Trends and Factors Associated With Peripheral Vascular Interventions for the Treatment of Claudication From 2011 to 2022: A National Medicare Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous cross-sectional studies have identified wide practice pattern variations in the use of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) for the treatment of claudication. However, there are limited data on longitudinal practice patterns. We aimed to describe the temporal trends and charges associated with PVI use for claudication over the past 12 years in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data to identify all patients who underwent a PVI for claudication between January 2011 and December 2022. We evaluated the trends in utilization and Medicare-allowed charges of PVI according to anatomic level, procedure type, and intervention settings using generalized linear models. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to evaluate factors associated with different levels and types of PVI. We identified 599 197 PVIs performed for claudication. The proportional use of tibial PVI increased 1.0% per year, and atherectomy increased by 1.6% per year over the study period. The proportion of PVIs performed in ambulatory surgical centers/office-based laboratories grew at 4% per year from 12.4% in 2011 to 55.7% in 2022. Total Medicare-allowed charges increased by $11 980 035 USD/year. Multinomial logistic regression identified significant associations between race and ethnicity and treatment setting with use of both atherectomy and tibial PVI. CONCLUSIONS: The use of tibial PVI and atherectomy for the treatment of claudication has increased dramatically in in ambulatory surgical center/office-based laboratory settings, non-White patients, and resulting in a significant increase in health care charges. There is a critical need to improve the delivery of value-based care for the treatment of claudication.

Polymer-based drug-eluting stent treatment extends the time to reintervention for patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal artery disease: clinical evidence and potential economic value.

Aim: Use long-term follow-up data from the IMPERIAL study to determine whether drug-eluting polymer-based nitinol stent treatment can delay the time to repeat intervention for femoropopliteal artery disease and how such a delay may result in cost savings in a value-based episode of care. Patients & methods: The IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial was an international study of a paclitaxel-eluting polymer-coated stent (Eluvia, Boston Scientific, MA, USA) versus a polymer-free paclitaxel-coated stent (Zilver PTX, Cook Corporation, IN, USA) for treating lesions of the femoropopliteal arterial segment. Study patients (n = 465) had symptomatic lower limb ischemia. Safety and efficacy assessments were performed through 5 years. Mean time to first reintervention was calculated in post-hoc analysis for patients who underwent a clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) through 3 or 5 years following the index procedure. To simulate potential cost savings associated with differential CD-TLR burden over time, a cost-avoidance analysis using input parameters from IMPERIAL and US 100% Medicare standard analytical files was developed. Results: Among patients with a first CD-TLR through 3 years of follow-up, mean time to reintervention was 5.5 months longer (difference 166 days, 95% CI: 51, 282 days; p = 0.0058) for patients treated with Eluvia (n = 56) than for those treated with Zilver PTX (n = 30). Through the 5-year study follow-up period, CD-TLR rates were 29.3% (68/232) for Eluvia and 34.2% (39/114) for Zilver PTX (p = 0.3540) and mean time to first reintervention exceeded 2 years for patients treated with Eluvia at 737 days versus 645 days for the Zilver PTX group (difference 92 days, 95% CI: -85, 269 days; p = 0.3099). Simulated savings considering reinterventions occurring over 1 and 5 years following initial use of Eluvia over Zilver PTX were US $1,395,635 and US $1,531,795, respectively, when IMPERIAL CD-TLR rates were extrapolated to 1000 patients. Conclusion: IMPERIAL data suggest initial treatment with Eluvia extends the time patients spend without undergoing reintervention. This extension may be associated with cost savings in relevant time frames.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion in Medicare beneficiaries with peripheral artery disease.

