Impact of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors Use on Outcomes After Lower Extremity Endovascular Interventions From Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2006-2011).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to study the impact of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on in-hospital outcomes. BACKGROUND: There is paucity of data regarding the impact of GPI on the outcomes following peripheral endovascular interventions. METHODS: The study cohort was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between the years 2006 and 2011. Peripheral endovascular interventions and GPI utilization were identified using appropriate ICD-9 Diagnostic and procedural codes. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The study outcomes were: primary (in-hospital mortality and amputation studied separately) and secondary (composite of in-hospital mortality and postprocedural complications). Hospitalization costs were also assessed. RESULTS: GPI utilization (OR, 95% CI, P-value) was independently predictive of lower amputation rates (0.36, 0.27-0.49, <0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of in-hospital mortality (0.59, 0.31-1.14, P 0.117), although GPI use predicted worse secondary outcomes (1.23, 1.03-1.47, 0.023). Following propensity matching, the amputation rate was lower (3.2% vs. 8%, P < 0.001), while hospitalization costs were higher in the cohort that received GPI ($21,091 ± 404 vs. 19,407 ± 133, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate analysis revealed GPI use in peripheral endovascular interventions to be suggestive of an increase in composite end-point of in-hospital mortality and postprocedural complications, no impact on in-hospital mortality alone, significantly lower rate of amputation, and increase in hospitalization costs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of Inhospital Outcomes and Hospitalization Costs of Peripheral Angioplasty and Endovascular Stenting.

The comparative data for angioplasty and stenting for treatment of peripheral arterial disease are largely limited to technical factors such as patency rates with sparse data on clinical outcomes like mortality, postprocedural complications, and amputation. The study cohort was derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2006 to 2011. Peripheral endovascular interventions were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) Diagnostic and procedural codes. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The primary outcome includes inhospital mortality, and secondary outcome was a composite of inhospital mortality and postprocedural complications. Amputation was a separate outcome. Hospitalization costs were also assessed. Endovascular stenting (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value) was independently predictive of lower composite end point of inhospital mortality and postprocedural complications compared with angioplasty alone (0.96, 0.91 to 0.99, 0.025) and lower amputation rates (0.56, 0.53 to 0.60, <0.001) with no significant difference in terms of inhospital mortality alone. Multivariate analysis also revealed stenting to be predictive of higher hospitalization costs ($1,516, 95% confidence interval 1,082 to 1,950, p <0.001) compared with angioplasty. In conclusion, endovascular stenting is associated with a lower rate of postprocedural complications, lower amputation rates, and only minimal increase in hospitalization costs compared with angioplasty alone.

Impact of Hospital Volume on Outcomes of Lower Extremity Endovascular Interventions (Insights from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample [2006 to 2011]).

Our primary objective was to study postprocedural outcomes and hospitalization costs after peripheral endovascular interventions and the multivariate predictors affecting the outcomes with emphasis on hospital volume. The study cohort was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2006 to 2011). Peripheral endovascular interventions were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic and procedural codes. Annual institutional volumes were calculated using unique identification numbers and then divided into quartiles. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality; secondary outcome was a composite of inhospital mortality and postprocedural complications. Amputation rates and hospitalization costs were also assessed. Multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value) revealed age (1.46, 1.37 to 1.55, p <0.001), female gender (1.28, 1.12 to 1.46, p <0.001), baseline co-morbidity status as depicted by a greater Charlson co-morbidity index score (≥2: 4.32, 3.45 to 5.40, p <0.001), emergent or urgent admissions(2.48, 2.14 to 2.88, p <0.001), and weekend admissions (1.53, 1.26 to 1.86, p <0.001) to be significant predictors of primary outcome. An increasing hospital volume quartile was independently predictive of improved primary (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, p <0.001 for the fourth quartile) and secondary (0.85, 0.73 to 0.97, 0.02 for the fourth quartile) outcomes and lower amputation rates (0.52, 0.45 to 0.61, p <0.001). A significant reduction hospitalization costs ($-3,889, -5,318 to -2,459, p <0.001) was also seen in high volume centers. In conclusion, a greater hospital procedural volume is associated with superior outcomes after peripheral endovascular interventions in terms of inhospital mortality, complications, and hospitalization costs.