Procedural and 3-Year Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions Performed in Office-Based Labs: LIBERTY 360 Sub-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Few data are available on the safety of interventions for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) performed in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the short- and late-term outcomes of patients treated in OBL vs hospital settings.

METHODS

We included patients with PAD treated with any United States Food and Drug Administration approved or cleared devices for distal femoropopliteal and/or infrapopliteal disease. Data were retrieved from the LIBERTY 360 study. A propensity-scored, matched analysis was conducted and hazard ratios with the respective 95% confidence intervals were synthesized to examine the outcomes after interventions at OBL vs non-OBL settings.

RESULTS

A total of 710 propensity-scored patients (355 OBL patients and 355 non-OBL patients) with 907 treated lesions (454 OBL lesions and 453 non-OBL lesions), were included. For almost all subjects, balloon angioplasty was the preferred treatment approach (341 [96.1%] in the OBL group vs 353 [99.4%] in the non-OBL group; P<.01), with bail-out stenting necessary in 5.1% of the OBL group and 3.1% of the non-OBL group. Overall, significant angiographic complications occurred in 7.8% of all patients treated, with no differences between the 2 groups. The risk for all-cause death, target-vessel revascularization, and major amputation and death combined was similar between the 2 groups during 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral artery endovascular interventions in patients with chronic threatening ischemia or claudication, performed in the OBL setting, are safe and associated with favorable outcomes at 3 years of follow-up. These results demonstrate that treatment at OBLs is comparable to non-OBL settings. Further comparative studies and larger registries are needed to benchmark procedural quality and long-term outcomes.