Association Between Diagnosis-to-Limb Revascularization Time and Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: Insights From the CLIPPER Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The extent and consequences of ischemia in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) may change rapidly, and delays from diagnosis to revascularization may worsen outcomes. We sought to describe the association between time from diagnosis to endovascular lower extremity revascularization (diagnosis-to-limb revascularization [D2L] time) and clinical outcomes in outpatients with CLTI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CLIPPER cohort, comprising patients between 66 and 86 years old diagnosed with CLTI betweeen 2010 and 2019, we used Medicare claims data to identify patients who underwent outpatient endovascular revascularization within 180 days of diagnosis. We described the risk-adjusted association between D2L time and clinical outcomes. Among 1 130 065 patients aged between 66 and 86 years with CLTI, 99 221 (8.8%) underwent outpatient endovascular lower extremity revascularization within 180 days of their CLTI diagnosis. Among patients with D2L time <30 days, there was no association between D2L time and all-cause death or major lower extremity amputation. However, among patients with D2L time >30 days, each additional 10-day increase in D2L time was associated with a 2.5% greater risk of major amputation (hazard ratio, 1.025 [95% CI, 1.014-1.036]). There was no association between D2L time and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: A delay of >30 days from CLTI diagnosis to lower extremity endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased risk of major lower extremity amputation among patients undergoing outpatient endovascular revascularization. Improving systems of care to reduce D2L time could reduce amputations.

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.

Implementing methods in the ELEGANCE registry to increase diversity in clinical research.

OBJECTIVE: Women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) who are at an increased risk of presenting with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) and have different responses to treatment compared with non-Hispanic White males yet are underrepresented in PAD research. METHODS: ELEGANCE is a global, prospective, multi-center, post-market registry of PAD patients treated with drug-eluting device that aims to enroll at least 40% women and 40% URMs. The study design incorporates strategies to increase enrollment of women and URMs. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 years and treatment with any commercially available Boston Scientific Corporation drug-eluting device marketed for peripheral vasculature lesions; exclusion criterion is life expectancy <1 year. RESULTS: Of 750 patients currently enrolled (951 lesions) across 39 sites, 324 (43.2%) are female and 350 (47.3%) are URMs (21.6% Black, 11.2% Asian, 8.5% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.3% other). Rutherford classification is distributed differently between sexes (P = .019). Treatment indication differs among race/ethnicity groups (P = .003). Chronic limb-threatening ischemia was higher for Black (38.3%) and Hispanic/Latino (28.1%) patients compared with non-Hispanic White (21.8%) and Asian patients (21.4%). De-novo stenosis was higher in Asian patients (92.3%) compared with Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic/Latino patients (72.2%, 68.7%, and 77.8%, respectively; P < .001). Mean lesion length was longest for Black patients (162.7 mm), then non-Hispanic White (135.2 mm), Asian (134.8 mm), and Hispanic/Latino patients (128.1 mm; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of data from the ELEGANCE registry show that differences exist in baseline disease characteristics by sex and race/ethnicity; these may be the result of other underlying factors, including time to diagnosis, burden of undermanaged comorbidities, and access to care.

Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance During Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Costs From the Japanese Perspective.

PURPOSE: The value of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization procedures is incompletely understood. Moreover, data on long-term clinical outcomes and costs are limited. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between IVUS and contrast angiography alone in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective comparative analysis was performed using the Japanese Medical Data Vision insurance claims database. All patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) between April 2009 and July 2019 were included. Patients were followed until July 2020, death, or a subsequent revascularization procedure for PAD. Two patient groups were compared: one undergoing IVUS imaging or the other contrast angiography alone. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and limb events, including all-cause-mortality, endovascular thrombolysis, subsequent revascularization procedures for PAD, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and major amputations. Total health care costs were documented over the follow-up and compared between groups, using a bootstrap method. RESULTS: The study included 3956 patients in the IVUS group and 5889 in the angiography alone group. Intravascular ultrasound was significantly associated with reduced risk of a subsequent revascularization procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.25 [0.22-0.28]) and major adverse cardiac and limb events (0.69 [0.65-0.73]). The total costs were significantly lower in the IVUS group, with a mean cost saving over follow-up of $18 173 [$7 695-$28 595] per patient. CONCLUSION: The use of IVUS during peripheral revascularization provides superior long-term clinical outcomes at lower costs compared with contrast angiography alone, warranting wider adoption and fewer barriers to IVUS reimbursement for patients with PAD undergoing routine revascularization. CLINICAL IMPACT: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization has been introduced to improve the precision of the procedure. However, questions over the benefit of IVUS in terms of long-term clinical outcome and over cost have limited its use in everyday clinical practice. This study, performed in a Japanese health insurance claims database, demonstrates that use of IVUS provides a superior clinical outcome over the long term at a lower cost compared to angiography alone. These findings should encourage clinicians to use IVUS in routine peripheral vascular revascularization procedures and encourage providers to reduce barriers to use.

