Latest Review Date: May 2022 Show
Category: Medical POLICY:Effective for dates of service July 15, 2021 and after:The use of patient-activated or auto-activated external ambulatory event monitors OR continuous ambulatory monitors that record and store information for periods longer than 48 hours may be considered medically necessary as a diagnostic alternative to Holter monitoring in the following situations:
The use of implantable ambulatory event monitors, either patient-activated or auto-activated, may be considered medically necessary in the following situations:
Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT) may be considered medically necessary when:
OR
Cardiac Self-Monitoring is considered investigational for all indications, including, but not limited to:
Other uses of ambulatory event monitors (including outpatient cardiac telemetry) and mobile applications, including but not limited to monitoring asymptomatic individuals with risk factors for arrhythmia, monitoring effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications and detection of myocardial ischemia by detecting ST- segment changes, are considered investigational. Effective for dates of service prior to July 15, 2021:The use of patient-activated or auto-activated external ambulatory event monitors OR continuous ambulatory monitors that record and store information for periods longer than 48 hours may be considered medically necessary as a diagnostic alternative to Holter monitoring in the following situations:
The use of implantable ambulatory event monitors, either patient-activated or auto-activated, may be considered medically necessary in the following situations:
The use of outpatient cardiac telemetry (also known as mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry or MCOT) is considered investigational as a diagnostic alternative to ambulatory event monitors in patients who experience infrequent symptoms (less frequently than every 48 hours) suggestive of cardiac arrhythmias (i.e., palpitations, dizziness, presyncope, or syncope). Other uses of ambulatory event monitors (including outpatient cardiac telemetry) and mobile applications, including but not limited to monitoring asymptomatic individuals with risk factors for arrhythmia, monitoring effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications and detection of myocardial ischemia by detecting ST- segment changes are considered investigational. For Holter monitors, please refer to MP# 461- Holter Monitoring (Ambulatory Electrocardiography) DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE OR SERVICE:Various devices are available for outpatient cardiac rhythm monitoring. These devices differ in the types of monitoring leads used, the duration and continuity of monitoring, the ability to detect arrhythmias without patient intervention, and the mechanism of delivery of the information from patient to clinician. These devices may be used for the evaluation of symptoms suggestive of arrhythmias, such as syncope or palpitations, but also may be used in the detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone cardiac ablation of AF or who have a history of cryptogenic stroke. Cardiac ArrhythmiasCardiac monitoring is routinely used in the inpatient setting to detect acute changes in heart rate or rhythm that may need urgent response. For some conditions, a more prolonged period of monitoring in the ambulatory setting is needed to detect heart rate or rhythm abnormalities that may occur infrequently. These cases may include the diagnosis of arrhythmias in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive of arrhythmias. Cardiac arrhythmias may be suspected because of symptoms suggestive of arrhythmias, including palpitations, dizziness, or syncope or presyncope, or because of abnormal heart rate or rhythm noted on exam. A full discussion of the differential diagnosis and evaluation of each of these symptoms is beyond the scope of this review, but some general principles on the use of ambulatory monitoring are discussed. Arrhythmias are an important potential cause of syncope or near-syncope, which may in some cases be described as dizziness. An ECG is generally indicated whenever there is suspicion of a cardiac cause of syncope. Some arrhythmic causes will be apparent on ECG. However, in patients in whom an ECG is not diagnostic, longer monitoring may be indicated. The 2009 joint guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and 3 other societies, suggest that in individuals with clinical or ECG features suggesting an arrhythmic syncope, ECG monitoring is indicated; they also state that the “duration (and technology) of monitoring should be selected according to the risk and the predicted recurrence rate of syncope.” Similarly, guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014) on the evaluation of transient loss of consciousness, have recommended the use of an ambulatory ECG in individuals with a suspected arrhythmic cause of syncope. The type and duration of monitoring recommended is based on the individual’s history, particularly the frequency of transient loss of consciousness. The Holter monitor is recommended if transient loss of consciousness occurs several times a week. If the frequency