Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Intermittent claudication treatment patterns in the commercially insured non-Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: Despite published guidelines and data for Medicare patients, it is uncertain how younger patients with intermittent claudication (IC) are treated. Additionally, the degree to which treatment patterns have changed over time with the expansion of endovascular interventions and outpatient centers is unclear. Our goal was to characterize IC treatment patterns in the commercially insured non-Medicare population. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, which includes more than 8 billion US commercial insurance claims, was queried for patients newly diagnosed with IC from 2007 to 2016. Patient demographics, medication profiles, and open/endovascular interventions were evaluated. Time trends were modeled using simple linear regression and goodness-of-fit was assessed with coefficients of determination (R2). A patient-centered cohort sample and a procedure-focused dataset were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 152,935,013 unique patients in the database, there were 300,590 patients newly diagnosed with IC. The mean insurance coverage was 4.4 years. The median patients age was 58 years and 56% of patients were male. The prevalence of statin use was 48% among patients at the time of IC diagnosis and increased to 52% among patients after one year from diagnosis. Interventions were performed in 14.3%, of whom 20% and 6% underwent two or more and three or more interventions, respectively. The median time from diagnosis to intervention decreased from 230 days in 2008 days to 49 days in 2016 (R2 = 0.98). There were 16,406 inpatient and 102,925 ambulatory interventions for IC over the study period. Among ambulatory interventions, 7.9% were performed in office-based/surgical centers. The proportion of atherectomies performed in the ambulatory setting increased from 9.7% in 2007 to 29% in 2016 (R2 = 0.94). In office-based/surgical centers, 57.6% of interventions for IC used atherectomy in 2016. Atherectomy was used in ambulatory interventions by cardiologists in 22.6%, surgeons in 15.2%, and radiologists in 13.6% of interventions. Inpatient atherectomy rates remained stable over the study period. Open and endovascular tibial interventions were performed in 7.9% and 7.8% of ambulatory and inpatient IC interventions, respectively. Tibial bypasses were performed in 8.2% of all open IC interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There has been shorter time to intervention in the treatment of younger, commercially insured patients with IC, with many receiving multiple interventions. Statin use was low. Ambulatory procedures, especially in office-based/surgical centers, increasingly used atherectomy, which was not observed in inpatient settings.

In-Hospital Outcomes and Trends of Endovascular Intervention vs Surgical Revascularization in Octogenarians With Peripheral Artery Disease.

It is unknown whether endovascular intervention (EVI) is associated with superior outcomes when compared with surgical revascularization in octogenarian. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to compare the outcomes of limb revascularization in octogenarians who had surgical revascularization versus EVI. The NIS database's information on PAD patients ≥80-year-old who underwent limb revascularization between 2002 and 2014 included 394,504 octogenarian patients, of which 184,926 underwent surgical revascularization (46.9%) and 209,578 underwent EVI (53.1%). Multivariate analysis was performed to examine in-hospital outcomes. Trend over time in limb revascularization utilization was examined using Cochrane-Armitage test. EVI group had lower odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.58 to 0.63], myocardial infarction (aOR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.81 to 0.87]), stroke (aOR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.89 to 0.96]), acute kidney injury (aOR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.77 to 0.81]), and limb amputation (aOR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.79]) compared with surgical group (p < 0.001 for all). EVI group had higher risk of bleeding (aOR: 1.20 [95% CI: 1.18 to 1.23]) and vascular complications (3.2% vs 2.7%, aOR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.19 to 1.30]) compared with surgical group (p < 0.001 for all). Within study period, EVI utilization increased in octogenarian patients from 2.6% to 8.9% (ptrend < 0.001); whereas use of surgical revascularization decreased from 11.6% to 5.2% (ptrend < 0.001). In conclusion, the utilization of EVI in octogenarians is increasing, and associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality and adverse cardiovascular and limb outcomes as compared with surgical revascularization.

Practice Patterns of Vascular Surgery's "1%".

