Comments and Responses Regarding Draft Local Coverage Determination:

Cardiac Catheterization and Coronary Angiography

_______________________________________________________________________

 

As an important part of Medicare Local Coverage Determination (LCD) development, National Government Services solicits comments from the provider community and from members of the public who may be affected by or interested in our LCDs. The purpose of the advice and comment process is to gain the expertise and experience of those commenting.

 

We would like to thank those who suggested changes to the draft Cardiac Catheterization and Coronary Angiography LCD. The official notice period for the final LCD begins on May 17, 2011, and the final determination will become effective on July 1, 2011.

 

Comment:

The Director of Health Policy and Reimbursement at St. Jude Medical submitted comments on the proposed decision to limit payment to intracoronary ultrasound (IVUS) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement when performed on the same artery:

 

IVUS and FFR are complementary technologies.  Each provides the physician with distinct and critically important information for lesion assessment and treatment. 

 

FFR, a physiological modality, evaluates the functional severity of lesions in patients with complex coronary artery disease to determine which lesions should be treated.  Physicians obtain information on hemodynamic lesion severity with FFR that imaging and morphologic modalities cannot provide.  An FFR measurement indicates the severity of blood flow blockages in the coronary arteries and allows physicians to better identify which specific lesion or lesions are responsible for a patient’s ischemia.  This detailed, physiologic analysis of blood flow blockage is helpful in guiding decisions as to whether coronary artery bypass surgery, stenting or optimal medical therapy would be the best course of treatment for each individual patient.

 

Intracoronary imaging allows physicians to acquire images of diseased vessels from inside the artery, providing information on lesion length, vessel diameter and stent-vessel wall apposition.  This aids in proper sizing and placement of stents and other devices to restore blood flow at the site of blockage.  Mechanisms for vascular imaging include Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). OCT is the newest imaging modality and has the potential of providing better lesion location and extent, allowing for good lesion treatment, i.e. stent placement.  OCT and IVUS are complementary to FFR; they add physical, geographical, and histological knowledge to the physiological information provided by FFR. OCT and IVUS are technologies that serve the same clinical purpose.

 

FFR and intracoronary imaging are important tools that aid physicians in the treatment of coronary heart disease. Both tools provide distinct and critically important  information. One aids physians in making the best treatment decision for their patients; the other provides information on lesion location and extent,  aiding in stent selection and placement. Both should be reimbursed when performed on the same artery.

 

Response:

We agree with the commenter that the modalities cited (IVUS and FFR) each provide different types of information, physiologic versus anatomic.  In addition to identifying plaque burden the IVUS also provides information on luminal diameter and eccentricity of lesions which may contribute to the decision-making process whether to treat an individual lesion. However, for diagnostic services to be considered medically reasonable and necessary, each service must provide additive information that impacts the diagnosis and/or treatment of the beneficiary and affects outcome.

 

The frequency with which these tests are performed is relatively low compared to the number or coronary angiograms performed.  It is necessary to distinguish those instances in which the performance of IVUS or FFR could be anticipated to provide such additive information and affect outcomes.  Not all cases require this testing, and as noted by another commenter the information from IVUS may duplicate that obtained from FFR regarding the restriction to coronary blood flow.   Routine testing of all coronary artery lesions cannot be necessary.

 

We do agree that the information needed may require both tests be performed, although we anticipate this would not become routine.  We will revise the LCD to specify that each test must be individually considered and provide additional information needed to affect management and outcome, and although not routinely performed together, they may both be covered if the specific need for each test is identified and documented in the medical record.

 

*****

 

Comment:

A NY cardiologist from the American College of Cardiology submitted comments on the draft LCD:

 

Under Indications for Right Heart Catheterization, from the LCD:

This is the introduction of a catheter(s) into the right atrium, right ventricle and pulmonary artery. It includes hemodynamic measurements, cardiac output determination, shunt determinations, blood sampling, and

hydrogen arrival time as part of the procedure. Placement of catheter(s), repositioning, and replacement with

other catheters are included as part of the procedure. Cannulation of the coronary sinus is included in this

procedure. Right heart catheterization is a formal diagnostic procedure (with report) performed in a catheterization or other procedure suite, as compared to Swan-Ganz catheterization which is generally performed for ongoing monitoring of the patient (after the initial diagnostic results are recorded), performed at the bedside, or in an operating room, emergency department or other intensive/critical care unit. The results of the Swan-Ganz catheterization may be recorded in the progress notes rather than by a formal report.

The commenter noted that these components are not usually part of current day right heart catheterization, so the wording should not suggest that they are necessary for billing a right heart catheterization. He also noted that

coronary sinus cannulation may be done as part of a right heart catheterization, but isn't required. He suggested making the wording more precise.

 

Additionally, in this same section of the LCD, this statement is included:

Right heart catheterization, performed along with left heart catheterization, coronary angiography, or both, is

seldom medically reasonable and necessary unless one disease process appears to affect both sides of the heart, or a different disease process appears to affect each side of the heart.

The commenter suggested adding, “such as may be the case in valvular heart disease or intrinsic heart muscle disease such as cardiomyopathy or transplant rejection and arteritis.”

