Interventional radiologists and OBLs: An excellent match

While office-based laboratories (OBLs) have been increasing in popularity, only a small proportion of the current interventional radiology (IR) workforce works in an OBL. With the relative lack of an IR presence in OBLs compared to other endovascular specialists, combined with the growth of the OBL space, the presence of IR within OBLs will likely increase in the coming years. This article addresses the value interventional radiologists (IRs) can bring to the OBL, with primary impacts being the ability to impact a larger proportion of the population than is traditionally cared for in most hospital settings, the ability to positively influence multidisciplinary care teams and the financial leverage inherent in procedural diversification not readily afforded by other specialists working in the OBL space. IR-specific pitfalls in the OBL space are also addressed, including difficulties in obtaining patient referrals, investor relationships, and group practice arrangements. Despite potential challenges, IRs have a lot to offer within the OBL space, and conversely, the OBL space provides a mechanism for IRs to increase their reach and improve career longevity.

Peripheral Arterial Disease Treatment in the Non-Hospital Setting

Treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) has undergone a progressive shift toward less invasive, endovascular options within the last three decades. For PAD patients, the benefits of this shift are numerous and include less periprocedural pain, decreased blood loss, shorter recovery times, and fewer missed workdays. Commonly, patient-reported outcomes are very positive with this "endovascular first" strategy and the number of open surgical procedures for various stages of PAD has declined steadily over the last 20 years. Coincident with this trend is the move toward "ambulatory" lower extremity arterial intervention (LEAI) in the hospital outpatient "same-day" department. The next logical extension was then performing LEAI in a true physician office-based lab (OBL), ambulatory surgical center (ASC), or "non-hospital setting." This article examines these trends and the concept that the OBL/ASC provides a safe, alternative site of service for PAD patients requiring LEAI.

Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Interventions in Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease

Lower extremity endovascular intervention (LE-EVI) is gaining popularity as the primary treatment modality for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease refractory to noninvasive management. We examined the contemporary patterns of care, regional variation, and outcomes of ambulatory LE-EVI in the United States. The National Ambulatory Surgery Sample was analyzed to identify 266,563 records with peripheral artery disease and LE-EVI between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017. The mean age of the study cohort was 68.9 years and 40.5% were women. The majority of the endovascular interventions were performed at large (58.1%), urban teaching (64.1%), private not-for-profit (76.8%) centers, and the southern region accounted for most cases (43%). Periprocedural major adverse renal and cardiovascular events and other complications were 0.5% and 3.3%, respectively. Most patients (97.6%) were discharged home after the procedure. Age, female gender, uncontrolled hypertension, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, chronic kidney disease, malnutrition, non-Medicare insurance, private for-profit, urban teaching facilities, and southern and midwest regions were associated with higher odds of major adverse renal and cardiovascular events. The mean charges per patient encounter were $56,500, with significant differences across various patient and facility characteristics. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the use, patterns of care, financial aspect, and overall safety of ambulatory LE-EVIs in a real-world setting.

Expected changes in physician outpatient interventional practices as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 and recent changes in Medicare physician fee schedule

OBJECTIVE

We examined the economic and practice effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and decreased Medicare physician payments on outpatient vascular interventional procedures.

METHODS

A 21-point survey was constructed and sent electronically to the physician members of the Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The survey responses were converted to a Likert scale and statistical analyses performed to examine the associations between the response variables and the characteristics and practice patterns of the physician respondents.

RESULTS

A total of 165 physicians responded to the survey, of whom 33% were vascular surgeons, 18% were radiologists, and 15% were general surgeons. For slightly more than one half (55%), their interventional practice was limited to the office setting, with the remainder also performing procedures in an office-based laboratory (OBL), ambulatory surgery center (ASC), or hospital. Almost all respondents had performed superficial venous interventions, with slightly more than one third also performing either deep venous procedures and/or peripheral arterial interventions. The COVID-19 pandemic had affected 98% of the practices, with a staff shortage reported by 63%. The most-established physicians, those with the longest interval since training completion, were the least likely to have experienced staff shortages. Almost all (94%) the respondents expected that the recent Medicare payment changes will have a negative effect on their practice. Physicians with only an office-based practice were less likely to add a physician associate compared with those with an OBL (P = .036). More than one quarter reported that it was likely they would close or sell their interventional practice in the next 2 years and 43% reported they were planning to retire early. The anticipated ameliorative responses to the decreased Medicare physician payments included adding wound care (24%) or other clinical services (36%) to their practices, with the alternatives considered more by younger physicians (P = .002) and nonsurgeons (P = .047). Only 10% expected to convert their practices to an ASC or hybrid ASC/OBL (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

The emotional and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the decreased Medicare physician reimbursement rates for vascular outpatient interventionalists have been significant. Even greater challenges for the financial viability of office practices and OBLs can be expected in the near future if additional further planned cuts are put into effect.

