Safety of vascular interventions performed in an office-based laboratory in patients with low/moderate procedural risk.

OBJECTIVE

An exponential increase in number of office-based laboratories (OBLs) has occurred in the United States, since the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services increased reimbursement for outpatient vascular interventions in 2008. This dramatic shift to office-based procedures directed to the objective to assess safety of vascular procedures in OBLs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed to include all procedures performed over a 4-year period at an accredited OBL. The procedures were categorized into groups for analysis; group I, venous procedures; group II, arterial; group III, arteriovenous; and group IV, inferior vena cava filter placement procedures. Local anesthesia, analgesics, and conscious sedation were used in all interventions, individualized to the patient and procedure performed. Arterial closures devices were used in all arterial interventions. Patient selection for procedure at OBL was highly selective to include only patients with low/moderate procedural risk.

RESULTS

Nearly 6201 procedures were performed in 2779 patients from 2011 to 2015. The mean age of the study population was 66.5 ± 13.31 years. There were 1852 females (67%) and 928 males (33%). In group I, 5783 venous procedures were performed (3491 vein ablation, 2292 iliac vein stenting); with group II, 238 arterial procedures (125 femoral/popliteal, 71 infrapopliteal, iliac 42); group III, 129 arteriovenous accesses; and group IV, 51 inferior vena cava filter placements. The majority of procedures belonged to American Society of Anesthesiology class II with venous (61%) and arterial (74%) disease. A total of 5% patients were deemed American Society of Anesthesiology class IV (all on hemodialysis). There was no OBL mortality, major bleed, acute limb ischemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospital transfer within 72 hours. Minor complications occurred in 14 patients (0.5%). Thirty-day mortality, unrelated to the procedure, was noted in 9 patients (0.32%). No statistically significant differences were noted in outcomes between the four groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that it is safe to use OBL for minimally invasive, noncomplex vascular interventions in patients with a low to moderate cardiovascular procedural risk.