BACKGROUND: Public focus on health care spending has increased attention on variation in practice patterns and overutilization of high-cost services. Mainstream news reports have revealed that a small number of providers account for a disproportionate amount of total Medicare payments. Here, we explore variation in Medicare payments among vascular surgeons and compare practice patterns of the most highly reimbursed surgeons to the rest of the workforce. METHODS: 2016 Medicare Provider Utilization Data were queried to identify procedure, charge, and payment data to vascular surgeons, identified by National Provider Identification taxonomy. Commonly performed services (>10/year) were stratified into categories (endovascular, open surgery, varicose vein, evaluation and management, etc.). Practice patterns of vascular surgeons comprising the top 1% Medicare payments (n = 31) were compared with the remainder of the workforce (n = 3,104). RESULTS: In 2016, Medicare payments to vascular surgeons totaled $589 M. 31 vascular surgeons-1% of the workforce-received $91 million (15% of total payments). Practice patterns of the 1% differed significantly from the remainder of vascular surgeons (P < 0.05), with endovascular procedures accounting for 85% of their reimbursement. Specifically, the 1% received 49% of total Medicare payments for atherectomy ($121 M), 98% of which were performed in the office setting. CONCLUSIONS: One percentage of vascular surgeons receive an inordinate amount of total Medicare payments to the specialty. This discrepancy is due to variations in volume, utilization, and site of service. Disproportionate use of outpatient atherectomy in a small number of providers, for example, raises concerns regarding appropriateness and overutilization. Given current scrutiny over health care spending, these findings should prompt serious discussion regarding the utility of personal and societal self-regulation.

Provider Trends in Atherectomy Volume between Office-Based Laboratories and Traditional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: As patient care is being increasingly transitioned out of the hospital and into the outpatient setting, there is a growing interest in developing office-based angiography suites, that is, office-based laboratories. Office-based care has been associated with increased efficiency and greater patient satisfaction, with substantially higher reimbursement directly to the physicians providing care. Prior studies have demonstrated a shift of revascularization procedures to office-based laboratories with a concomitant increase in atherectomy use, a procedure with disproportionately high reimbursement in comparison to other peripheral revascularization techniques. We sought to determine provider trends in endovascular procedure volume, settings, and shifts in practice over time, specific to atherectomy. METHODS: Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2013 to 2015, we identified providers who performed diagnostic angiography (DA), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), stent placement (stent), and atherectomy, and procedures were aggregated at the provider level. Trends in procedures performed in office-based laboratory and facility-based settings were analyzed. Atherectomy was specifically analyzed using the total number and proportion of office-based laboratory procedures, and providers were stratified into quintiles by case volume. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 5,298 providers were identified. Over this time period, the number of providers performing atherectomy increased 25.7%, with the highest quintile of atherectomy providers performing an average of 263 cases (range 109-1,455). The proportion of physicians who performed atherectomy only in the office increased from 39.8% to 50.7% from 2013 to 2015, whereas only 20.8% of physicians who performed DA, PTA, or stent in 2015 did so only in an office-based laboratory. Of the physicians with the highest atherectomy volume, 77.8% operated only in the office in 2015, and these physicians increased their atherectomy volume to 114.1% during the study period. Of those physicians who transitioned to a solely office-based laboratory practice over the study period, atherectomy volume increased 63.4%, which was disproportionate compared with the growth of their DA, PTA, and stent volume. CONCLUSIONS: Over this short study period, a rapid shift into the office setting for peripheral intervention occurred, with a concomitant increase in atherectomy volume that was disproportionate to the increase in other peripheral interventions. This increase in office-based laboratory atherectomy occurred in the setting of increased reimbursement for the procedure and despite a lack of data supporting superiority over PTA/stent.