Consensus minimum core data elements adapted to peripheral vascular intervention in the drug-eluting era: Consensus report from the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) Pathways "LEAN" working group.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) initiated the Pathways Program to provide a transparent, collaborative forum in which to pursue insights into multiple unresolved questions on benefit-risk of paclitaxel-coated devices, including understanding the basis of the mortality signal, without a demonstrable potential biological mechanism, and whether the late mortality signal could be artifact intrinsic to multiple independent prospective randomized data sources that did not prespecify death as a long-term end point. In response to the directive, the LEAN-Case Report Form working group focused on enhancements to the RAPID Phase I Minimum Core Data set through the addition of key clinical modifiers that would be more strongly linked to longer-term mortality outcomes after peripheral arterial disease intervention in the drug-eluting device era, with the goal to have future mortality signals more accurately examined.

Racial Differences in Presentation and Outcomes After Peripheral Arterial Interventions: Insights From the NCDR-PVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: We assess the rates of device use and outcomes by race among patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent PVI between April 2014 and March 2019 were included. Socioeconomic status was evaluated using the Distressed Community Index score for patients' zip codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with utilization of drug-eluting technologies, intravascular imaging, and atherectomy. Among patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, we compared 1-year mortality, rates of amputation, and repeat revascularizations. RESULTS: Of 63 150 study cases, 55 719 (88.2%) were performed in White patients and 7431 (11.8%) in Black patients. Black patients were younger (67.9 versus 70.0 years), had higher rates of hypertension (94.4% versus 89.5%), diabetes (63.0% versus 46.2%), less likely to be able to walk 200 m (29.1% versus 24.8%), and higher Distressed Community Index scores (65.1 versus 50.6). Black patients were provided drug-eluting technologies at a higher rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.23]) with no difference in atherectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.05]) or intravascular imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.22]) use. Black patients experienced a lower rate of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.72-0.88]). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked analyses of 7429 cases (11.8%), Black patients were significantly less likely to have surgical (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17-0.96]) or repeat PVI revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.59]) at 1 year compared with White patients. There was no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [0.8-1.4]) or major amputation (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.8-7.6]) between Black and White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients presenting for PVI were younger, had higher prevalence of comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status. After adjustment, Black patients were less likely to have surgical or repeat PVI revascularization after the index PVI procedure.

Cost Burden and Cost Influencers of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval among Medicare Beneficiaries with Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency, costs, and cost influencers of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) placements and retrievals among a national sample of patients using Medicare data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the U.S. Medicare 100% database, a nationally representative sample of all U.S. patients aged ≥65 years, from 2014 through 2020. Procedures and clinical characteristics were identified from the diagnosis and procedure codes on Medicare claims. Beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE) were identified and followed to obtain data on IVCF placements and retrievals. Data on the costs of the index IVCF procedures and any subsequent IVCF placements and retrievals were obtained. Multivariate models were used to estimate the impact of patient and clinical characteristics on costs. RESULTS: Among 501,216 patients with newly diagnosed VTE, 4,995 (1%) received an IVCF placement; of these, 1,215 (24.3%) had a retrieval procedure. Beneficiaries with IVCF placements and retrievals differed from a demographic and clinical perspective than from those without. Costs varied by the site of service, VTE acuity, and VTE type. Cost influencers included age, race, census region, service location, and VTE type. CONCLUSIONS: IVCF placement costs were driven by baseline patient characteristics (age, race, geographic residence, acute VTE diagnosis, and inpatient site of service), whereas retrieval costs were driven by age and deep vein thrombosis diagnosis. Strategies to mitigate the retrieval costs or the need to retrieve IVCFs may reduce the overall cost burden of IVCFs.