Background: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion (ME) increased Medicaid eligibility for adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty level. In this study, we examined the impact of ME on mortality and amputation in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: The 100% MedPAR and Part-B Carrier files from 2011 to 2018 were queried to identify all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with PAD using International Classification of Diseases codes. Our primary exposure was whether a state had adopted the ME on January 1, 2014. Our primary outcomes were the change in all-cause 1-year mortality and leg amputation. We used a state-level difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to compare the rates of the primary outcomes among patients who were in states (including the District of Columbia) who adopted ME (n = 25) versus those who were in states that did not (n = 26). We performed a subanalysis stratifying by sex, race, region, and dual-eligibility status. Results: Over the 8-year period, we studied 37,743,929 patients. The average unadjusted 1-year mortality decreased from 2011 to 2018 in both non-ME (9.5% to 8.7%, p < 0.001) and ME (9.1% to 8.3%, p < 0.001) states. The average unadjusted 1-year amputation rate did not improve in either the non-ME (0.86% to 0.87%, p = 0.17) or ME (0.69% to 0.69%, p = 0.65) states. Across the entire cohort, the DID model revealed that ME did not lead to a significant change in mortality (p = 0.15) or amputation (p = 0.34). Conclusion: Medicaid Expansion was not associated with reduced mortality or leg amputation in Medicare beneficiaries with PAD.

Cost Analysis of Target Lesion Revascularisation in Patients With Femoropopliteal In Stent Re-Stenosis or Occlusion: The COSTLY-TLR Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the cost of target lesion revascularisation procedures (TLR) for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD) following stenting, from a healthcare payer's perspective. METHODS: European multicentre study involving consecutive patients requiring femoropopliteal TLR (January 2017 - December 2021). The primary outcome was overall cost (euros) associated with a TLR procedure from presentation to discharge. Exact costs per constituent, clinical characteristics, and early outcomes were reported. RESULTS: This study included 482 TLR procedures (retrospectively, 13 hospitals, six countries): 56% were female, mean age was 75 ± 2 years, 61% were Rutherford class 5 or 6, 67% had Tosaka class 3 disease, and 16% had common femoral or iliac involvement. A total of 52% were hybrid procedures and 6% involved open surgery only. Technical success was 70%, 30 day mortality rate was 1%, and the 30 day major amputation rate was 4%. Most costs were for operating time during the TLR (healthcare professionals' salaries, indirect and estate costs), with a mean of: €21 917 ± €2 110 for all procedures; €23 337 ± €8 920 for open procedures; €12 903 ± €3 108 for endovascular procedures; and €22 806 ± €3 977 for hybrid procedures. In a regression analysis, procedure duration was the main parameter associated with higher overall TLR costs (coefficient, 2.77; standard error, 0.88; p < .001). The mean cost per operating minute of TLR (indirect, estate costs, all salaried staff present included) was €177 and the mean cost per night stay in hospital (outside intensive care unit) was €356. The mean cost per overnight intensive care unit stay (minimum of 8 hours per night) was €1 193. CONCLUSION: The main driver of the considerable peri-procedure costs associated with femoropopliteal TLR was procedure time.

