Preliminary Results of the Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society National Registry.

PURPOSE: To present a new outcomes-based registry to collect data on outpatient endovascular interventions, a relatively new site of service without adequate historical data to assess best clinical practices. Quality data collection with subsequent outcomes analysis, benchmarking, and direct feedback is necessary to achieve optimal care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society (OEIS) established the OEIS National Registry in 2017 to collect data on safety, efficacy, and quality of care for outpatient endovascular interventions. Since then, it has grown to include a peripheral artery disease (PAD) module with plans to expand to include cardiac, venous, dialysis access, and other procedures in future modules. As a Qualified Clinical Data Registry approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this application also supports new quality measure development under the Quality Payment Program. All physicians operating in an office-based laboratory or ambulatory surgery center can use the Registry to analyze de-identified data and benchmark performance against national averages. Major adverse events were defined as death, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute onset of limb ischemia, index bypass graft or treated segment thrombosis, and/or need for urgent/emergent vascular surgery. RESULTS: Since Registry inception in 2017, 251 participating physicians from 64 centers located in 18 states have participated. The current database includes 18,134 peripheral endovascular interventions performed in 12,403 PAD patients (mean age 72.3±10.2 years; 60.1% men) between January 2017 and January 2020. Cases were performed primarily in an office-based laboratory (85.1%) or ambulatory surgery center setting (10.4%). Most frequently observed procedure indications from 16,086 preprocedure form submissions included claudication (59%), minor tissue loss (16%), rest pain (9%), acute limb ischemia (5%), and maintenance of patency (3%). Planned diagnostic procedures made up 12.2% of cases entered, with the remainder indicated as interventional procedures (87.6%). The hospital transfer rate was 0.62%, with 88 urgent/emergent transfers and 24 elective transfers. The overall complication rate for the Registry was 1.87% (n=338), and the rate of major adverse events was 0.51% (n=92). Thirty-day mortality was 0.03% (n=6). CONCLUSION: This report describes the current structure, methodology, and preliminary results of OEIS National Registry, an outcomes-based registry designed to collect quality performance data with subsequent outcome analysis, benchmarking, and direct feedback to aid clinicians in providing optimal care.

Venography versus intravascular ultrasound for diagnosing and treating iliofemoral vein obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The Venogram vs IVUS for Diagnosing Iliac vein Obstruction (VIDIO) trial was designed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with multiplanar venography for iliofemoral vein obstruction. METHODS: During a 14-month period beginning July 2014, 100 patients with chronic Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, and Pathophysiologic clinical class C4 to C6 venous disease and suspected iliofemoral vein obstruction were enrolled at 11 U.S. and 3 European sites. The inferior vena cava and common iliac, external iliac, and common femoral veins were imaged. Venograms were measured for vein diameter; IVUS provided diameter and area measurements. Multiplanar venograms included three views: anteroposterior and 30-degree right and left anterior oblique views. A core laboratory evaluated the deidentified images, determining stenosis severity as the ratio between minimum luminal diameter and reference vessel diameter, minimal luminal area, and reference vessel area. A 50% diameter stenosis by venography and a 50% cross-sectional area reduction by IVUS were considered significant. Analyses assessed change in procedures performed on the basis of imaging method and concordance of measurements between each imaging method. RESULTS: Venography identified stenotic lesions in 51 of 100 subjects, whereas IVUS identified lesions in 81 of 100 subjects. Compared with IVUS, the diameter reduction was on average 11% less for venography (P < .001). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.505 for vein diameter stenosis calculated with the two methods. IVUS identified significant lesions not detected with three-view venography in 26.3% of patients. Investigators revised the treatment plan in 57 of 100 cases after IVUS, most often because of failure of venography to detect a significant lesion (41/57 [72%]). IVUS led to an increased number of stents in 13 of 57 subjects (23%) and the avoidance of an endovascular procedure in 3 of 57 subjects (5%). Overall, IVUS imaging changed the treatment plan in 57 patients; 54 patients had stents placed on the basis of IVUS detection of significant iliofemoral vein obstructive lesions not appreciated with venography, whereas 3 patients with significant lesions on venography had no stent placed on the basis of IVUS. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS is more sensitive for assessing treatable iliofemoral vein stenosis compared with multiplanar venography and frequently leads to revised treatment plans and the potential for improved clinical outcome.