of transient loss of consciousness is every one to two weeks, an external event recorder is recommended; and if the frequency is less than once every two weeks, an implantable event recorder is recommended. Similar to syncope, the evaluation and management of palpitations is patient-specific. In cases where the initial history, examination, and ECG findings are suggestive of an arrhythmia, some form of ambulatory ECG monitoring is indicated. A 2011 position paper from the European Heart Rhythm Association indicates that for individuals with palpitations of unknown origin who have clinical features suggestive of arrhythmia, referral for specialized evaluation with consideration for ambulatory ECG monitoring is indicated. Atrial Fibrillation (AF) DetectionAF is the most common arrhythmia in adults. It may be asymptomatic or be associated with a broad range of symptoms, including lightheadedness, palpitations, dyspnea, and a variety of more nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue, malaise). It is classified as paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent based on symptom duration. Diagnosed AF may be treated with antiarrhythmic medications with the goal of rate or rhythm control. Other treatments include direct cardioversion, catheter-based radiofrequency- or cryo-energy-based ablation, or one of several surgical techniques, depending on the patient’s comorbidities and associated symptoms. Stroke in AF occurs primarily as a result of thromboembolism from the left atrium. The lack of atrial contractions in AF leads to blood stasis in the left atrium, and this low flow state increases the risk of thrombosis. The area of the left atrium with the lowest blood flow in AF, and therefore the highest risk of thrombosis, is the left atrial appendage. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated that anticoagulation reduces the ischemic stroke risk in patients at moderate-or high-risk of thromboembolic events. Oral anticoagulation in patients with AF reduces the risk of subsequent stroke and was recommended by American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (2014) joint guidelines on patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Ambulatory ECG monitoring may play a role in several situations in the detection of AF. In patients who have undergone ablative treatment for AF, if ongoing AF can be excluded with reasonable certainty, including paroxysmal AF which may not be apparent on ECG during an office visit, anticoagulation therapy could potentially be stopped. In some cases where identifying paroxysmal AF is associated with potential changes in management, longer term monitoring may be considered. There are well-defined management changes that occur in patients with AF. However, until relatively recent the specific role of long-term (i.e., >48 hours) monitoring in AF was not well-described. Patients with cryptogenic stroke are often monitored for the presence of AF, because AF is estimated to be the cause of cryptogenic stroke in more than 10% of patients, and AF increases the risk of stroke. Paroxysmal AF confers an elevated risk of stroke, just as persistent and permanent AF do. In individuals with a high risk of stroke, particularly those with a history of ischemic stroke that is unexplained by other causes, prolonged monitoring to identify paroxysmal AF has been investigated. Cardiac Rhythm Ambulatory Monitoring DevicesAmbulatory cardiac monitoring with a variety of devices allows for the evaluation of cardiac electrical activity over time, in contrast to a static electrocardiogram (ECG), which only permits the detection of abnormalities in cardiac electrical activity at a single point in time. A Holter monitor is worn continuously and records cardiac electrical output continuously throughout the recording period. Holter monitors are capable of recording activity for up to about 24 to 72 hours. Traditionally, most Holter monitors had 3 channels based on 3 ECG leads. However, some currently available Holter monitors have up to 12 channels. Holter monitors are an accepted intervention in a variety of settings where a short period (24-48 hours) of comprehensive cardiac rhythm assessment is needed (e.g., suspected arrhythmias when symptoms [syncope, palpitations] are occurring daily). These devices are not the focus of this review. Various classes of devices are available for situations where longer monitoring than can be obtained with a traditional Holter monitor is needed. Because there may be many devices within each category, a comprehensive description of each device is beyond our scope. Specific devices may vary in how data are transmitted to the location where the ECG output is interpreted. Data may be transmitted via cellular phone or landline, or by direct download from the device after its return to the monitoring center. The device classes are described in Table 1. Table 1: Ambulatory Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring Devices
