Use of Atherectomy During Index Peripheral Vascular Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe physician practice patterns and examine physician-level factors associated with the use of atherectomy during index revascularization for patients with femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. BACKGROUND: There are minimal data to support the routine use of atherectomy over angioplasty and/or stenting for the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease. METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service claims (January 1 to December 31, 2019) were used to identify all beneficiaries undergoing elective first-time femoropopliteal peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) for claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to evaluate patient- and physician-level characteristics associated with atherectomy. RESULTS: A total of 58,552 patients underwent index femoropopliteal PVI by 1,627 physicians. There was a wide distribution of physician practice patterns in the use of atherectomy, ranging from 0% to 100% (median 55.1%). Independent characteristics associated with atherectomy included treatment for claudication (vs. chronic limb-threatening ischemia; odds ratio [OR]: 1.51), patient diabetes (OR: 1.09), physician male sex (OR: 2.08), less time in practice (OR: 1.41 to 2.72), nonvascular surgery specialties (OR: 2.78 to 5.71), physicians with high volumes of femoropopliteal PVI (OR: 1.67 to 3.51), and physicians working primarily at ambulatory surgery centers or office-based laboratories (OR: 2.19 to 7.97) (p ≤ 0.03 for all). Overall, $266.8 million was reimbursed by Medicare for index femoropopliteal PVI in 2019. Of this, $240.6 million (90.2%) was reimbursed for atherectomy, which constituted 53.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide distribution of physician practice patterns for the use of atherectomy during index PVI. There is a critical need for professional guidelines outlining the appropriate use of atherectomy in order to prevent overutilization of this technology, particularly in high-reimbursement settings.

Telemedicine platforms and their use in the coronavirus disease-19 era to deliver comprehensive vascular care.

Implementation of telemedicine for patient encounters optimizes personal safety and allows for continuity of patient care. Embracing telehealth reduces the use of personal protective equipment and other resources consumed during in-person visits. The use of telehealth has increased to historic levels in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Telehealth may be a key modality to fight against COVID-19, allowing us to take care of patients, conserve personal protective equipment, and protect health care workers all while minimizing the risk of viral spread. We must not neglect vascular health issues while the coronavirus pandemic continues to flood many hospitals and keep people confined to their homes. Patients are not immune to diseases and illnesses such as stroke, critical limb ischemia, and deep vein thrombosis while being confined to their homes and afraid to visit hospitals. Emerging from the COVID-19 crisis, incorporating telemedicine into routine medical care is transformative. By leveraging digital technology, the authors discuss their experience with the implementation, workflow, coding, and reimbursement issues of telehealth during the COVID-19 era.

The Impact of Physician Specialization on Clinical and Hospital Outcomes in Patients Undergoing EVAR and TEVAR.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are commonly performed by interventional radiologists, cardiologists, general surgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, and vascular surgeons, with each specialty having differences in residency structure, operative experience, and subspecialty training. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of surgeon specialty on outcomes following EVAR and TEVAR. METHODS: Patients who underwent EVAR and TEVAR were identified from the 2007 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Physician identifiers in the NIS were used to determine surgical specialty and operative experience. Multivariate analysis adjusted for mortality risk was used to compare differences in demographics, complications, outcomes, and hospital covariates. RESULTS: A total of 5147 EVARs were identified within the NIS, of which 88.3% were completed by vascular surgeons. There were no significant differences in demographics between the specialties. Cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely to have a postoperative stroke (3.1% vs. 0.2%, odds ratio [OR] 14.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-117.8, P < 0.05) and cardiac complications (9.4% vs. 2.0%, OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.5-16.6, P < 0.01) compared with other specialties. Costs were lowest for vascular surgeons ($32,094), and highest for cardiothoracic surgeons ($41,663, P < 0.05). Only vascular surgeons completed more than 10 EVARs per year. A total of 2531 TEVAR cases were completed during the study period, of which 73.8% were completed by vascular surgeons, 15.8% by cardiothoracic surgeons, 8.0% by interventional radiologists, and the remainder by interventional cardiologists and general surgeons. Interventional radiologists had significantly more elective cases (77.8%, P < 0.001) than cardiothoracic surgeons (47.2%) or vascular surgeons (53.8%), but had a significantly higher rate of stroke (7.6% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001) and cardiac events (7.2% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001). Length of stay (LOS, 10.7 days) and median costs ($52,156) were similar across specialties. Vascular surgeons have a low stroke rate (1.1%, P < 0.05 vs. interventional radiologists) and lower rate of cardiac events (3.6% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.01) despite caring for patients with higher diagnosis-related group mortality scores (3.6 vs. 3.4, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons appear to have a comparative advantage over other specialties for EVAR because not only are their complication and mortality rates comparable but overall LOS and hospital charges are lower. Furthermore, primarily only vascular surgeons are performing the high volume of annual EVARs necessary to ensure optimal patient outcomes. For TEVAR, vascular surgeons have the lowest overall morbidity compared with the other specialties, and lower mortality compared with cardiothoracic surgeons. These findings may impact patient referral patterns and hospital privileges for providers.