Differences in Comorbidities Explain Black-White Disparities in Outcomes After Femoropopliteal Endovascular Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Black adults have a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease and limb amputations than White adults in the United States. Given that peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) is now the primary revascularization strategy for peripheral artery disease, it is important to understand whether racial differences exist in PVI incidence and outcomes. METHODS: Data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years of age from 2016 to 2018 were evaluated to determine age- and sex-standardized population-level incidences of femoropopliteal PVI among Black and White adults over the 3-year study period. Patients' first inpatient or outpatient PVIs were identified through claims codes. Age- and sex-standardized risks of the composite outcome of death and major amputation within 1 year of PVI were examined by race. RESULTS: Black adults underwent 928 PVIs per 100 000 Black beneficiaries compared with 530 PVIs per 100 000 White beneficiaries (risk ratio, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.73-1.77]; P<0.01). Black adults who underwent PVI were younger (mean age, 74.5 years versus 76.4 years; P<0.01), were more likely to be female (52.8% versus 42.7%; P<0.01), and had a higher burden of diabetes (70.6% versus 56.0%; P<0.01), chronic kidney disease (67.5% versus 56.6%; P<0.01), and heart failure (47.4% versus 41.7%; P<0.01) than White adults. When analyzed by indication for revascularization, Black adults were more likely to undergo PVI for chronic limb-threatening ischemia than White adults (13 023 per 21 352 [61.0%] versus 59 956 per 120 049 [49.9%]; P<0.01). There was a strong association between Black race and the composite outcome at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.16-1.25]). This association persisted after adjustment for socioeconomic status (odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.03-1.13]) but was eliminated after adjustment for comorbidities (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, Black adults had substantially higher population-level PVI incidence and were significantly more likely to experience adverse events after PVI than White adults. The association between Black race and adverse outcomes appears to be driven by a higher burden of comorbidities. This analysis emphasizes the critical need for early identification and aggressive management of peripheral artery disease risk factors and comorbidities to reduce Black-White disparities in the development and progression of peripheral artery disease and the risk of adverse events after PVI.

Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. DESIGN: A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were $20,010 and $21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings=$1,346). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective in 87.8% of all simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) to help maintain primary vessel patency and reduce the need for revascularization procedures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in Medicare patients with PAD. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a particular treatment option is effective relative to its costs. Therefore, this study compared both the effectiveness, in terms of target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX over 24 months.A microsimulation model was developed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Simulated patients entered the model and were assigned to receive either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Monthly, patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation, and death. These risks were taken from a randomized controlled trial that compared Eluvia and Zilver PTX over 24 months. Patients also accrued costs over time. The costs used in the model were obtained from Medicare administrative and claims data analyses.In health economics, a treatment is considered to be the dominant treatment option if it is both more effective and less costly than the alternative treatment. In this case, Eluvia was found to be dominant over Zilver PTX because it was associated with lower TLR rates and lower costs. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Population-Based Disparities in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Procedures Among Medicare Enrollees With Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) imposes a significant clinical and financial burden on patients and society. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are considered for patients with absolute contraindications or failures of anticoagulation. However, studies examining the population-based disparities of IVCF placement and retrieval are limited. The association between patient and clinical characteristics in the likelihood of and time to IVCF placement and retrievals in a nationally representative cohort was examined. METHODS: Medicare patients aged ≥65 years with index VTE claims between 2015 and 2018 were followed through 2019 to identify IVCF placements and retrievals. Rates were compared using survival analysis methods. RESULTS: Of the 516,978 patients with VTE diagnoses, 5,864 (1.1%) had IVCFs placed, and 1,884 (32.1%) of those underwent retrieval procedures. Placement and retrieval rates varied significantly by demographics, comorbidity burden, and geographic region. From Cox regression, older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; P < .0001), higher baseline comorbidity (Elixhauser) score (HR, 1.07; P < .0001), and outpatient (vs inpatient) site of VTE service (HR, 2.11; P < .0001) were associated with increased frequency of IVCF placement. The rate of retrieval was significantly lower for men (HR, 0.83; P = .0393), patients with higher comorbidity scores (HR, 0.95; P = .0037), and those with outpatient (vs inpatient) VTE sites of service (HR, 0.77; P = .0173). Neither facility- nor county-level characteristics were significantly associated with placements or retrievals. CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed VTE demonstrated inequities in IVCF placement and retrieval.

Analysis of Costs and Payments for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in the Medicare Population.