 

 

Response:

The commenter has correctly stated that the not all of the measures performed during a right heart catheterization are necessary for it to be billed.  The right heart catheterization must include the advancement of the catheter through the right atrium, ventricle and pulmonary artery (where possible) with measurement of the pressures in each chamber/artery.  The cardiac output determinations, blood sampling, shunt determinations, hydrogen arrival time and coronary sinus cannulation are not required to be performed in order to bill the service.  However, if performed they are included in the right heart catheterization procedure and may not be billed separately.  We will amend the wording of this section to clarify.

 

We agree with the examples provided by the commenter.  However, these examples are neither exhaustive nor specific and do not serve to further clarify the intent of this section.  We prefer not to change the wording and thereby leave a broader more general understanding of this coverage.

 

*****

 

Comment:

Under Indications for Left Heart Catheterization in the LCD:

This is the introduction of a catheter(s) into the left ventricle (LV). The catheter may be inserted retrograde from the brachial, axillary or femoral artery; by cutdown or percutaneously; or transseptal via a patent foramen ovale or by septal puncture; or transapically. The catheterization also includes catheterization of the left atrium

and aorta when performed with the LV catheterization. It includes all hemodynamic measurements (with and

without maneuvers and/or infusions or medication), blood sampling and shunt determinations as part of the

procedure. Placement of multiple catheters and their repositioning or replacement is included in this procedure. Injection procedures for selective opacification of cardiac chambers or structures, arteries and conduits and the supervision and interpretation of such services are reimbursable as part of all-inclusive codes for these services (see Supplementary Information Article).

 

The commenter suggested for the underlined section above, saying “may include" rather than “includes”, catheterization of the left atrium and aorta when performed with the LV catheterization.

 

Response:

While we understand the commenter’s concern, we believe that the LCD clearly defines a left heart catheterization as the introduction of a catheter into the left ventricle.  When referencing the catheterization of the left atrium and aorta, the LCD clearly qualifies the procedure as “when performed.”  We do not believe that change of this wording is needed.

 

*****

 

Comment:

Under Indications for Cardiac Angiography, in the LCD:

Aortography is reimbursable only for diagnoses of aortic root and ascending aorta disease, valvular heart disease or congenital heart disease. It is not reimbursable for atherosclerotic heart disease. Angiograms to visualize the coronary ostia are included as part of coronary angiography. A diagnosis of “rule out (valvular lesion)” is not reimbursable.

 

The commenter had these suggestions:

Aortography is also reimbursable and should be performed in cases where coronary bypass grafts can not be otherwise visualized due to occlusion, or are technically not selectively catheterizable for direct angiography without localization via an aortagram. Aortography is also reimbursable and should be performed in the evaluation of the anatomic passage and localization of coronary artery anomalies encountered during a diagnostic coronary angiography.

He also stated that when bypass grafts are not seen or are technically difficult to enter for selective angiography, aortography is medically indicated, and it should be billed separately. The same applies for coronary anomalies.

 

Response:

We respectfully disagree with the commenter’s statement that supravalvular aortography when performed for the identification and locating of coronary artery and bypass graft ostia should be separately billable.  The purpose of supravalvular aortography is to assess the aortic root and valve for disease or abnormality.  When performed incident to coronary/bypass angiography it is not serving this purpose, but is only employed to facilitate the coronary/bypass angiography.  The CPT 2011 manual states, “Cardiac catheterization (93451-93461) includes all roadmapping angiography in order to place the catheters, including any injections and imaging supervision, interpretation, and report.”  We will decline to revise the draft LCD as requested.

 

*****

 

Comment:

Under the same section of the LCD, this paragraph is included:

Coronary and bypass angiography are indicated for the diagnosis of, or treatment planning for patients with

anginal syndromes, atypical chest pain syndrome suggesting ischemia, congenital heart disease, following

cardiac arrest suspected due to ischemia or infarction, myocardial infarction, known atherosclerotic or other coronary disease, suspected graft or stent/PTCA closure, Prinzmetal’s angina, coronary shunts and fistulae,cardiac trauma and for treatment planning in patients undergoing non-coronary cardiac surgical procedures. It is also indicated for treatment planning in high-risk patients with evidence of ischemic heart disease undergoing high-risk non-cardiac surgical procedures (arterial or aortic surgery, or surgery with large fluid shifts).

 

The commenter suggested adding “demonstrable silent ischemia (abnormal stress testing without symptoms) especially in diabetic patients”.

 

Response:

We agree with the commenter that “silent ischemia” may be significant and should be included as a coverable diagnosis just as atypical chest pain syndrome is.  There are appropriate diagnosis codes for chronic and acute ischemia which may be used to code this condition.  We will revise the narrative portion of the LCD to include silent ischemia diagnosed based on the results of stress testing and/or dynamic EKG monitoring.