Editor's Choice - Cost Effectiveness of Primary Stenting in the Superficial Femoral Artery for Intermittent Claudication: Two Year Results of a Randomised Multicentre Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Invasive treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) is commonly performed, despite limited evidence of its cost effectiveness. IC symptoms are mainly caused by atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA), and endovascular treatment is performed frequently. The aim of this study was to investigate its cost effectiveness vs. non-invasive treatment. METHODS: One hundred patients with IC due to lesions in the SFA were randomised to treatment with primary stenting, best medical treatment (BMT) and exercise advice (stent group), or to BMT and exercise advice alone (control group). Patients were recruited at seven hospitals in Sweden. For this analysis of cost effectiveness after 24 months, 84 patients with data on quality adjusted life years (QALY; based on the EuroQol Five Dimensions EQ-5D 3L™ questionnaire) were analysed. Patient registry and imputed cost data were used for accumulated costs regarding hospitalisation and outpatient visits. RESULTS: The mean cost per patient was €11 060 in the stent group and €4 787 in the control group, resulting in a difference of €6 273 per patient between the groups. The difference in mean QALYs between the groups was 0.26, in favour of the stent group, which resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 23 785 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The costs associated with primary stenting in the SFA for the treatment of IC were higher than for exercise advice and BMT alone. With concurrent improvement in health related quality of life, primary stenting was a cost effective treatment option according to the Swedish national guidelines (ICER < €50 000 - €70 000) and approaching the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for willingness to pay (ICER < £20 000 - £30 000). From a cost effectiveness standpoint, primary stenting of the SFA can, in many countries, be used as an adjunct to exercise training advice, but it must be considered that successful implementation of structured exercise programmes and longer follow up may alter these findings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ankle-brachial index screening in patients with coronary artery disease to optimize medical management.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for peripheral artery disease (PAD) with the ankle-brachial index (ABI) test is currently not recommended in the general population; however, previous studies advocate screening in high-risk populations. Although providers may be hesitant to prescribe low-dose rivaroxaban to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) alone, given the reduction in cardiovascular events and death associated with rivaroxaban, screening for PAD with the ABI test and accordingly prescribing rivaroxaban may provide additional benefits. We sought to describe the cost-effectiveness of screening for PAD in patients with CAD to optimize this high-risk populations' medical management. METHODS: We used a Markov model to evaluate the ABI test in patients with CAD. We assumed that all patients screened would be candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban. We assessed the cost of ABI screening at $100 per patient and added additional charges for physician visits ($100) and rivaroxaban cost ($470 per month). We used a 30-day cycle and performed analysis over 35 years. We evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from previous studies and determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) according to our model. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of variables with uncertainty and reported them in a Tornado diagram showing the variables with the greatest effect on the ICER. RESULTS: Our model estimates decision costs to screen or not screen at $94,953 and $82,553, respectively. The QALYs gained from screening was 0.060, generating an ICER of $207,491 per QALY. Factors most influential on the ICER were the reduction in all-cause mortality associated with rivaroxaban and the prohibitively high cost of rivaroxaban. If rivaroxaban cost less than $95 per month, this would make screening cost-effective based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: According to our model, screening patients with CAD for PAD to start low-dose rivaroxaban is not currently cost-effective due to insufficient reduction in all-cause mortality and high medication costs. Nevertheless, vascular surgeons have a unique opportunity to prescribe or advocate for low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with PAD to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Bench-to-Bedside in Vascular Medicine: Optimizing the Translational Pipeline for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease.

Peripheral arterial disease is a growing worldwide problem with a wide spectrum of clinical severity and is projected to consume >$21 billion per year in the United States alone. While vascular researchers have brought several therapies to the clinic in recent years, few of these approaches have leveraged advances in high-throughput discovery screens, novel translational models, or innovative trial designs. In the following review, we discuss recent advances in unbiased genomics and broader omics technology platforms, along with preclinical vascular models designed to enhance our understanding of disease pathobiology and prioritize targets for additional investigation. Furthermore, we summarize novel approaches to clinical studies in subjects with claudication and ischemic ulceration, with an emphasis on streamlining and accelerating bench-to-bedside translation. By providing a framework designed to enhance each aspect of future clinical development programs, we hope to enrich the pipeline of therapies that may prevent loss of life and limb for those with peripheral arterial disease.

Clinical Benefit, Harm, and Cost Effectiveness of Screening Men for Peripheral Artery Disease: A Markov Model Based on the VIVA Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Although screening for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) seems obvious due to its two to three times increased mortality, high prevalence in the elderly, ease of detection, and relatively harmless prevention, the evidence is sparse. METHODS: A Markov decision model was created to model the lifetime effectiveness and cost effectiveness of general population PAD screening and relevant intervention in 65 year old men. The model was informed by original estimates from the VIVA trial data except for ankle brachial systolic blood pressure index test accuracy, quality of life, and background mortality, which were adopted from the literature. A Markov model was designed for 65 year old men, who were distributed in the starting states of no/detected/undetected PAD. The main outcomes were life years, quality adjusted life years, and costs of healthcare. RESULTS: Screening for PAD reduced the rates of amputations and stroke by 10.9% and 2.4%, respectively, while it increased the rates of revascularisation, acute myocardial infarction, and major bleeding by 5.5%, 7.1%, and 4.3% respectively. The overall life expectancy was increased by 14 days per invited subject. The cost per life year/quality adjusted life year was estimated at €16 717/€20 673. On the addition of low dose rivaroxaban reduced the costs per life year gained by 40%. If the model ran for only five follow up years, screening reduced relative mortality by 1.71%, suggesting PAD screening accounts for one fourth of the reported overall 7% relative mortality risk reduction of combined abdominal aortic aneurysm, PAD, and hypertension screening. CONCLUSION: Screening of men for PAD is likely to be both clinically effective and cost effective in a lifetime perspective.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and/or Peripheral Artery Disease.