Over the past decade, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval has been increasing, in part due to Food and Drug Administration recommendations and legal pressure. The costs and margin of IVC filter removal are poorly understood. Medicare claims data from 2016 for the 103 highest volume centers for IVC filter retrieval were examined. Pooled mean charges, costs, payments, and margin were calculated by institution. Mean ± SD charges, costs, and payments were $14,138.00 ± $8,400.48, $3,693.28 ± $2,294.27, and $1,949.82 ± $702.91, respectively. Average (range) margin was -$1,706.18 (-$7,509.93 to $362.77). The margin was negative in 99 of the 103 (96%) institutions evaluated. The most significant contributors to the total procedure cost were operating room, supplies, and recovery (44.5%, 23.5%, and 10.4%, respectively). While IVC filter retrieval is often medically indicated, it is typically associated with a financial loss under current reimbursement structure.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Standard Anticoagulation in Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Results From the ATTRACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

Mortality Assessment of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons: Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of the ILLUMENATE Clinical Program at 3 Years.

BACKGROUND: A recent summary-level meta-analysis comprising randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of femoropopliteal paclitaxel-coated balloon and stent intervention identified excess late mortality in the paclitaxel-treated patients. METHODS: We evaluated the safety of the Stellarex drug-coated balloon (DCB) for femoropopliteal artery disease with an independently performed meta-analysis of patient-level data from all patients in the Stellarex femoropopliteal clinical program. To compare mortality after DCB or uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), we aggregated data from 2 RCTs comprising 419 patients treated with DCB and 170 patients treated with PTA. In an additional analysis, data were aggregated from 6 poolable Stellarex DCB studies (2 RCTs, 3 single-arm studies, and 1 registry). All serious adverse events including deaths were adjudicated by a blinded, third-party, independent Clinical Events Committee. Kaplan-Meier estimates in the RCTs were compared with restricted mean survival time. Predictors of death were assessed with hazard ratios (HRs) and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the patients treated with DCB and PTA in the pooled RCT analysis, with the exception that the DCB cohort was younger (67.4±9.7 versus 69.4±9.4 years, P=0.02), smoked more frequently (86.6% versus 78.8%, P=0.02), and were less often treated for recurrent lesions (8.8% versus 14.7%, P=0.04). In the RCTs, patients treated with DCB had all-cause mortality rates that were not different from those of patients treated with PTA (Kaplan-Meier estimates 1.8±0.7% versus 1.3±0.9%, 6.5±1.2% versus 5.9±1.9%, and 9.3±1.5% versus 9.9±2.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, P=0.86). All-cause mortality rates were similar in a 1906-patient pooled nonrandomized DCB data set (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 2.1%, 4.9%, and 7.0% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively). Clinical Events Committee-adjudicated causes of death were balanced between the DCB and PTA cohorts. Multivariable Cox modeling identified age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P<0.001), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P=0.04), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.12-3.16; P=0.02), and renal insufficiency (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.33-3.01; P<0.001) as predictors of mortality. Paclitaxel exposure was unrelated to mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.10; P=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates for patients treated with the DCB and uncoated PTA were indistinguishable over 3-year follow-up. Additional patient-level, adequately powered meta-analyses with larger RCT data sets will be needed to confirm the generalizability of these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT02110524, NCT01858363, NCT01858428, NCT03421561, NCT01912937, NCT01927068, and NCT02769273.

Propensity Score-Adjusted Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes Among Revascularization Strategies for Critical Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared long-term outcomes among specific treatment modalities for critical limb ischemia. The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), stent placement, atherectomy, or surgical bypass in patients diagnosed with critical limb ischemia. METHODS: In this observational study using Medicare claims data, we identified incident cases with a primary critical limb ischemia diagnosis who received PTA, stent placement, atherectomy, or surgical bypass. We used propensity score weighting to determine the association of treatment type with all-cause mortality and major (above ankle) amputation over 4 years follow-up. RESULTS: Among 36 860 patients (10 904 PTA; 11 295 stent placement; 4422 atherectomy; 10 239 surgical bypass), all-cause mortality over 4 years was 49.3% with atherectomy, 51.4% with surgical bypass, 53.7% with stent placement, and 54.7% with PTA (P<0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). Major amputation rates over 4 years were 6.8% with atherectomy, 7.8% with stent placement, 8.1% with PTA, and 10.8% with surgical bypass (P<0.05 for all pairwise comparison except PTA versus stent). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries who received PTA, stent placement, atherectomy, or surgical bypass for critical limb ischemia, high mortality and major amputation rates were observed with minor differences among treatment groups. Statistically significant group differences of uncertain clinical importance were observed for several comparisons. Results from observational research may be susceptible to bias because of unmeasured confounders and, therefore, these comparative results should be interpreted with caution.