Peripheral atherectomy practice patterns in the United States from the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral atherectomy has been shown to have technical success in single-arm studies, but clinical advantages over angioplasty and stenting have not been demonstrated, leaving its role unclear. We sought to describe patterns of atherectomy use in a real-world U.S. cohort to understand how it is currently being applied. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried to identify all patients who underwent peripheral vascular intervention from January 2010 to September 2016. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze demographics of the patients, comorbidities, indication, treatment modalities, and lesion characteristics. The intermittent claudication (IC) and critical limb ischemia (CLI) cohorts were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Of 85,605 limbs treated, treatment indication was IC in 51% (n = 43,506) and CLI in 49% (n = 42,099). Atherectomy was used in 15% (n = 13,092) of cases, equivalently for IC (15%; n = 6674) and CLI (15%; n = 6418). There was regional variation in use of atherectomy, ranging from a low of 0% in one region to a high of 32% in another region. During the study period, there was a significant increase in the proportion of cases that used atherectomy (11% in 2010 vs 18% in 2016; P < .0001). Compared with nonatherectomy cases, those with atherectomy use had higher incidence of prior peripheral vascular intervention (IC, 55% vs 43% [P < .0001]; CLI, 47% vs 41% [P < .0001]), greater mean number of arteries treated (IC, 1.8 vs 1.6 [P < .0001]; CLI, 2.1 vs 1.7 [P < .0001]), and lower proportion of prior leg bypass (IC, 10% vs 14% [P < .0001]; CLI, 11% vs 17% [P < .0001]). There was lower incidence of failure to cross the lesion (IC, 1% vs 4% [P < .0001]; CLI, 4% vs 7% [P < .0001]) but higher incidence of distal embolization (IC, 1.9% vs 0.8% [P < .0001]; CLI, 3.0% vs 1.4% [P < .0001]) and, in the CLI cohort, arterial perforation (1.4% vs 1.0%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of evidence for atherectomy over angioplasty and stenting, its use has increased across the United States from 2010 to 2016. It is applied equally to IC and CLI populations, with no identifiable pattern of comorbidities or lesion characteristics, suggesting that indications are not clearly delineated or agreed on. This study places impetus on further understanding of the optimal role for atherectomy and its long-term clinical benefit in the management of peripheral arterial disease.

Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon and Stenting Versus Plain Balloon Plus Stenting Versus Directional Atherectomy for Femoral Artery Disease (ISAR-STATH).

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis in the superficial femoral artery is common in patients suffering from peripheral artery disease. Paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) angioplasty, stenting, and directional atherectomy (DA) have provided new options for the treatment of superficial femoral artery disease; however, the comparative efficacy of these interventional strategies remains uncertain. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease due to de novo superficial femoral artery stenotic or occlusive lesions were randomized to treatment with plain balloon angioplasty (BA) followed by PEB angioplasty and stenting (n=48), BA and stenting (n=52), or DA with distal protection and bailout stenting (n=55). The primary end point of the study was percentage diameter stenosis after 6 months measured by angiography. Other end points included target lesion revascularization, thrombosis, ipsilateral amputation, binary restenosis, and all-cause mortality at 6 and 24 months. RESULTS: Baseline and lesion characteristics were comparable in all groups with a mean lesion length of 65.9±46.8 mm and 56% total occlusions. At 6 months angiography, the percent diameter stenosis was significantly lower in patients treated by PEB angioplasty and stenting (34±31%) as compared with BA angioplasty and stenting (56±29%, P=0.009) or DA (55±29%, P=0.007). Similarly, binary restenosis was significantly lower after treatment with PEB and stenting as compared with BA and stenting or DA. Clinical follow-up at 24 months revealed a lower risk for target lesion revascularization after PEB angioplasty and stenting as compared with BA and stenting or DA. We found no difference in terms of target lesion thrombosis and mortality among groups, and no patient underwent amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of de novo superficial femoral artery lesions with PEB angioplasty and stenting is superior to BA angioplasty and stenting or DA in terms of angiographic diameter stenosis at 6 months and target lesion revascularization at 24 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00986752.

