Mesbah Oskui Peyman, Kloner Robert A, Burstein Steven, Zhiroff Katrine, Kartub Benjamin Richard, Economides Christina, Brook Jenny, Mayeda Guy S
California CardioVascular Institute, 1100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 101, Los Angeles, CA 90017 USA.
J Invasive Cardiol. 2015 May;27(5):243-9.
This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of peripheral vascular interventions performed in a private, outpatient catheterization laboratory.
Peripheral vascular interventions have been traditionally performed in the inpatient setting. However, there has been a recent shift away from hospital-based vascular interventions toward outpatient-based procedures. Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of such procedures being performed in the outpatient setting.
We performed a retrospective chart review of the first 500 consecutive procedures that were performed at an outpatient catheterization laboratory from February 2012 through February 2013. We separated the procedures into arteriovenous fistula (AVF)-related procedures, peripheral arterial disease (PAD)-related procedures, and miscellaneous procedures. The primary endpoint was procedure success rate, defined as postintervention residual stenosis of <30% on angiography. The secondary endpoint was procedure-related adverse events.
The success rate for AVF-related interventions was 90%, and 93% when including partially successful interventions. The success rate for PAD-related interventions was 82%, and 92% when including partially successful interventions. The procedure success rate for miscellaneous interventions was 89%. Five AVF-related procedures suffered an adverse event (1.49%). Two PAD-related procedures suffered an adverse event (1.3%), while no adverse events were noted among miscellaneous procedures. One patient required immediate postprocedure hospitalization due to iliac artery perforation.
Peripheral vascular procedures performed in the outpatient setting are safe and effective. A comparison of outcomes between outpatient and inpatient facilities when performing similar peripheral vascular interventions is needed in order to determine whether a transition of further vascular procedures into an outpatient setting is justified.
本研究旨在评估在私立门诊导管实验室进行外周血管介入治疗的安全性和有效性。
外周血管介入治疗传统上是在住院环境中进行的。然而,最近已从基于医院的血管介入治疗转向基于门诊的手术。关于在门诊环境中进行此类手术的有效性和安全性的数据很少。
我们对2012年2月至2013年2月在门诊导管实验室进行的前500例连续手术进行了回顾性图表审查。我们将手术分为动静脉瘘(AVF)相关手术、外周动脉疾病(PAD)相关手术和其他手术。主要终点是手术成功率,定义为血管造影术后残余狭窄<30%。次要终点是与手术相关的不良事件。
AVF相关干预的成功率为90%,包括部分成功的干预时为93%。PAD相关干预的成功率为82%,包括部分成功的干预时为92%。其他干预的手术成功率为89%。5例AVF相关手术发生不良事件(1.49%)。2例PAD相关手术发生不良事件(1.3%),而其他手术未发现不良事件。1例患者因髂动脉穿孔术后需要立即住院。
在门诊环境中进行的外周血管手术是安全有效的。需要比较门诊和住院设施在进行类似外周血管介入治疗时的结果,以确定进一步将血管手术过渡到门诊环境是否合理。