To address literature gaps on treatment with real-world evidence, this study compared effectiveness, safety, and cost outcomes in NVAF patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (CAD, PAD) prescribed apixaban versus other oral anticoagulants. NVAF patients aged ≥65 years co-diagnosed with CAD/PAD initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were selected from the US Medicare population (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to match apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban cohorts. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), all-cause mortality, and a composite of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to compare stroke/SE, MB, and all-cause costs between cohorts. A total of 33,269 warfarin-apixaban, 9,335 dabigatran-apixaban, and 33,633 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were identified after matching. Compared with apixaban, stroke/SE risk was higher in warfarin (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61 to 2.31), dabigatran (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.43), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.51) patients. MB risk was higher in warfarin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.83), dabigatran (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.68), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.05) patients vs apixaban. Stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs per-patient per-month were higher in warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban patients versus apixaban. Total all-cause health care costs were higher in warfarin and rivaroxaban patients compared with apixaban patients. In conclusion, compared with apixaban, patients on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin had a higher risk of stroke/SE, MB, and event-related costs.

The Effect of Patient and Hospital Characteristics on Total Costs of Peripheral Bypass in New York State.

INTRODUCTION: With the aging U.S. population, peripheral vascular procedures will become increasingly common. The objective of this study is to characterize the factors associated with increased total costs after peripheral bypass surgery. METHODS: Data for 34,819 patients undergoing peripheral bypass surgery in NY State were extracted using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database for years 2009-2017. Patient demographics, All Patient Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (APR) severity score, mortality risk, hospital volume, and length of stay data were collected. Primary outcomes were total costs and length of stay. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 28.1% of peripheral bypass surgeries were performed in New York City. 7.9% of patients had extreme APR severity of illness whereas 32.0% had major APR severity of illness. 6.3% of patients had extreme risk of mortality and 1 in every 5 patients (20%) had major risk of mortality. 24.9% of patients were discharged to a facility. The mean length of stay (LOS) was 9.9 days. Patient LOS of 6-11 days was associated with +$2,791.76 total costs. Mean LOS of ≥ 12 days was associated with + $27,194.88 total costs. Multivariate analysis revealed risk factors associated with an admission listed in the fourth quartile of total costs (≥$36,694.44) for peripheral bypass surgery included NYC location (2.82, CI 2.62-3.04), emergency surgery (1.12, CI 1.03-1.22), extreme APR 2.08, 1.78-2.43, extreme risk of mortality (2.73, 2.34-3.19), emergency room visit (1.68, 1.57-1.81), discharge to a facility (1.27, CI 1.15-1.41), and LOS in the third or fourth quartile (11.09, 9.87-12.46). CONCLUSION: The cost of peripheral bypass surgery in New York State is influenced by a variety of factors including LOS, patient comorbidity and disease severity, an ER admission, and discharge to a facility.

Asymptomatic peripheral artery disease: Silent but deadly.

Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) is a manifestation of atherosclerosis characterized by diminished perfusion of the limb and a state of dysmetabolism. The asymptomatic PAD phenotype is a relatively recent classification. It is unknown how many people currently live with asymptomatic PAD because there are no universal screening recommendations for patients at risk for PAD. Patients with asymptomatic PAD suffer from a similar risk profile of morbidity and mortality as their counterparts with claudication. Despite this increased risk, there is a dearth of clinical investigations into therapies that specifically benefit the asymptomatic PAD population. At present, current pharmacotherapies that have been studied in PAD patient populations do not stratify by symptom status. We believe that further investigation of the impact of existing therapies in this unique population presents an opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality due to PAD. This can only be achieved in combination with wide-spread adoption of screening for asymptomatic PAD.

Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Economic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of FlowOx home therapy compared to standard care in patients with peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Critical limb ischaemia is a severe stage of lower limb peripheral artery disease which can lead to tissue loss, gangrene, amputation and death. FlowOx™ therapy is a novel negative-pressure chamber system intended for home use to increase blood flow, reduce pain and improve wound healing for patients with peripheral artery disease and critical limb ischaemia. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of FlowOx™ therapy compared to standard care in lower limb peripheral artery disease patients with intermittent claudication or critical limb ischaemia. The model used data from two European trials of FlowOx™ therapy and published evidence on disease progression. From an NHS analysis perspective, various FlowOx™ therapy scenarios were modelled by adjusting the dose of FlowOx™ therapy and the amount of other care received alongside FlowOx™ therapy, in comparison to standard care. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, consisting of FlowOx™ therapy plus nominal care, the cost estimates were £12,704 for a single dose of FlowOx™ therapy per annum as compared with £15,523 for standard care. FlowOx™ therapy patients gained 0.27 additional quality adjusted life years compared to standard care patients. This equated to a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained. At the NICE threshold WTP of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, FlowOx™ therapy in addition to standard care had a 0.80 and 1.00 probability of being cost-effectiveness respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FlowOx™ therapy delivered as a single annual dose may be a cost-effective treatment for peripheral artery disease. FlowOx™ therapy improved health outcomes and reduced treatment costs in this modelled cohort. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FlowOx™ therapy is susceptible to disease severity, adherence, dose and treatment cost. Research assessing the impact of FlowOx™ therapy on NHS resource use is needed in order to provide a definitive economic evaluation.

Editor's Choice - A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Outpatient versus Inpatient Hospitalisation for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease Endovascular Revascularisation in France: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The AMBUVASC trial evaluated the cost effectiveness of outpatient vs. inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). METHODS: AMBUVASC was a national multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial conducted in nine public and two private French centres. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined by cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was conducted from a societal perspective, excluding indirect costs, and considering a one month time horizon. RESULTS: From 16 February 2016 to 29 May 2017, 160 patients were randomised (80 per group). A modified intention to treat analysis was performed with 153 patients (outpatient hospitalisation: n = 76; inpatient hospitalisation: n = 77). The patients mainly presented intermittent claudication (outpatient arm: 97%; inpatient arm: 92%). Rates of peri-operative complications were 20% (15 events) and 18% (14 events) for the outpatient and inpatient arms respectively (p = .81). Overall costs (difference: €187.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] -275.68-651.34) and QALYs (difference: 0.00277; 95% CI -0.00237 - 0.00791) were higher for outpatients due to more re-admissions than the inpatient arm. The mean ICER was €67 741 per QALY gained for the base case analysis with missing data imputed using multiple imputation by predictive mean matching. The outpatient procedure was not cost effective for a willingness to pay of €50 000 per QALY and the probability of being cost effective was only 59% for a €100 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Outpatient hospitalisation is not cost effective compared with inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair of patients with claudication at a €50 000/QALY threshold.

