Bhatt, Parth

Background: There is lack of data regarding impact of atherectomy on the length of stay (LOS) and cost of hospitalization in lower extremity arterial revascularization. Methods: HCUP’s Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2012 was queried using the ICD-9- CM code for peripheral vascular disease and procedural codes 39.90 (bare metal stent - BMS), 00.55 (drug eluting stent - DES), 17.56 (peripheral atherectomy) and 39.50 for angioplasty. Only procedures performed in patients ≥18 years of age were included. Hierarchical mixed effects linear regression models were generated to evaluate multivariate predictors of LOS and hospitalization costs. Results: A total of 13,206 (weighted: 66,030) lower extremity arterial revascularizations were identified (43.8% female & 65.5% white). Out of these, atherectomy was utilized in 23.2%. Atherectomy utilization was associated with significant reduction in LOS (4.96 ± 0.11 days vs. 5.78 ± 0.07 days, p <0.001) but higher hospitalization cost ($ 25196 ± 359 vs. $ 23408 ± 185, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed similar results with decrease in LOS (-0.71 days, -1.00 - - 0.43; p < 0.001) but higher hospitalization cost (+1875 $, +811 - +2940; p = 0.001) with atherectomy, which was matched by propensity score analysis. Additionally, emergent/urgent & weekend admissions and Charlson score ≥2 were further associated with increased LOS and hospitalization costs. (Figure) Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that atherectomy utilization is associated with significant reduction in length of stay, which was counterbalanced by a slight increase in hospitalization costs following lower extremity arterial revascularization.

Introduction: Use of transcatheter endovascular stenting has been increasing in the treatment of Coarctation of Aorta (CoA). The present study was undertaken on adults with CoA undergoing stent placement from the period of 2000 to 2011 to analyze the relationship of hospital volume to the outcomes of stenting in adults with CoA. Methods: We queried Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)’s Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2000 to 2011. Patients with CoA were identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of 747.10. Patients≥18 years of age undergoing endovascular stenting were identified using ICD-9-CM procedure code of 39.90. Hospital volume was divided into two groups with ≥3 and <3 procedures annually. The outcomes studied were procedure-related complications, length of stay (LOS), and cost in relation to the hospital volume. Complications were coded using specific patient safety indicator codes released by HCUP. Length of stay (≤1 and >1 days) and cost (≤ $13,830 and > $13,830) were divided at median and included in regression analysis. Results: No in-hospital death was reported in either group. Hospitals with ≥3 procedures annually had significantly lower incidence of complications (9.50% vs. 23.01%) compared to the hospitals with <3 procedures annually (p=0.002). After multivariate regression analysis, compared to hospitals with <3 procedures annually, the hospitals with ≥3 procedures annually had odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p=0.013) for having any complications, OR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.39-1.17, p=0.15) for having LOS>1 day, and OR of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.45-1.13, p=0.15) for having cost>$13,830. Conclusion: Stenting in adults for aortic coarctation is remarkably safe and the outcomes of the procedure have improved in centers with annual hospital volume of ≥3 procedures, and there is also decreasing trend of procedure-related complications, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs compared to centers with annual volume <3 procedures.

Introduction: The data regarding use of different Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices in TAVR is limited. The present study was performed to analyze the complications and outcomes of different MCS in TAVR. Methods: The subjects under study were obtained from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011-12 using ICD-9-CM procedure codes for TAVR and MCS. The use of MCS was divided into Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) including Impella and TandemHeart, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and percutaneous cardiopulmonary support and cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) using ICD-9-CM codes. The incidence of in-hospital mortality and occurrence of procedure related complications were analyzed. Results: Out of total 1794 TAVR procedures, MCS was utilized in 190 (10.6%) procedures. CBP was the most commonly utilized 136 (71.6%) followed by IABP 36 (18.9%), ECMO 14 (7.4%) and 4 (2.1%). In-hospital mortality was highest with use of IABP (36.6%), followed by ECMO (14.3%), CBP (9.6%) and PVAD (0%) with p-value <0.01. The incidence of complications was similar in IABP and PVAD (100% each) followed by ECMO (85.7%) and CBP (59.4%) with p-value <0.01. Conclusion: Being retrospective in design, the present study has no information regarding indications and individual patient related variables in which each of the MCS devices used. Overall, CBP was observed as the most extensive used MCS modality with less mortality (9.6%) and least complications (59.4%).