ECG: electrocardiogram There are also devices that combine features of multiple classes. For example, the LifeStar ACT Ex Holter (LifeWatch Services, Switzerland) is a 3-channel Holter monitor, but is converted to a mobile cardiac telemetry system if a diagnosis is inconclusive after 24 to 48 hours of monitoring. The BodyGuardian® Heart Remote Monitoring System (Preventice Services, Houston, TX) is an external autotriggered memory loop device that can be converted to a real-time monitoring system. The eCardio Verité™ system (eCardio, Houston, TX) can be changed between a patient-activated event monitor and a continuous telemetry monitor. The Spiderflash-T (LivaNova, London, England) is an example of an external autotriggered or patient-triggered loop recorder, but, like the ZioPatch, can record 2 channels for 14 to 40 days. KEY POINTS:The most recent review covers the period through April 8, 2022. Summary of EvidenceAmbulatory Event MonitoringFor individuals with signs and/or symptoms suggestive of arrhythmia(s) who receive patient- or auto-activated external ambulatory event monitoring or continuous ambulatory monitoring storing information for more than 48 hours, the evidence includes prospective and retrospective studies reporting on the diagnostic yield. Relevant outcomes are overall survival and morbid events. The RCT and the observational studies have consistently shown that continuous monitoring with longer recording periods detect more arrhythmias than 24- or 48-hour Holter monitoring. Particularly for patients in who, without the more prolonged monitoring, would only undergo shorter term monitoring, the diagnostic yield is likely to identify arrhythmias that may have therapeutic implications. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome. For individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) following ablation who receive long-term ambulatory cardiac monitoring, the evidence includes 1 RCT comparing ambulatory event monitoring to standard care and several observational studies. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, morbid events, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. The RCT evaluating a long-term monitoring strategy after catheter ablation for AF reported significantly higher rates of AF detection. The available evidence suggests that long-term monitoring for AF after postablation is associated with improved outcomes. However, the specific type of monitoring associated with the best outcomes is not established, because different long-term monitoring devices were used across the studies. Trials that have demonstrated improved outcomes have used event monitors or implantable monitors. In addition, there are individual patient considerations that may make 1 type of monitor preferable over another. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome. For individuals who have cryptogenic stroke with a negative standard workup for AF who receive long-term ambulatory cardiac monitoring, the evidence includes systematic reviews of RCTs comparing ambulatory event monitoring with standard care. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, morbid events, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. RCTs evaluating a long-term AF monitoring strategy poststroke have reported significantly higher rates of AF detection with longer term ambulatory monitoring. The available evidence has suggested that long-term monitoring for AF after cryptogenic stroke is associated with improved outcomes, but the specific type of monitoring associated with the best outcomes is not established, because different long-term monitoring devices were used across the studies. Trials demonstrating improved outcomes have used event monitors or implantable monitors. In addition, there are individual patient considerations that may make one type of monitor preferable over another. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome. For individuals who are asymptomatic with risk factors for AF who receive long-term ambulatory cardiac monitoring, the evidence includes RCTs and observational studies. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, morbid events, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. Multiple observational studies showed that use of the ambulatory monitors would result in higher AF detection compared with routine care. Randomized controlled trials found higher AF detection and initiation of anticoagulants with monitoring, but no impact on health outcomes. The only RCT (LOOP Trial) with sufficient statistical power and duration to evaluate health outcomes found no difference between monitoring and standard care on the primary endpoint of combined stroke or systemic arterial embolism (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.05; P =.11) or any secondary endpoints after 6 years of follow-up. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes. Implantable Loop Recording (ILR)For individuals with signs and/or symptoms suggestive of arrhythmia with infrequent symptoms who receive patient- or auto-activated implantable ambulatory event monitoring, the evidence includes RCTs comparing implantable loop recorders (ILRs) with shorter term monitoring, usually 24- to 48-hour Holter monitoring, and many observational studies. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, morbid events, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. Studies assessing prolonged ILRs in patients have reported high rates of arrhythmia detection compared with external event monitoring or Holter monitoring. These studies support use of a progression in diagnostics from an external event monitor to ILR when longer monitoring is needed. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome. Outpatient Cardiac TelemetryFor individuals with signs and/or symptoms suggestive of arrhythmia who receive outpatient cardiac telemetry, the evidence includes 1 RCT and nonrandomized studies evaluating rates of arrhythmia detection with outpatient cardiac telemetry. Relevant outcomes are overall survival and morbid events. The available evidence has suggested that outpatient cardiac telemetry is at least as good at detecting arrhythmias as ambulatory event monitoring and is useful for patients with intermittent symptoms. The evidence is sufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes. Cardiac Self-MonitoringFor individuals who receive cardiac self-monitoring, the evidence includes RCTs, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, prospective studies, and retrospective reviews. Relevant outcomes include overall survival, morbid events and mortality. No RCTs have compared cardiac self-monitoring to the standard of care in those diagnosed with AF after treatment. The evidence for clinical effectiveness is limited and it is unclear how the use of mobile applications leads to reduced cardiac events and mortality. Additional studies are needed comparing mobile application devices with AEM and MCOTs to determine effectiveness and establish usefulness. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes. Practice Guidelines and Position StatementsInternational Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology et alIn 2017, the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued a consensus statement on ambulatory electrocardiogram and external monitoring and telemetry. Below are two summary tables from the consensus statement, detailing advantages and limitations of ambulatory electrocardiogram techniques (see Table 2) and recommendations for the devices that are relevant to this evidence review (see Tables 3). Table 2. Advantages and Limitations of Ambulatory ECG Techniques, International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/HRS
ECG: electrocardiogram. Table 3. Select Recommendations for Ambulatory ECG and External Monitoring or Telemetry, International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/HRS
AF: atrial fibrillation; ECG: electrocardiogram; COR: class of recommendation; LOE: level of evidence. a COR definitions: I: strong recommendation; IIa: benefit probably exceeds risk. b LOE definitions: B-NR: moderate level based on well-executed nonrandomized studies; B-R: moderate level based on randomized trials. American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association et alIn 2019, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Rhythm Society updated guidelines issued in 2014 on the management of patients with AF. These guidelines recommend the use of Holter or event monitoring if the diagnosis of the type of arrhythmia is in question or as a means of evaluating rate control. The same associations collaborated on guidelines in 2017 on the evaluation and management of patients with syncope and patients with ventricular arrhythmias. Cardiac monitoring recommendations are summarized below in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4. Cardiac Monitoring Recommendations for Patients with Syncope
COR: class of recommendation; LOE: level of evidence; MCOT: mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry. a COR definitions: I: strong recommendation; IIa: benefit probably exceeds risk. b LOE definitions: B-NR: moderate level based on well-executed nonrandomized studies; B-R: moderate level based on randomized trials; C-EO: consensus of expert opinion based on clinical experience. Table 5. Patient Selection Recommendations by Cardiac Rhythm Monitor
Heart Rhythm Society, European Heart Rhythm Association, et al A consensus document on catheter and surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation was published in 2012 by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society and updated in 2017. This document did not contain formal clinical practice guidelines, but provided general recommendations based on literature review and expert consensus. The use of AEMs post-ablation was addressed in two sections of the document. First, in the section discussing the use of anticoagulation following ablation, the following statement was made: “Patients in whom discontinuation of systemic anticoagulation is being considered based on patient values and preferences should consider undergoing continuous or frequent ECG monitoring to screen for Atrial Fibrillation recurrence. In the section of the document dealing with postoperative rhythm monitoring of patients who are post-ablation the following statements were made: “The success of AF ablation is based in large part on freedom from AF recurrence based on ECG monitoring. Arrhythmia monitoring can be performed with the use of noncontinuous or continuous ECG monitoring tools.” The statement referenced a table of ambulatory cardiac monitoring devices (Holter, patch, external loop, implantable loop, wearable multisensors, Smartphone monitors), describing unique features of each. The table did not evaluate the safety or efficacy of these devices, nor recommend one over another. European Heart Rhythm AssociationIn 2009, EHRA published guidelines on the use of diagnostic implantable and external loop recorders. For the indications that EHRA considered established at the time of publication, the guidelines make the following statements about indications for implantable and external recorders: Class I recommendations:
Class IIa recommendations:
American Academy of NeurologyIn 2014, the American Academy of Neurology released updated guidelines on the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). These guidelines make the following recommendations regarding the identification of patients with occult NVAF:
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force RecommendationsIn 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendation on Screening for Atrial Fibrillation and concluded, "For adults 50 years or older who do not have signs or symptoms of atrial fibrillation: The current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF (Grade: I statement). KEY WORDS:Ambulatory device monitors, continuous “memory loop” devices, implantable continuous “memory loop” devices, Reveal ® XT ICM, auto-triggered devices, ambulatory event monitors, auto-trigger, loop recorder, ER920W, Zio™ Event Card, ER920W Wireless. HeartrackSmart™ Wireless, Genesis 30-day Event Monitor, Cardio R® device, REKA E100™ system, Reveal LINQ™, Explorer™ Looping Monitor, LifeStar AF Express™ Auto-Detecting Looping Monitor, LifeWatch, Mobile outpatient cardiac telemetry, MCOT, outpatient cardiac telemetry, OCT, Verite´, Zio® Patch, Zio™ ECG Utilization Service, ZEUS, VectraplexECG™, BodyGuardian Remote Monitoring System™, HeartLinkII™, VST™, LifeStar™ ACT, CardioNet®, SEEQ™, Zio AT, AliveCor APPROVED BY GOVERNING BODIES:Some of the newer devices are described in the Description section for informational purposes. However, because there may be many devices within each category, a comprehensive description of individual devices is beyond the scope of this review. BENEFIT APPLICATION:Coverage is subject to member’s specific benefits. Group specific policy will supersede this policy when applicable. ITS: Home Policy provisions apply. FEP: Special benefit consideration may apply. Refer to member’s benefit plan. FEP does not consider investigational if FDA approved and will be reviewed for medical necessity. CURRENT CODING:CPT Codes:The implantation and removal of an insertable loop recorder are coded as follows:
The interpretation of the electrocardiograms recorded with AEMs may be coded as follows:
Other CPT codes that can be used for AEM monitoring represent unbundling of the 93268 code:
There are specific CPT codes for mobile outpatient cardiac telemetry:
There are specific CPT codes for devices with longer recording capabilities:
HCPCS Codes:
REFERENCES:
POLICY HISTORY:Medical Policy Group, June 2009 (2) Medical Policy Administration Committee, June 2009 Available for comment June 5-July 20, 2009 Medical Policy Group, June 2010 (2) Medical Policy Administration Committee, June 2010 Available for comment, June 18-August 2, 2010 Medical Policy Group, December 2010; 2011 Coding update Medical Policy Group, December 2010 Medical Policy Group, March 2011 (2) Medical Review Committee, March 2011 Medical Policy Administration Committee, March 2011 Medical Policy Group, May 2011 (2) Medical Review Committee, June 2011 Medical Policy Administration Committee, June 2011 Available for comment June 8 – July 25, 2011 Medical Policy Panel, October 2011 Medical Policy Group, December 2011 (2): Description and References updated Medical Policy Group, December 2011 (3): Added 2012 ‘T’ codes effective January 1, 2012 Medical Policy Group, June 2012 (2): Policy statement updated to include coverage of auto activated external ambulatory event monitors for patients with atrial fibrillation to monitor for asymptomatic episodes to evaluated response to treatment. Updated Key Points, Key Words, References Medical Policy Administration Committee, June 2012 Available for comment June 26 through August 9, 2012 Medical Policy Panel, November 2012 Medical Policy Group, November 2012 (2): Policy updated with literature search through October 2012. Medically necessary indication for use of event monitors in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with catheter ablation revised to be consistent with recent guidelines. Investigational indication for patients for monitoring with including but not limited to monitoring effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications for patients with cryptogenic stroke, and detection of myocardial ischemia by detecting ST segment changes. Medical Policy Group, December 2012 (3): 2013 Coding update – Verbiage update to Codes 93268 and 93272 effective 01/01/2013. Medical Policy Group, December 2012 (3): 2013 Coding Update: Verbiage change to Codes 93228& 93229-added “by a physician or other qualified health care professional”. Effective 01/01/2013. Medical Policy Administration Committee, January 2013 Available for comment January 10 through February 23, 2013 Medical Policy Panel, October 