Article

Lower extremity angioplasty: Impact of practitioner specialty and volume on practice patterns and healthcare resource utilization

Division of Vascular Surgery, The Surgical Outcomes Research Group, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, The University of Medicine and Dentistry, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-0019, USA.
Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter (Impact Factor: 2.98). 10/2009; 50(6):1320-4; discussion 1324-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.07.112
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lower extremity percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (LE PTA) is currently performed by a variety of endovascular specialists. We hypothesized that cardiologists (CRD) and vascular surgeons (VAS) may have different practice patterns, indications for intervention, and hospital resource utilization.
Using the State Inpatient Databases for New Jersey (2003-2007), patients with elective admission undergoing PTA procedures with indications of claudication, rest pain, and gangrene/ulceration were examined. Physician specialty was determined based on all procedures performed. We contrasted by specialty, the indication for LE PTA for the procedure, volume, and hospital resource utilization.
Of the 1887 cases of LE PTA, VAS performed 866 (45.9%) and CRD 1021 (54.1%) procedures. The mean patient age was 68.0 years (CRD) vs 70.7 years (VAS), P = .0163. Indications for intervention were compared for CRD vs VAS: claudication 80.7% vs 60.7%, (P < .002); rest pain 6.2% vs 16.0%, (P < .002); gangrene/ulceration 13.1% vs 23.3%, (P < .002). Stents (64.8% of cases) were utilized similarly among physicians (P = .18), and mean hospital length of stay were similar (2.38 days vs 2.41 days, P = .85). Hospital charges by indication varied between CRD vs VAS (all procedures: $49,748 vs $42,158 [P < .0001]). Revenue center charges were different between CRD vs VAS: medical surgical supply $19,128 vs $12,737, (P < .0001); pharmacy $1,959 vs $1,115, (P < .0001). Only 10.7% of CRD were high volume practitioners, compared with 36.8% among VAS (P < .05). High volume practitioners had significantly lower hospital charges ($41,730 vs $51,014, P < .001).
Cardiologists performing lower extremity angioplasty were more likely to treat patients with claudication than those with rest pain or gangrene/ulceration. Despite treating younger patients with less severe peripheral vascular disease, cardiologists used significantly greater hospital resources. High practitioner volume, regardless of specialty, was associated with lower hospital resource utilization. Reducing variations in indication and practitioner volume may offer substantial cost savings for lower extremity endovascular interventions.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
68 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Optimal management of renal artery stenosis (RAS) remains unclear. Recent randomized controlled trials have shown no clear benefit with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting (PTRA/S) over medical management. We hypothesize that interventions for RAS are decreasing nationally. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1988-2009, was used to identify patients with a diagnosis of renal artery atherosclerosis undergoing open surgical repair (bypass or endarterectomy) or PTRA/S. The rate of interventions, in-hospital death, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed over time. Additionally, we used individual state inpatient and ambulatory databases to better understand the influence of outpatient procedures on current volume and trends. We identified 308,549 PTRA/S and 33,147 open surgical repairs. PTRA/S increased from 1.9/100K adults in 1988 to 13.7 in 2006 followed by a decrease to 6.7 in 2009. Open surgical repair steadily decreased from 1.3/100K adults in 1988 to 0.3 in 2009. In 2009, PTRA/S procedures (6.4/100K adults) greatly outnumbered procedures done by open repair alone (0.1/100K), combined open renal and aortic repair (0.2/100K), and combined PTRA/S and endovascular aneurysm repair (0.3/100K). From 2005 to 2009 33,953 patients underwent PTRA/S in the states of New Jersey Maryland, Florida, and California combined. The total number of PTRA/S performed in the outpatient setting remained stable from 2005 (3.8/100K) to 2009 (3.7/100K), whereas the total number of inpatient procedures mirrored the national trend, declining from 2006 (7.9/100K) to 2009 (4.2/100K). PTRA/S had lower in-hospital mortality (0.9% vs 4.1%; P < .001) compared with open repair. PTRA/S patients were more likely to be discharged home (86.2% vs 76.3%; P < .001) and had a shorter length of stay (4.4 vs 12.3 days; P < .001). Mortality was higher after combined open renal and open aortic surgery compared to open repair alone (6.5% vs 4.1%; P < .001). Mortality was similar for combined PTRA/S and endovascular aneurysm repair compared with PTRA/S alone (1.2% vs 0.9%; P = .04). The performance of PTRA/S procedures for the management of RAS has decreased significantly after 2006. An increasing proportion of these procedures are performed in the outpatient setting. PTRA/S remains the dominant revascularization procedure for RAS with lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than surgery.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 06/2013; 58(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.04.041 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Outcomes of endovascular lower extremity interventions (eLEIs) have been recently linked to provider specialty; however, the indication for intervention was not examined. We sought to compare outcomes between specialties performing eLEI for different indications, in a recent statewide inpatient discharge dataset. The Florida hospital discharge data from 2005 to 2009 were reviewed for patients with LEI during hospitalization. We assigned provider specialty as interventional radiology (IR), interventional cardiology (IC), or vascular surgery (VS) based on provider-associated procedures. Clinical indication was claudication or critical limb ischemia (CLI). We limited our analysis to patients without concomitant open surgery during hospitalization. We compared mortality, length of stay (LOS), major use of intensive care unit (ICU), discharge disposition, and total charges between specialties with regression models, both unadjusted and adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. A total of 15,398 patients (47% with CLI) had an eLEI. Clinical indication was significantly associated with provider type (P < .001) and outcomes. VS and IR were more likely than IC to treat CLI patients (VS 59%, IR 65%, IC 26%; P < .001). IC performed the majority of procedures on claudicants (VS 30%, IC 57%, IR 13%; P < .001), while VS performed the majority of procedures on CLI patients (VS 50%, IC 23%, IR 27%; P < .001). Adjusted analyses demonstrated no difference in mortality rates between the three specialties (odds ratio [OR] VS: reference, IR: 1.24, IC: 0.79; P = NS for both). However, compared with VS, IR-treated patients were less likely to be discharged home (OR, 0.74; P < .001), LOS was longer (β, 1.16 days; P < .001), major ICU use was more common (OR, 1.49; P < .001), and total charges were higher (β, $341; P = .001). CLI predicted poorer results for all outcomes: death (OR, 4.19; P < .001), discharge home (OR, 0.50; P < .001), increased LOS (β, 3.26 days; P < .001), major ICU use (OR, 1.95; P < .001), and total charges (β, $18,730; P < .001). The majority of eLEI done by VS are for CLI, whereas the majority of patients treated by IC are claudicants. Although provider specialty does correlate with several clinical results, the clinical indication for eLEI is a stronger predictor of adverse outcomes. Future analyses of eLEI should adjust for clinical indication.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.08.004 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 04/2014; DOI:10.1002/ccd.25504 · 2.51 Impact Factor