Attaran, Ramak R.

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.

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.