 

*****

 

Comment:

Under Indications for Intra-Coronary Ultrasound and Doppler Functional Flow Reserve Studies in the LCD:

Indications for Intracoronary ultrasound and Doppler functional flow reserve studies

Intracoronary ultrasound may be separately covered when needed to assess the extent of coronary stenosis if equivocal on angiography, or when needed to assess the patency and integrity of a coronary artery postintervention. Alternatively, intravascular Doppler velocity and/or pressure derived coronary flow reserve measurement may be performed to assess the degree of stenosis within a vessel. Only intracoronary ultrasound or functional flow reserve measurement should be performed on an individual artery, so that both services performed on the same artery will not be reimbursed.

 

The commenter stated, “This sounds right, but circumstances may exist when FFR is equivocal and the operator wishes to assess plaque volume or morphology which may directly influence the decision to intervene.  See NEJM article A Prospective Natural-History Study of Coronary Atherosclerosis Stone G.W., Maehara A., Lansky A.J., et al.N Engl J Med 2011; 364:226 – 235

 

Response:

As a two-dimensional imaging technique, coronary angiography has limitations, and yet it is the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment planning of atherosclerotic coronary disease.  There exist situations in which the accuracy of the angiogram is not sufficient, by itself, for diagnosis or treatment planning.  The intravascular ultrasound techniques provide a unique view of the endovascular anatomy, including the degree of plaque burden as well as more accurate estimates of luminal diameter.  The fractional flow reserve measures the physiologic response to the anatomic abnormality, and provides physiological information to assist diagnosis and therapy. There may be overlap in the information provided by each modality.  However, for diagnostic services to be considered medically reasonable and necessary, each service must provide additive information that impacts the diagnosis and/or treatment of the beneficiary and affects outcome.

 

The frequency with which these tests are performed is relatively low compared to the number of coronary angiograms performed.  It is necessary to distinguish those instances in which the performance of IVUS or FFR could be anticipated to provide such additive information and affect outcomes. Routine testing of all coronary artery lesions cannot be necessary. 

The article referenced by the commenter addresses a specific study in which cases were reviewed to identify non-crulprit lesions which subsequently resulted in new ischemic events.  The purpose of the study was not to evaluate IVUS but was a “prospective study of the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis, using multimodality intravascular imaging to identify the clinical and lesion-related factors that place patients at risk for adverse cardiac events.”  FFR was not utilized or evaluated. 

 

We do agree that the information needed to manage a patient may require both tests be performed, although we anticipate this would not become routine.  We will revise the LCD to specify that each test must be individually considered and must provide additional information needed to affect management and outcome; and although not routinely performed together, they may both be covered if the specific need for each test is identified and documented in the medical record. 

 

 

*****

 

Comment:

Under Table VI, Covered ICD-9 codes for Aortography, the commenter requested the addition of ICD-9 code 414.02 for coding when bypass grafts cannot be adequately visualized during careful attempts at selective catheterization, and ICD-9 code 746.85, anomalous coronary artery.

 

Response:

As noted previously, the purpose of supravalvular aortography is to assess the aortic root/ ascending aorta and valve for disease or abnormality.  When performed incident to coronary/bypass angiography it is employed to facilitate the coronary/bypass angiography.  The CPT 2011 manual states, “Cardiac catheterization (93451-93461) includes all roadmapping angiography in order to place the catheters, including any injections and imaging supervision, interpretation, and report.”  We will decline to revise the draft LCD and add these ICD-9 codes as requested.

 

*****

 

Comment:

A Connecticut cardiologist noted that many of the new codes bundle services. Right heart catheterization is bundled with many services and the LCD seems to be against doing this procedure.

 

Response:

Bundling is not new to this LCD.  It was implemented because right heart catheterizations were being routinely performed along with other catheterization procedures, without specific indication (e.g., during encounters for coronary angiography).  If a beneficiary has heart failure or if other right heart disease is present, then right heart catheterization may be billed.  If additional diagnosis codes not included in this section of the LCD are requested then NGS would consider adding if supported by medical literature.  The LCD does include a specific restriction that right heart catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is not indicated or performed during electrophysiologic studies, and therefore is not covered. 

*****

 

 

Comment:   

The Heart Rhythm Society commented that the cardiac catheterization LCD did not adequately address the use of transseptal puncture and requested a review and update of this LCD to facilitate removal of barriers to the appropriate use of 93462, specifically during catheter ablation procedures performed to cure arrhythmias in the left-sided chambers of the heart, stating, “Transseptal catheterization is often an appropriate and essential component to be used in conjunction with catheter ablation (codes 93651 and 93652) to treat arrhythmias represented by the ICD-9 codes for SVT (including but not limited to 427.0, 427.32 and 427.89), VT (including but not limited to 427.1) and atrial fibrillation (427.31).”

 

Response:

NGS agrees with the Heart Rhythm Society.  Specific reference to the transseptal puncture technique was not included in the LCD draft because the purpose of the LCD was to address the procedures related to diagnostic non-electrophysiological cardiac catheterization.  However, we do appreciate the Society’s concern and will revise the LCD to indicate that the transseptal puncture for left heart catheterization is a covered service when performed as part of a cardiac electrophysiology study.  Transseptal catheterization is an add-on code in CPT and a list of diagnosis codes, separate from the related base codes for the procedure, will not be included in the LCD at this time.