Immediate postoperative hyperglycemia after peripheral arterial bypass is associated with short-term and long-term poor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Although the impact of poorly controlled diabetes on surgical outcomes of patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization is well-known, it is not clear if immediate postoperative hyperglycemia (IPH) itself can be used as a surrogate for poor outcomes after peripheral arterial bypass. We sought to examine the effect of IPH in this patient population with its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review was completed for 505 patients who underwent either suprainguinal bypass surgery or infrainguinal bypass surgery between July 2002 and April 2018 for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease. All patients were undergoing first-time open bypass grafting. Patients were stratified into those who were normoglycemic or hyperglycemic (glucose ≥ 140 mg/dL) within 24 hours after surgery. A comparative analysis was performed on comorbidities and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 505 patients who underwent bypass grafting, 255 patients (50.5%) were hyperglycemic. The mean age of patients was 63.5 ± 14.1 years. The median follow-up was 5.2 years (range, 0.0-15.2 years). The distribution of procedures was as follows: femoral to popliteal bypasses (29%), femoral to femoral bypasses (17%), femoral to tibial bypasses (12%), aortobifemoral bypasses (10%), iliofemoral bypasses (9%), and axillofemoral bypasses (7%). At 30 days, hyperglycemic patients had an increased incidence of limb loss (8.3% vs 4.0%) and myocardial infarction (4.8% vs 0.8%) and incurred higher costs of hospital stay ($27,701 vs $22,990) (all P < .05). At 10 years, these patients had a higher incidence of needing major amputations (15.4% vs 9.4%; P = .025). Hyperglycemia after infrainguinal bypass was associated with nearly twice the risk of limb loss at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.91; P = .034). Among the cohort of patients who required major amputations, the time duration between index revascularization and amputation was significantly shorter as compared with normoglycemic patients (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-institution study with long-term follow-up, IPH was associated with increased rates of 30-day amputation and myocardial infarction, as well as an increased cost of hospital stay. In the long term, postoperative hyperglycemia was associated with greater major limb loss. Among the cohort of patients who required major amputations, the time period between revascularization and amputation was shorter for those patients who had IPH. IPH is an independent marker for poor outcomes after lower extremity revascularization procedures.

Lower Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Arterial Disease in 10,951 Procedures over 11 years in a Public Health System: A Descriptive Analysis of the Largest Brazilian City.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a disease with high morbidity, affecting more than 200 million people. Our objective was to analyze the surgical treatment for PAD performed in the Unified Health System of the city of São Paulo during the last 11 years based on publicly available data. METHODS: The study was conducted with data analysis available on the TabNet platform, belonging to the DATASUS. Public data (government health system) from procedures performed in São Paulo between 2008 and 2018 were extracted. Sex, age, municipality of residence, operative technique, number of surgeries (total and per hospital), mortality during hospitalization, mean length of stay in the intensive care unit and amount paid by the government system were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 10,951 procedures were analyzed (either for claudicants or critical ischemia-proportion unknown); 55.4% of the procedures were performed on males, and in 50.60%, the patient was older than 65 years. Approximately two-thirds of the patients undergoing these procedures had residential addresses in São Paulo. There were 363 in-hospital deaths (mortality of 3.31%). The hospital with the highest number of surgeries (n = 2,777) had lower in-hospital mortality (1.51%) than the other hospitals. A total of $20,655,272.70 was paid for all revascularizations. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization for PAD treatment has cost the government system more than $20 million over 11 years. Endovascular surgeries were performed more often than open surgeries and resulted in shorter hospital stays and lower perioperative mortality rates.

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.

