Outcomes of elective peripheral endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease performed in hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgical centers and office-based labs

Abstract

BackgroundA recent shift in the location where peripheral endovascular interventions (PVI) are performed has occurred, from traditional settings such as hospital outpatient departments (HOPD), to ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) and outpatient-based laboratories (OBL). Different settings may influence the safety and efficacy of the PVI, as well as how it is done. This study aims to compare the postprocedural outcomes and intraprocedural details between the three settings. MethodsThe Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all elective infrainguinal PVIs for occlusive peripheral arterial disease between January 2016 and December 2021. The primary outcomes were rates of postprocedural hospital admissions, postprocedural medical complications, and access site complications. Secondary outcomes included technical success and intraprocedural details, such as types and number of devices used, amount of contrast, and fluoroscopy time. The χ2 test, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the outcomes. ResultsA total of 66,101 PVI cases (HOPD, 57,062 [83.33%]; ASC, 4591 [6.95%]; OBL, 4448 [6.73%]) were included in the study. There were 445 cases requiring hospital admission (HOPD, 398 [0.70%]; ASC, 26 [0.57%]; OBL, 21 [0.47%]; P = .126). There were no significant differences in cardiac, pulmonary, or renal complications. Access site complications occurred in less than 1.7% of all cases and were significantly higher in OBLs when compared with ASCs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-8.03; P = .001) and significantly lower in ASCs in comparison to HOPDs (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.41; P < .001). Technical success occurred in at least 92% of all cases, regardless of setting. There was a 16-fold increase in the use of atherectomy devices in an OBL vs HOPD setting (aOR, 16.79; 95% CI, 11.77-23.95; P < .001) and a five-fold increase in the use of atherectomy devices in an ASC vs HOPD setting (aOR, 5.37; 95% CI, 2.47-11.65; P < .001). There was a five-fold decrease in the use of special balloons in an OBL vs HOPD setting (aOR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.39; P < .001) and a four-fold decrease when comparing ASCs with HOPDs (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.51; P < .001). ConclusionsElective PVIs performed in any outpatient setting proved to be safe and technically successful. However, there are significant differences in the way PVIs are performed in each setting, such as the greater use of atherectomy devices in OBLs and greater use of special balloons in HOPDs. Long-term studies are needed to evaluate the durability and reintervention outcomes and understand factors associated with practice pattern variability across these different settings.