National trends and variability of atherectomy use for peripheral vascular interventions from 2010 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

Small, older studies suggest atherectomy devices have become common in peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) despite the paucity of strong clinical guidelines. We analyzed the 10-year trends in the use of atherectomy for PVI across the United States and identified main predictors of atherectomy use.

METHODS

Using the Vascular Quality Initiative Registry, we identified all patients who had endovascular PVI for occlusive lower-extremity arterial disease from 2010 to 2019. Procedures in which an atherectomy device was recorded as the primary or secondary device were classified as the atherectomy group. We calculated frequency of atherectomy use over time and across geographic regions. Using regression modeling, we identified factors that were independently associated with atherectomy use.

RESULTS

There were 205,377 procedures on 152,693 unique patients. Over 10 years, 16.6% of PVI procedures used atherectomy, increasing from 8.5% in 2010 to 19.7% in 2019, P_trend <0.0001. Across 17 geographic regions, there was a significant difference in the prevalence of atherectomy use, ranging from 8.2% to 29%. The strongest predictor of atherectomy use was the procedure being done in an office setting (OR 10.08, 95% CI 9.17-11.09) or ambulatory center (OR 4.0, 95% CI 3.65-4.39) vs hospital setting. The presence of severe (OR 2.6, 95% CI 2.4-2.85) or moderate (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.69) lesion calcification was also predictive of atherectomy use. Other predictors included elective status, insurance provider, lesion length, prior PVI, claudication symptoms, and diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

Atherectomy use in PVI significantly increased between 2010 and 2019. There is wide regional variability in the use of atherectomy that seems to be driven more strongly by non-clinical factors.

Day case angioplasty in a secondary care setting - initial experience

Background: Peripheral artery disease presents an increasing healthcare burden worldwide. Day-case angioplasty in a secondary care setting can be a safe and effective means of meeting the growing demand for lower limb revascularisation. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a day-case-based angioplasty service in a UK district general hospital. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients undergoing endovascular revascularisation between August 2018-February 2020 were analysed retrospectively. All patients were discussed at a multi-disciplinary (diabetic foot) team meeting following a day case algorithm. Patient and procedural characteristics, technical success, peri-procedural complications, and 30-day outcome of day-case angioplasties were compared with those requiring overnight stay or were hospitalized. Results: Fifty-seven percent of 138 patients were diabetic, mean age 75 ± 12 years, 95% had critical limb ischaemia (Fontaine III 12%, IV 83%), and baseline ankle brachial pressure index [ABPI] 0.40 ± 0.30. Sixty-three patients (45%) were treated as planned day cases, 21 (15%) required overnight admission for social indications. Fifteen (11%) were planned admissions with the need for sequential debridement procedures, and 39 (28%) were already hospitalised at the time of referral to the vascular service. The overall technical success was 92% and not successful procedures mainly occurred in patients > 80 years. The ABPI increased at the initial follow-up to 0.84 ± 0.18. Fifty-three percent required treatment of > 1 level, 80% included recanalisations of chronic total occlusions, and average total lesion length was 133 ± 90 mm. Closure devices were employed in all cases. There were no major peri-procedural complications. A single minor access-site related bleeding episode (0.8%) occurred, requiring 24 h observation in hospital. While significantly more wounds had closed in out-patients, the mortality, major amputation and target lesion revascularization did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Safe and effective day-case-based angioplasty can be provided in a secondary care setting for patients with critical limb ischaemia needing complex multi-level procedures.

Office-based anesthesia: an update on safety and outcomes (2017-2019)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although both cost and patient preference tend to favor the office-based setting, one must consider the hidden costs in managing complications and readmissions. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on safety outcomes of office-based procedures, as well as to identify common patient-specific factors that influence the decision for office-based surgery or impact patient outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Office-based anesthesia (OBA) success rates from the latest publications of orthopedic, plastic, endovascular, and otolaryngologic continue to improve. A common thread among these studies is the ability to predict which patients will benefit from going home the same day, as well as identifying comorbid factors that would lead to failure to discharge or readmission after surgery. Specifically, patients with active infection, cardiovascular disease, coagulopathy, insulin-dependent diabetes, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, poorly controlled hypertension, and thromboembolic disease are presumed to be poor candidates for outpatient office procedures.

SUMMARY

Overall, anesthesia and surgery in the office is becoming increasingly safe. Recent data suggest that the improved safety in the office-based setting is attributable to proper patient selection. Anesthesiologists play a critical role in prescreening eligible patients to ensure a safe and productive process. Patients treated in the office seem to be selected based on their low risk for complications, and our review reflects this position.