Introduction: Over the past decade, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Patients with liver cirrhosis are at high risk for operative morbidity and mortality when they undergo cardiac surgery. In the present study, in-hospital outcomes are compared in cirrhotic patients undergoing TAVR vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Methods: The study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011 and 2012 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients<50 years of age and those with concomitantly other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis including those with other manifestations of cirrhosis such as portal hypertension and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using chi-square test, fisher’s exact test, and student’s t-test. Results: There were 30 cirrhotic patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each after propensity score matching. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in the SAVR group had higher mean cost of hospitalization ($79,263 vs. $63,913, p=0.12), mean post-procedural length of stay (14.3 days vs. 6.2 days, p<0.01), any complications rate (80.0% vs. 60.0%, p=0.09), rate of transfusion of blood or blood products (56.7% vs. 30.0%, p=0.037) and liver complications rate (20.0% vs. 10.0%, p=0.4). The in-hospital mortality rate was same in both the groups (6.7%). Conclusions: In high-risk cirrhotic patients, TAVR is a viable option for aortic valve replacement compared to SAVR.

Background: Contemporary outcome data regarding effects of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial revascularization is lacking. Methods: We queried HCUP’s Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for 2012 using the appropriate primary ICD 9-CM diagnostic code for peripheral vascular disease and procedural codes 39.90 (bare metal stent - BMS), 00.55 (drug eluting stent - DES), 17.56 (peripheral artherectomy) and 39.50 for angioplasty. Only procedures performed in patients >= 18 years were included. Hierarchical mixed effects logistic regression models were generated to evaluate multivariate predictors of outcomes. Results: In total 13,206 (weighted: 66,030) lower extremity arterial revascularization were analyzed (65.5% white, 56.2% Male & 97.4% angioplasty). Atherectomy utilization (23.2%) was associated with significant reduction in amputation (11.5% vs 13.4%), any complications (13.2% vs 16.3%) and in hospital morality (0.8% vs 1.4%) compared to no atherectomy group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed similar results with decrease amputation (OR, 95% CI; p - value) (0.83, 0.71 - 0.97, p = 0.02) and in hospital mortality/any complication (0.79, 0.69 - 0.90, p = 0.001) with atherectomy (similar results were observed with propensity score matching). “Atherectomy only” was utilized only in 2.3%. post-hoc analysis also shows better outcomes when atherectomy was used with either angioplasty or stenting (figure a & b). subgroup multivariate analysis shows significant reduction in amputation when atherectomy was utilized in chronic limb ischemia (0.74, 0.59 - 0.93, p = 0.01) and with angioplasty (0.72, 0.60 - 0.87, p = 0.001) and trend towards advantage while used along with stents but not reaching statistical significant. Conclusion: Lower extremity atherectomy utilization was associated with significant reduction in amputation and overall complication. We observed better outcomes when atherectomy was used in conjunction with angioplasty.

ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to study the impact of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on in‐hospital outcomes.BackgroundThere is paucity of data regarding the impact of GPI on the outcomes following peripheral endovascular interventions.MethodsThe 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.ResultsGPI 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).ConclusionsMultivariate 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.

Purpose: To examine the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) utilization during lower limb endovascular interventions as regards postprocedural complications and amputation. Methods: The study cohort was derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between the years 2006 and 2011. Peripheral endovascular interventions were identified using appropriate ICD-9 procedure codes. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The co-primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and amputation; the secondary outcome was postprocedural complications. Model results are given as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Hospitalization costs were also assessed. Results: Overall, among the 92,714 patients extracted from the database during the observation period, IVUS was used in 1299 (1.4%) patients. IVUS utilization during lower extremity peripheral vascular procedures was independently predictive of a lower rate of postprocedural complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, p=0.037) as well as lower amputation rates (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77, p<0.001) without any significant impact on in-hospital mortality. Multivariate analysis also revealed IVUS utilization to be predictive of a nonsignificant increase in hospitalization costs ($1333, 95% CI −$167 to +$2833, p=0.082). Conclusion: IVUS use during lower limb endovascular interventions is predictive of lower postprocedural complication and amputation rates with a nonsignificant increase in hospitalization costs.

