglycemia in patients with or without diabetes in these clinical situations.

SSI usually consists of rapid‐acting or regular insulin ordered in a specified number of units for a given degree of hyperglycemia without regard to the timing of food, any preexisting insulin administration, or even individualization of a patient's sensitivity to insulin. This is not a physiologic approach to insulin management and not an ideal strategy for managing hyperglycemia. Because many SSI regimens do not initiate therapy until the blood glucose level is more than 200 mg/dL, SSI uses hyperglycemia as a threshold. This allows hyperglycemia to persist for long periods without intervention. In turn, SSI is reactive instead of proactive. With SSI, the current dose of insulin is based on the inadequacy of the previous dose, creating a chase‐your‐tail phenomenon. In addition, once the SSI regimen begins, glycemic control is rarely assessed by a physician until blood glucose is dangerously low or high (<60 or >400 mg/dL). Finally, SSI provides no basal insulin. Hospitalized patients with stress‐induced hyperglycemia require not only postprandial insulin but also basal insulin to control blood glucose between meals and at night.

Evidence supporting SSI as a primary method of blood glucose control in diabetic patients is lacking. A search of MEDLINE for the period from 1966 to 2003 with the terms sliding scale insulin, sliding scale, and sliding combined with insulin yielded a total of 52 publications, none of which showed a benefit of sliding‐scale insulin in improving glycemic control or clinical outcomes. Retrospective and nonrandomized studies confirmed that SSI is associated with more hyper‐ and hypoglycemia with longer hospital stays.13 Queale et al. published the largest prospective cohort study (n = 171) of diabetic patients on SSI.4 More than 40% had at least one episode of hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL), and 25% had more than one episode. Use of SSI alone increased the likelihood of hyperglycemia 3‐fold. Hypoglycemia occurred in 23%. Despite this poor performance in controlling blood glucose, the SSI remained unadjusted throughout the hospital stay for more than 80% of patients. In total, the clinical studies and clinical reviews on SSI confirmed that it is an inappropriate approach to blood glucose control in diabetic patients. Yet, SSI use in the inpatient setting continues to be a routine passed down from attending physicians to residents and medical students. In one recent study, 61% of diabetic patients admitted to the hospital for reasons other than metabolic control were on SSI.5 This sliding‐scale culture tolerates hyperglycemia and relieves the burden on the medical team to closely manage the glucose. Clinicians rely on the SSI to manage hyperglycemia rather than make frequent insulin adjustments.

Insulin, given either intravenously as a continuous infusion or subcutaneously, is the most effective agent for achieving glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Intravenous insulin infusions have been used for many years and have a proven track record for efficacy and safety. It does require frequent bedside blood glucose monitoring, which may limit its use on regular medical floors. The ideal frequency for monitoring has not been studied, but it is generally recommended that blood glucose be tested every hour until a stable infusion rate is reached. Unlike SSI, effective subcutaneous insulin therapy should define the dose components physiologically in the form of basal, nutritional or prandial, and correction doses (Fig. 1). Basal insulin is a patient's baseline level of insulin available throughout the day. Basal insulin gives the patient enough insulin to suppress hepatic glucose output, and it keeps the body from becoming hyperglycemic and ketoacidotic when not eating. Nutritional insulin is defined as the insulin needed to cover any intravenous glucose the patient is receiving, intravenous or enteral alimentation, and calories consumed in meals. If the patient is eating and is not receiving any other sources of calories, nutritional insulin would be the same as prandial insulin. In addition to basal and nutritional insulin requirements, patients often require supplemental or correction doses of insulin to treat unexpected hyperglycemia. Therefore, subcutaneous insulin can be given as a scheduled or programmed dose (basal + nutritional) and then a rapid‐acting supplemental (correction) dose to cover any hyperglycemia above target. The supplemental dose should not be confused with SSI, which does not provide any programmed basal and nutritional insulin. To provide the right amounts of basal and prandial insulin, you need to choose from the available therapies by examining their properties (Table 1). The ideal basal insulin should be long acting without identifiable peaks in concentration. For patients who are not eating, nutritional doses can be programmed with intermediate‐acting insulin. When giving insulin to patients before meals, rapid‐acting insulin analogs are best suited for the hospitalized patient because of their short onset of action. Regular insulin is also short acting, but it takes 30 minutes to take effect; thus, the dose needs to be timed at least a half hour prior to the meal. In addition, regular insulin can last for 6‐8 hours if large doses are used, which is not an ideal quality to have if trying to control postprandial glucose. The best way to mimic normal physiology is to use a combination of several types of insulin. A common strategy is to give a single daily injection of basal insulin (glargine/detimir) and then use rapid‐acting insulin analogs (lispro/aspart/glulisine) to cover prandial and correction doses.

