Impact of Hospital Procedural Volume on Outcomes After Endovascular Revascularization for Critical Limb Ischemia.
adverse limb events
critical limb ischemia
endovascular revascularization
procedural volume
Journal
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1876-7605
Titre abrégé: JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101467004
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 09 2021
13 09 2021
Historique:
received:
15
04
2021
revised:
22
06
2021
accepted:
29
06
2021
entrez:
10
9
2021
pubmed:
11
9
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the interaction between hospital endovascular lower extremity revascularization (eLER) volume and outcomes after eLER for critical limb ischemia (CLI). There is a paucity of data on the relationship between hospital procedural volume and outcomes of eLER for CLI. The authors queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2013-2015) for hospitalized patients who underwent eLER for CLI. Hospitals were divided into tertiles according to annual eLER volume: low volume (<100 eLER procedures), moderate volume (100-550 eLER procedures), and high volume (>550 eLER procedures). Stepwise multivariable regression models were used. The main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events, defined as the composite of amputation, acute limb ischemia, or repeat revascularization. Among 145,785 hospitalizations for eLER for CLI, 5,199 (3.6%) were at low-volume eLER hospitals, 27,857 (19.1%) at moderate-volume eLER hospitals, and 112,728 (77.3%) at high-volume eLER hospitals. On multivariable analysis, there was no difference with regard to in-hospital mortality among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.01) and high-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.64-1.05) compared with low-volume hospitals. There was lower risk of in-hospital major amputation (adjusted OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.96) and minor amputation at high- versus low-volume hospitals. The length of hospital stay was shorter and discharges to nursing facilities were fewer among moderate- and high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals. Compared with low-volume hospitals, eLER for CLI at high-volume hospitals had a lower risk for 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events (adjusted OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70-0.99), while there was no difference among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77-1.10). This nationwide observational analysis suggests that annual eLER volume does not influence in-hospital mortality after eLER for CLI. However, high eLER volume (>550 eLER procedures) was associated with better rates of limb preservation after eLER for CLI.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate the interaction between hospital endovascular lower extremity revascularization (eLER) volume and outcomes after eLER for critical limb ischemia (CLI).
BACKGROUND
There is a paucity of data on the relationship between hospital procedural volume and outcomes of eLER for CLI.
METHODS
The authors queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2013-2015) for hospitalized patients who underwent eLER for CLI. Hospitals were divided into tertiles according to annual eLER volume: low volume (<100 eLER procedures), moderate volume (100-550 eLER procedures), and high volume (>550 eLER procedures). Stepwise multivariable regression models were used. The main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events, defined as the composite of amputation, acute limb ischemia, or repeat revascularization.
RESULTS
Among 145,785 hospitalizations for eLER for CLI, 5,199 (3.6%) were at low-volume eLER hospitals, 27,857 (19.1%) at moderate-volume eLER hospitals, and 112,728 (77.3%) at high-volume eLER hospitals. On multivariable analysis, there was no difference with regard to in-hospital mortality among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.01) and high-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.64-1.05) compared with low-volume hospitals. There was lower risk of in-hospital major amputation (adjusted OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.96) and minor amputation at high- versus low-volume hospitals. The length of hospital stay was shorter and discharges to nursing facilities were fewer among moderate- and high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals. Compared with low-volume hospitals, eLER for CLI at high-volume hospitals had a lower risk for 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events (adjusted OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70-0.99), while there was no difference among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77-1.10).
CONCLUSIONS
This nationwide observational analysis suggests that annual eLER volume does not influence in-hospital mortality after eLER for CLI. However, high eLER volume (>550 eLER procedures) was associated with better rates of limb preservation after eLER for CLI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34503743
pii: S1936-8798(21)01232-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.06.032
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1926-1936Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Brilakis has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, the American Heart Association (associate editor, Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, the Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, CSI, Ebix, Elsevier, and GE. Dr Drachman is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Broadview Ventures, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Elgendy has disclosures unrelated to this manuscript content including receiving research grants from Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.