The disproportionate growth of office-based atherectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the trends in procedure volume, clinical sites of care, and Medicare expenditure for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) for lower extremity occlusive disease since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instituted reimbursement policy changes that broadened payment for procedures performed in physician-owned office-based laboratories (OBLs). METHODS: We analyzed fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 2011 to 2014 to obtain the frequency of use of PVI by type, care setting, and physician specialty. We also assessed changes in the total Medicare cost for PVI by setting. RESULTS: There was a 60% increase in atherectomy cases among Medicare beneficiaries between 2011 and 2014. During the same period, OBLs experienced a 298% increase in atherectomy volume vs a 27% increase in hospital outpatient settings and an 11% decrease for inpatient hospital settings. In 2014, OBLs were the most common setting for atherectomy. Nonatherectomy PVIs grew more modestly at just 3% but also experienced site of care shifts. Vascular surgeons and cardiologists accounted for the majority of office-based PVIs in 2014. Total Medicare costs for PVIs increased 18% from 2011 to 2014. Hospital inpatient costs declined 1%, whereas costs for hospital outpatient PVIs increased by 41% and physician office costs increased by 258%. CONCLUSIONS: The migration of revascularization procedures for lower extremity peripheral arterial occlusive disease continues from the inpatient to the outpatient setting and especially to OBLs. Increased use of atherectomy in all segments of the lower extremity arterial system has been observed, particularly in OBLs, without substantial evidence in the literature of increased efficacy compared with standard angioplasty with or without stenting. Generous Medicare reimbursement for in-office atherectomy procedures is likely contributing to the volume shifts observed.

Recent Advancements in Infrapopliteal Revascularization.

Infrapopliteal arterial disease is a challenging problem to treat. A shift toward an endovascular treatment approach over surgical bypass has occurred over recent years. Although current standard percutaneous transluminal balloon and bare metal stents are employed, their durability and outcomes are questionable. A number of endovascular advancements in the treatment of infrapopliteal (IP) arterial disease have recently been made. We review the recent literature for new atherectomy, stent, and balloon technologies.

Trends in settings for peripheral vascular intervention and the effect of changes in the outpatient prospective payment system.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) is an effective treatment option for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). In 2008, Medicare modified reimbursement rates to encourage more efficient outpatient use of PVI in the United States. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in the use and clinical settings of PVI and the effect of changes in reimbursement. METHODS: Using a 5% national sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 2006 to 2011, we examined age- and sex-adjusted rates of PVI by year, type of procedure, clinical setting, and physician specialty. RESULTS: A total of 39,339 Medicare beneficiaries underwent revascularization for PAD between 2006 and 2011. The annual rate of PVI increased slightly from 401.4 to 419.6 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries (p = 0.17), but the clinical setting shifted. The rate of PVI declined in inpatient settings from 209.7 to 151.6 (p < 0.001), whereas the rate expanded in outpatient hospitals (184.7 to 228.5; p = 0.01) and office-based clinics (6.0 to 37.8; p = 0.008). The use of atherectomy increased 2-fold in outpatient hospital settings and 50-fold in office-based clinics during the study period. Mean costs of inpatient procedures were similar across all types of PVI, whereas mean costs of atherectomy procedures in outpatient and office-based clinics exceeded those of stenting and angioplasty procedures. CONCLUSIONS: From 2006 to 2011, overall rates of PVI increased minimally. However, after changes in reimbursement, PVI and atherectomy in outpatient facilities and office-based clinics increased dramatically, neutralizing cost savings to Medicare and highlighting the possible unintended consequences of coverage decisions.