Figure 1
Physiologic insulin requirements of healthy and sick patients.
Insulin Types
Time to Action Peak Duration
Lispro/aspart/glulisine 5‐15 minutes 1‐2 hours 3‐6 hours
Human NPH 1‐2 hours 4‐8 hours 10‐20 hours
Regular/human 30‐60 minutes 2‐4 hours 6‐10 hours
Glargine/detimir 1‐2 hours Flat 24 hours

The initial doses of scheduled subcutaneous insulin are based on previously established dose requirements, previous experience of the same patient during similar circumstances, requirements during a stable continuous insulin infusion, and/or knowledge of how stable medical condition and nutritional intake are. For patients whose insulin requirements are unknown and whose nutritional intake will be adequate, a reasonable assumption based on body weight is 0.5‐0.7 units/kg per 24 hours. Type 2 diabetics may need more, however; regardless, the patient's regimen should be started low and worked up to the dose to meet the demonstrated need. For type 1 diabetics with limited nutritional intake, the amount of scheduled insulin calculated by body weight should be reduced by 50%. For type 2 diabetics with limited nutritional intake, endogenous insulin may be adequate for basal requirements, and until results of monitoring indicate a further need for scheduled insulin, only correction doses should be used initially.

Many patients will need to transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin therapy when transferred from the critical care unit to the regular nursing floor. To maintain effective blood levels of insulin, it is necessary to administer short‐ or rapid‐acting insulin subcutaneously 1‐2 hours before or intermediate‐ or long‐acting insulin 2‐3 hours before stopping the insulin infusion. Subcutaneous insulin with an appropriate duration of action may be administered as a single dose or repeatedly to maintain basal effect until the time of day when insulin or analog, whichever preferred for basal effect, normally would be provided. For example, patients who typically receive glargine at night but have their insulin infusion stopped at lunchtime could receive a one‐time dose of NPH before interruption of the insulin infusion.

Hypoglycemia is a concern in hospitalized patients with diabetes, and it has been a major barrier to aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia in the hospital. Yet hypoglycemia can be predicted and prevented. Factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in the hospital include inadequate glucose monitoring; lack of clear communication or coordination between dietary, transportation, and nursing staff; and illegible orders.6 Clear algorithms for insulin orders and clear hypoglycemia protocols will reduce the likelihood of severe hypoglycemia occurring.

Although most positive outcomes associated with the new glycemic targets are derived from the critical care setting, there is a rationale supporting their benefit for other patients. The current glycemic targets for hospitalized patients warrant an approach that stresses the use of insulin in a way that matches normal physiology. The traditional SSI regimen is ineffective, and using it to manage glucose in the inpatient setting can no longer be justified.

References
  1. Gearhart JG,Duncan JL,Replogle WH,Forbes RC,Walley EJ.Efficacy of sliding‐scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens.Fam Pract Res J.1994;14:313321.
  2. Smith WD,Winterstein AG,Johns T,Rosenberg E,Sauer B.Causes of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in adult inpatients.Am J Health Syst Pharm.2005;62:714719.
  3. Browning LA,Dumo P.Sliding‐scale insulin: an antiquated approach to glycemic control in hospitalized patients.Am J Health Syst Pharm.2004;61:16111614.
  4. Queale WS,Seidler AJ,Brancati FL.Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:545552.
  5. Moghissi E.Hospital management of diabetes: beyond the sliding scale.Cleve Clin J Med.2004;71:801808.
References
  1. Gearhart JG,Duncan JL,Replogle WH,Forbes RC,Walley EJ.Efficacy of sliding‐scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens.Fam Pract Res J.1994;14:313321.
  2. Smith WD,Winterstein AG,Johns T,Rosenberg E,Sauer B.Causes of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in adult inpatients.Am J Health Syst Pharm.2005;62:714719.
  3. Browning LA,Dumo P.Sliding‐scale insulin: an antiquated approach to glycemic control in hospitalized patients.Am J Health Syst Pharm.2004;61:16111614.
  4. Queale WS,Seidler AJ,Brancati FL.Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:545552.
  5. Moghissi E.Hospital management of diabetes: beyond the sliding scale.Cleve Clin J Med.2004;71:801808.
Page Number
20-22
Page Number
20-22
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
What are the disadvantages of sliding‐scale insulin?
Display Headline
What are the disadvantages of sliding‐scale insulin?
Sections
Article Source
Copyright © 2007 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Section of Hospital Medicine, S70/Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; Fax: (216) 445‐6240
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media