"Failure-to-Cross" in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Peripheral Intervention: The Nonreimbursed Procedure.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous peripheral intervention (PPI) is often the first mode of therapy for patients with symptomatic arterial occlusive disease. Technical success generally remains high although "failure-to-cross" still complicates 5-20% of cases. Extended efforts to cross long, occlusive lesions can utilize significant hospital and practitioner resources. The hospital is typically reimbursed for this effort as facility fees are charged by the hour and materials are charged per use. However, given the lack of a CPT® code for "failure-to-cross," practitioners are rarely appropriately compensated. The purpose of this study is to analyze the predictors, technical details, outcomes, and costs of "failure-to-cross" during PPI. METHODS: All PPI procedures over a 2-year period at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics, results, costs, and reimbursements obtained from hospital cost accounting were compared among successful therapeutic interventions, crossing failures, and diagnostic angiograms without attempted intervention. RESULTS: A total of 146 consecutive PPIs were identified; the rate of "failure-to-cross" was 11.6% (17 patients). The majority of patients with "failure-to-cross" were male (82%) with single-vessel runoff (53%). Compared to successful interventions, the incidences of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (82% vs. 70%, P = 0.34) and infrapopliteal occlusive disease were similar (47% vs. 31%, P = 0.20). "Failure-to-cross" procedures were just as long as successful procedures; there were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (27 ± 10 vs. 24 ± 14 min, P = 0.52), in-room time (106 ± 98 vs. 103 ± 44 min, P = 0.84), or contrast dye volume utilization (73 ± 37 vs. 96 ± 54 mL, P = 0.12). As expected, "failure-to-cross" procedures incurred far higher hospital charges and costs compared to noninterventional diagnostic angiograms (charges $13,311 ± 6,067 vs. $7,690 ± 1,942, P < 0.01; costs $5,289 ± 2,099 vs. $2,826 ± 1,198, P < 0.01). Despite the additional time and effort spent attempting to cross difficult lesions, the operators were reimbursed at the same low rate as a purely diagnostic procedure (average fee charge $7,360; average reimbursement $992). After 1 year, the 17 patients in whom lesions could not be crossed were treated with advanced interventional procedures with success (n = 2), surgical bypass grafting (n = 5), extremity amputation (n = 4), or no additional intervention in their salvaged limb (n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose lesions cannot be crossed during PPI fare worse than patients undergoing successful interventions. Hospital costs and charges appropriately reflect the high technical difficulty and resource utilization of extended attempts at endovascular therapy. For practitioners, crossing lesions during PPI is truly a "pay-for-performance" procedure in that only successful procedures are reasonably reimbursed.

Fast-track thrombolysis protocol for acute limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Catheter-directed thrombolysis in the treatment of acute lower extremity arterial occlusions often requires several interventional sessions to generate successful outcomes. It is typically an expensive procedure, necessitating extended hospital length of stay (LOS) that may be associated with an increase in both local and systemic hemorrhagic complications. Five years ago, we created the fast-track thrombolysis protocol for arteries (FTTP-A) to deal with these concerns. The goal of our protocol is to re-establish patency during the first session of thrombolysis, thus decreasing costs and complications associated with prolonged periods of thrombolytic exposure. METHODS: A retrospective study of 42 patients who were treated for acute limb ischemia at our institution by FTTP-A from January 2014 to February 2019 was performed. FTTP-A includes periadventitial lidocaine injection at the arterial puncture site under ultrasound guidance, contrast arteriography of the entire targeted segment, pharmacomechanical rheolytic thrombectomy of the occluded arterial segment, tissue plasminogen activator infusion along the occluded segment, balloon maceration of the thrombus, and (if deemed necessary) placement of a stent in an area of significant (≥30%) stenosis that is refractory to balloon angioplasty and thrombolysis. After the stenosis or thrombus is cleared, patients are prescribed an oral anticoagulant agent. RESULTS: Primary FTTP-A (50 total interventions) was performed in 42 patients. The median age of patients was 67.2 ± 12.2 years (range, 41-98 years), and 54.8% were male; 59.5% of the procedures were performed on the left lower extremity. Initial arterial access was obtained through the common femoral artery in 39 of 42 cases (92.9%); in the remaining 3 cases, it was obtained in a left bypass access site, a right femoral-popliteal graft, and a right femoral-femoral graft. The mean operative time was 148.9 ± 62.9 minutes (range, 83-313 minutes), and the mean volume of tissue plasminogen activator infused was 9.7 ± 4.0 mg (range, 2-20 mg). The median cost including medications and interventional tools was $4673.19 per procedure. The mean postoperative LOS was 3.1 ± 4.5 days (range, 1-25 days). Median postoperative LOS was 1 day. Mean postoperative follow-up was 27 ± 19.2 months (range, 0-62 months). Single-session FTTP-A was successful in 81% (n = 34/42) of patients; the remaining 8 patients (19%) required a single additional session. Of the 42 patients, 34 (81%) required arterial stenting. Periprocedural complications consisted of one patient with hematuria, which resolved, and one patient with thrombocytopenia, which resolved. No patients experienced rethrombosis within 30 days of FTTP-A. During the 5-year study period, there was no significant local or systemic hemorrhage, limb loss, or mortality related to this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: FTTP-A appears to be a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective procedure in the resolution of acute lower extremity arterial occlusions.