National trends in lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions, and major amputations.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in endovascular interventions have expanded the options available for the invasive treatment of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Whether endovascular interventions substitute for conventional bypass surgery or are simply additive has not been investigated, and their effect on amputation rates is unknown. METHODS: We sought to analyze trends in lower extremity endovascular interventions (angioplasty and atherectomy), lower extremity bypass surgery, and major amputation (above and below-knee) in Medicare beneficiaries between 1996 and 2006. We used 100% samples of Medicare Part B claims to calculate annual procedure rates of lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions (angioplasty and atherectomy), and major amputation between 1996 and 2006. Using physician specialty identifiers, we also examined trends in the specialty performing the primary procedure. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2006, the rate of major lower extremity amputation declined significantly (263 to 188 per 100,000; risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-0.8). Endovascular interventions increased more than threefold (from 138 to 455 per 100,000; RR = 3.30; 95% CI: 2.9-3.7) while bypass surgery decreased by 42% (219 to 126 per 100,000; RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.5-0.7). The increase in endovascular interventions consisted both of a growth in peripheral angioplasty (from 135 to 337 procedures per 100,000; RR = 2.49; 95% CI: 2.2-2.8) and the advent of percutaneous atherectomy (from 3 to 118 per 100,000; RR = 43.12; 95% CI: 34.8-52.0). While radiologists performed the majority of endovascular interventions in 1996, more than 80% were performed by cardiologists and vascular surgeons by 2006. Overall, the total number of all lower extremity vascular procedures almost doubled over the decade (from 357 to 581 per 100,000; RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.5-1.8). CONCLUSION: Endovascular interventions are now performed much more commonly than bypass surgery in the treatment of lower extremity PAD. These changes far exceed simple substitution, as more than three additional endovascular interventions were performed for every one procedure declined in lower extremity bypass surgery. During this same time period, major lower extremity amputation rates have fallen by more than 25%. However, further study is needed before any causal link can be established between lower extremity vascular procedures and improved rates of limb salvage in patients with PAD.

Current treatment of peripheral arterial disease: role of percutaneous interventional therapies.

Despite advances in medical therapies to help prevent the development of atherosclerosis and improve the management of patients with established peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the prevalence of PAD and associated morbidity remains high. Over the past decade, percutaneous revascularization therapies for the treatment of patients with PAD have evolved tremendously, and a great number of patients can now be offered treatment options that are less invasive than traditional surgical options. With the surgical approach, there is significant symptomatic improvement, but the associated morbidity and mortality preclude its routine use. Although newer percutaneous treatment options are associated with lower procedural complications, the technical advances have outpaced the evaluation of these treatments in adequately designed clinical studies, and therapeutic options are available that may not have been rigorously investigated. Therefore, for physicians treating patients with PAD, an understanding of the various therapies available, along with the inherent benefits and limitations of each treatment option is imperative as a greater number of patients with PAD are being encountered.

Improving the results of coronary angioplasty.

Coronary angioplasty has changed dramatically in the past three years with major reductions in suboptimal results and restenosis rates, and improvements in safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Intracoronary stent implantation with optimisation of strut expansion and the abandonment of anticoagulants after deployment, have led to less entry-site complications, facilitated early hospital discharge, virtually abolished subacute stent thrombosis and resulted in a 50% reduction in target vessel revascularisation. Adjuvant medical treatment with anti-platelet agents, including glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors, improves the safety of angioplasty and may further reduce the restenosis rate. Selective use of debulking devices has extended the indications for angioplasty. High resolution fluoroscopy, quantitative coronary angiography and intracoronary ultrasound leading to improved diagnosis, equipment selection and treatment have contributed to better outcomes. Further clinical trials will compare angioplasty and stent implantation with coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary disease, and may extend the indications for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) to selected patients with three vessel disease.

Interventional cardiology in the mid-1990s: maturation of the technique and results from the Medical Center of Delaware.

Coronary angioplasty has continued to evolve and mature and is now used in an increasing array of coronary lesions in an ever-broadening selection of patients. Although the patients treated have continually been sicker and those with more advanced disease, the clinical results of this procedure have continued to improve. This, combined with carefully controlled studies that show a near equivalence of multivessel angioplasty and bypass surgery in selected patients, ensure that coronary angioplasty will continue to play an important role in coronary revascularization in the future.