Association of Survival With Femoropopliteal Artery Revascularization With Drug-Coated Devices.

Importance: In a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, femoropopliteal artery revascularization with paclitaxel drug-coated devices was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality compared with non-drug-coated devices. However, to our knowledge, these findings have not been replicated in other data sources and may be subject to confounding from missing data associated with patient withdrawal and loss to follow-up. Objective: To evaluate differences in all-cause mortality between patients who were treated with drug-coated devices vs non-drug-coated devices for femoropopliteal artery revascularization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, multicenter retrospective cohort study included 16 560 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries who were admitted for femoropopliteal artery revascularization from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. All-cause mortality was analyzed through September 30, 2017. Exposures: Drug-coated devices (drug-eluting stent [DES] or drug-coated balloon [DCB]) compared with non-drug-coated devices (bare metal stent or uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality analyzed through the end of follow-up. Results: Among 16 560 patients treated at 1883 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 72.9 (11) years, 7734 (46.7%) were men, 12 232 (73.9%) were white, 8222 (49.7%) currently or had previously used tobacco, 9817 (59.3%) had diabetes, and 8450 (51.0%) had critical limb ischemia (CLI). Drug-coated devices were used in 5989 participants (36.2%). The median follow-up was 389 days (interquartile range, 277-508 days). Among all patients, treatment with drug-coated devices was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality compared with treatment with non-drug-coated devices through 600 days postprocedure (32.5% vs 34.3%, respectively; log-rank P = .007). Similar survival trends were observed when treatment was stratified by using a DCB alone or DES with or without DCB. After multivariable adjustment, drug-coated devices were not associated with a difference in all-cause mortality compared with non-drug-coated devices (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .43). These findings were consistent among those with CLI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01; P = .09) or without CLI (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; P = .20), and for those treated with DCB alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03; P = .17) or DES with or without DCB (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.06; P = .48). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large nationwide analysis of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries, there was no evidence of increased all-cause mortality following femoropopliteal artery revascularization with drug-coated devices compared with non-drug-coated devices.

Determinants of Long-Term Outcomes and Costs in the Management of Critical Limb Ischemia: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Background The optimal treatment for critical limb ischemia remains controversial owing to conflicting conclusions from previous studies. Methods and Results We obtained administrative claims on Medicare beneficiaries with initial critical limb ischemia diagnosis in 2011. Clinical outcomes and healthcare costs over 4 years were estimated among all patients and by first treatment (endovascular revascularization, surgical revascularization, or major amputation) in unmatched and propensity-score-matched samples. Among 72 199 patients with initial primary critical limb ischemia diagnosis in 2011, survival was 46% (median survival, 3.5 years) and freedom from major amputation was 87%. Among 9942 propensity-score-matched patients (8% rest pain, 26% ulcer, and 66% gangrene), survival was 38% with endovascular revascularization (median survival, 2.7 years), 40% with surgical revascularization (median survival, 2.9 years), and 23% with major amputation (median survival, 1.3 years; P<0.001 for each revascularization procedure versus major amputation). Corresponding major amputation rates were 6.5%, 9.6%, and 10.6%, respectively ( P<0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). The cost per patient year during follow-up was $49 700, $49 200, and $55 700, respectively ( P<0.001 for each revascularization procedure versus major amputation). Conclusions Long-term survival and cost in critical limb ischemia management is comparable between revascularization techniques, with lower major amputation rates following endovascular revascularization. Primary major amputation results in shorter survival, higher risk of subsequent major amputation, and higher healthcare costs versus revascularization. Results from this observational research may be susceptible to bias because of the influence of unmeasured confounders.

Public Health Impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Decision on Pass-Through Add-On Payments for Drug-Coated Balloons: A Call to Action.

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made a public decision to end the transitional pass-through add-on payment for drug-coated balloons beginning January 1, 2018, without creating a new ambulatory payment classification rate for these devices. In this Viewpoint, the authors highlight the disconnect between the CMS's decision not to create a new ambulatory payment classification category for drug-coated balloons despite demonstrated clinical superiority. The authors believe this decision is more in line with a rigid fee-for-service payment system than a value-based system that encourages quality over quantity, and disadvantages both the elderly and the poor. They call on all who advocate for patients with peripheral artery disease to action, encouraging their engagement on CMS decisions regarding payment.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID): Registry assessment of peripheral interventional devices core data elements.

OBJECTIVE: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible. METHODS: Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. RESULTS: The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.