ObjectivesTo compare the in‐hospital outcomes in cirrhosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundOver the last 10 years, TAVR has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high‐risk patients. Cirrhosis patients have a high risk of operative morbidity and mortality while undergoing cardiac surgery. This study's hypothesis was that TAVR is a safer alternative compared to SAVR in cirrhosis patients.MethodsThe study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011–2012 using ICD‐9‐CM procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients <50 years of age and those who concomitantly underwent other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests.ResultsThere were 30 patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in SAVR group had significantly higher rate of transfusion of whole blood or blood products (p = 0.037), longer mean postprocedural length of stay (p = 0.006), and nonsignificantly higher mean cost of hospitalization (p = 0.2), any complications rate (p = 0.09), and liver complications rate (p = 0.4). In‐hospital mortality rate was same in the both the groups. No patients in the TAVR group required open‐heart surgery or cardiopulmonary bypass.ConclusionTAVR could be a viable option for aortic valve replacement in cirrhosis patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the utilization of catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) and its comparative effectiveness against systemic thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism (PE).BackgroundContemporary real world data regarding utilization and outcomes comparing systemic thrombolysis with CDT for PE is sparse.MethodsWe queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2012 using the ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis code 415.11, 415.13, and 415.19 for acute PE. We used propensity score analysis to compare outcomes between systemic thrombolysis and CDT. Primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcome was combined in‐hospital mortality and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).ResultsOut of 110,731 patients hospitalized with PE, we identified 1,521 patients treated with thrombolysis, of which 1,169 patients received systemic thrombolysis and 352 patients received CDT. After propensity‐matched comparison, primary and secondary outcomes were significantly lower in the CDT group compared to systemic thrombolysis (21.81% vs. 13.36%, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36–0.85, P value = 0.007) and (22.89% vs. 13.36%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34–0.80, P value = 0.003), respectively. The median length of stay [7 days, interquartile range (IQR) (5–9 days) vs. 7 days, IQR (5–10 days), P = 0.17] was not significant between the two groups. The CDT group had higher cost of hospitalization [$17,218, IQR ($12,272–$23,906) vs. $23,799, IQR ($17,892–$35,338), P < 0.001]. Multivariate analysis identified increasing age, saddle PE, cardiopulmonary arrest, and Medicaid insurance as independent predictors of in‐hospital mortality.ConclusionsCDT was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality and combined in‐hospital mortality and ICH. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: Multivessel coronary artery disease carries significant mortality risk. Comprehensive data on inhospital outcomes following multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MVPCI) are sparse. Methods: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s nationwide inpatient sample (NIS) between 2006 and 2011 using different International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. The primary outcome was inhospital all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was a composite of inhospital mortality and periprocedural complications. Results: The overall mortality was low at 0.73% following MVPCI. Multivariate analysis revealed that (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, P value) age (1.63, 1.48-1.79; <.001), female sex (1.19, 1.00-1.42; P = .05), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; 2.97, 2.35-3.74; <.001), shock (17.24, 13.61-21.85; <.001), a higher burden of comorbidities (2.09, 1.32-3.29; .002), and emergent/urgent procedure status (1.67, 1.30-2.16; <.001) are important predictors of primary and secondary outcomes. MVPCI was associated with higher mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost of care as compared to single vessel single stent PCI. Conclusion: MVPCI is associated with higher inhospital mortality, LOS, and hospitalization costs compared to single vessel, single stent PCI. Higher volume hospitals had lower overall postprocedural mortality rate along with shorter LOS and lower hospitalization costs following MVPCI.