Predictors of poor outcome after carotid intervention.

BACKGROUND: A variety of patient factors are known to adversely impact outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, their specific impact on complications and mortality and how they differ between CEA and CAS is unknown. The purpose of this study is to identify patient and hospital factors that adversely impact outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 1998 and 2012 (N = 1,756,445) were identified using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample and State Ambulatory Services Databases. A multivariate analysis was completed to evaluate the impact of demographics, patient factors, type of symptoms (transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), volume of cases (3 per year vs 1-2 interventions), and interventions upon outcomes, perioperative complications (stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding), duration of stay, inpatient mortality, and cost. Significant factors were then used as part of a multivariate regression analysis to determine odds ratios. A subgroup analysis using propensity matching evaluating 1:1 risk-matched asymptomatic and symptomatic patients was completed. Patient cohorts were matched on the basis of Charlson scores. RESULTS: Over the study period a total of 1,583,614 asymptomatic CEA, 7317 asymptomatic CAS, 162,362 symptomatic CEA, and 3149 symptomatic CAS patients were included. Symptomatic disease portends a worse outlook after either CEA or CAS. Costs of the procedure increased with complications with stroke adding the most significant cost burden. For risk-matched asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, female gender (P < .001) and performing one or two cases per year (P < .05) were associated with higher cerebrovascular accident risk. In asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, predictors of myocardial infarction included congestive heart failure (P < .001) and peripheral artery disease (P < .05) and predictors of bleeding included peripheral artery disease (P < .05) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < .01) for symptomatic patients only. For both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, predictors of mortality included female gender (P < .001) and performing one or two cases per year (P < .01). Female gender was one of the strongest overall predictors of adverse outcome after CAS (odds ratio, 21.39 for death; P < .001). Low volume (<3 cases per year per practitioner) is a predictor of adverse outcome after CAS only. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of postoperative stroke and inpatient mortality for women undergoing CAS is an unexpected finding, and may indicate that this population is vulnerable to complications after endovascular management. Low volume is a predictor of complications and subsequent mortality primarily for CAS. Patients who undergo CEA continue to have superior outcomes compared with matched cohorts who undergo CAS.

Impact of consensus statements and reimbursement on vena cava filter utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary embolism is the third most common cause of death in hospitalized patients. Vena cava filters (VCFs) are indicated in patients with venous thromboembolism with a contraindication to anticoagulation. Prophylactic indications are still controversial. However, the utilization of VCFs during the past 15 years may have been affected by societal recommendations and reimbursement rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of societal guidelines and reimbursement on national trends in VCF placement from 1998 to 2012. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent VCF placement between 1998 and 2012. VCF placement yearly rates were evaluated. Societal guidelines and consensus statements were identified using a PubMed search. Reimbursement rates for VCF were determined on the basis of published Medicare reports. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Fisher exact test, and trend analysis using the Mann-Kendall test and considered significant for P < .05. RESULTS: The use of VCFs increased 350% between January 1998 and January 2008. Consensus statements in favor of VCFs published by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (July 2002) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (March 2006) were temporally associated with a significant 138% and 122% increase in the use of VCFs, respectively (P = .014 and P = .023, respectively). The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines (February 2008 and 2012) discouraging the use of VCFs were preceded by an initial stabilization in the use of VCFs between 2008 and 2012, followed by a 16% decrease in use starting in March 2012 (P = .38). Changes in Medicare reimbursement were not followed by a change in VCF implantation rates. CONCLUSIONS: There is a temporal association between the societal guidelines' recommendations regarding VCF placement and the actual rates of insertion. More uniform consensus statements from multiple societies along with the use of level I evidence may be required to lead to a definitive change in practice.