2013 Medical Policy Group, December 2013 (2): Medical criteria for coverage for implantable loop monitors revised from “…a prior trial of Holter monitor and other external ambulatory event monitors has been unsuccessful” to “…a prior trial of other external ambulatory event monitors has been unsuccessful.” Key Points and References updated with information from literature search through August 2013. Note—there is no new information in BCBSA policy 2.02.08 that will change the retired BCBSAL Holter Monitor or MCOT policies. Medical Policy Administration Committee, January 2014 Available for comment January 9 through February 23, 2014 Medical Policy Group, March 2014 (3): Update to Description, Key Points, Key Words, Governing Bodies, & References with available equipment Verite´ by eCardio Medical Policy Panel July 2014 Medical Policy Panel, November 2014 Medical Policy Group, January 2015 (3): 2014 Updates to Description, Key Points, Key Words, Governing Bodies & References; no change in policy statement; status remains unchanged Medical Policy Group, January 2015 (3): 2014 Updates to Description, Key Points, Key Words & References; Policy statement updated effective February 1, 2015, to add situation of “Patients with cryptogenic stroke who have a negative standard work-up for atrial fibrillation including a 24-hour Holter monitor” to the use of patient-activated or auto-activated external ambulatory event monitors that meet medical criteria for coverage; removed patients with cryptogenic stroke from list of investigational other uses; refer also to literature updates for retired medical policies #460 and #461 – no change in policy statement on those Available for comment February 4 through March 20, 2015 Medical Policy Panel, April 2015 Medical Policy Group, May 2015 (4): Update to policy statement to indicate that the use of an implantable monitor is medically necessary for the evaluation of cryptogenic stroke. Available for comment May 30 through July 12, 2015 Medical Policy Panel, July 2015 Medical Policy Group, July 2015 (4): Updates to Description, Key Points, Key Words, and References. Added “and are considered investigational” to policy statement for clarification purposes. No change in policy intent. Medical Policy Group, July 2015 (4): Updates to Key Points and References. No change to policy statement. Medical Policy Panel, May 2016 Medical Policy Group, March 2017 (4): Incorporated MP# 460 – Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry and Hybrid Devices into this policy and MP# 460 was archived. Title updated to include MCOT and added information throughout policy pertaining to MCOT. Updates to Description, Key Points, Key Words, Approved Governing Bodies, Current Coding, References, and Policy History. Added CPT codes 0295T-0298T, 93228 and 93229 to Current Coding section. Updated policy section by adding coverage for continuous ambulatory monitors that record and store information for periods >48 hours, updated coverage indications for implantable AEMs to include AF after an ablation, transferred MCOT policy statement to this policy which remains investigational (no change in this statement). Removed all language related to “hybrid” throughout the policy. Medical Policy Administration Committee, April 2017 Available for comment March 18 through May 1, 2017 Medical Policy Panel, May 2017 Medical Policy Group, May 2017 (4): Updates to Description, Key Points, and References. No change to policy statement. Medical Policy Panel, May 2018 Medical Policy Group, May 2018 (4): Updates to Description, Policy, Key Points, and References. Added 2 IV points to the IV statement for mobile apps and monitoring asymptomatic patients with risk factors for arrhythmia. Update did not change policy intent. Removed policy statements effective for dates of service February 1, 2015 – May 31, 2015 and February 25, 2014 – January 31, 2015. Medical Policy Administration Committee, June 2018 Medical Policy Group, December 2018: 2019 Annual Coding Update. Added CPT codes 33285, 33286 to the Current Coding section. Moved CPT codes 33282 , 33284 from Current Coding section to Previous coding, codes deleted 12/31/18. Medical Policy Panel, May 2019 Medical Policy Group, June 2019 (4): Updates to Description, Key Points, and References. No change to policy statements. Medical Policy Panel, May 2020 Medical Policy Group, June 2020 (4): Updates to Key Points and References. No change to policy statement. Removed policy statements effective for dates of service on or after June 1, 2015 and prior to March 20, 2017. Medical Policy Group, November 2020: 2021 Annual Coding Update. Added CPT codes 93241-93284 to Current Coding. Moved deleted CPT codes 0295T-0298T to Previous Coding. Medical Policy Panel, May 2021 Medical Policy Group, July 2021 (4): Updates to Policy, Description, Key Points, Key Words and References. Updated policy statement to include coverage for MCOTs. Added IV statement for cardiac self-monitoring. Removed “not medically necessary” from IV statements. Added key words Zio AT and AliveCor. The following references were removed: Crawford MH, Bernstein SJ, Deedwania PC et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for the ambulatory electrocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; DiMarco JP, Philbrick JT. Use of ambulatory electrocardiographic (Holter) monitoring; Ng E, Stafford PJ, Ng GA. Arrhythmia detection by patient and auto-activation in implantable loop records; Prystowsky EN. Assessment of rhythm and rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation; Task Force for the Diagnosis Management of Syncope, European Society of Cardiology, European Heart Rhythm Association, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope; Task Force members, Brignole M, Vardas P, et al. Indications for the use of diagnostic implantable and external ECG loop recorders; Vasamreddy CR, Dalal D. Dong J et al. Symptomatic and symptomatic atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation; www.ecardio.com; www1.ecardio.com/Shared/pdf/ER920W.pdf; www1.ecardio.com/News/Article.aspx?id=8; www.irhythmtech.com/zio-solution/zio-patch; www.irhythmtech.com/company/milestones; Zimetbaum PJ, Josephson ME. The evolving role of ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring in general clinical practice. Medical Policy Administration Committee: July 2021 Available for comment: July 15, 2021 through August 29, 2021 Medical Policy Panel, May 2022 Medical Policy Group, May 2022 (4): Updates to Description, Key Points, Coding and References. Removed previous coding section including deleted codes from 2018: 33282, 33284, 0295T, 0296T, 0297T, 0298T. This medical policy is not an authorization, certification, explanation of benefits, or a contract. Eligibility and benefits are determined on a case-by-case basis according to the terms of the member’s plan in effect as of the date services are rendered. All medical policies are based on (i) research of current medical literature and (ii) review of common medical practices in the treatment and diagnosis of disease as of the date hereof. Physicians and other providers are solely responsible for all aspects of medical care and treatment, including the type, quality, and levels of care and treatment. This policy is intended to be used for adjudication of claims (including pre-admission certification, pre-determinations, and pre-procedure review) in Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s administration of plan contracts. The plan does not approve or deny procedures, services, testing, or equipment for our members. Our decisions concern coverage only. The decision of whether or not to have a certain test, treatment or procedure is one made between the physician and his/her patient. The plan administers benefits based on the member’s contract and corporate medical policies. Physicians should always exercise their best medical judgment in providing the care they feel is most appropriate for their patients. Needed care should not be delayed or refused because of a coverage determination. As a general rule, benefits are payable under health plans only in cases of medical necessity and only if services or supplies are not investigational, provided the customer group contracts have such coverage. The following Association Technology Evaluation Criteria must be met for a service/supply to be considered for coverage: 1. The technology must have final approval from the appropriate government regulatory bodies; 2. The scientific evidence must permit conclusions concerning the effect of the technology on health outcomes; 3. The technology must improve the net health outcome; 4. The technology must be as beneficial as any established alternatives; 5. The improvement must be attainable outside the investigational setting. Medical Necessity means that health care services (e.g., procedures, treatments, supplies, devices, equipment, facilities or drugs) that a physician, exercising prudent clinical judgment, would provide to a patient for the purpose of preventing, evaluating, diagnosing or treating an illness, injury or disease or its symptoms, and that are: 1. In accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice; and 2. Clinically appropriate in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration and considered effective for the patient’s illness, injury or disease; and 3. Not primarily for the convenience of the patient, physician or other health care provider; and 4. Not more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of that patient’s illness, injury or disease. Which code represents implantation of patientReview code 33282 (Implantation of a patient-activated cardiac event recorder). The parenthetical note below code 33282 provides instruction to assign codes 93285, 93291, 93298, or 93299 for: a. removal and reinsertion of a pacing cardioverter.
What are the three sections of the CPT that you use to code many cardiovascular services?A Buck 7. What is the CPT code for repair of patent ductus arteriosus by division of a 14 year old patient?CPT code 33820 describes a patent ductus arteriosus repair by ligation, and CPT code 33822 describes a patent ductus arteriosus repair by division.
What is the CPT code for coronary artery bypass using a saphenous vein graft?CPT code 37700-37735 – ligation of saphenous veins are not to be separately reported in addition to CPT codes 33510-33523 (coronary artery bypass). pulmonary veins and enters the Left Atrium.
|