Impact of Hospital Procedural Volume on Outcomes After Endovascular Revascularization for Critical Limb Ischemia

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Sep 13;14(17):1926-1936. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.06.032.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interaction between hospital endovascular lower extremity revascularization (eLER) volume and outcomes after eLER for critical limb ischemia (CLI).

Background: There is a paucity of data on the relationship between hospital procedural volume and outcomes of eLER for CLI.

Methods: The authors queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2013-2015) for hospitalized patients who underwent eLER for CLI. Hospitals were divided into tertiles according to annual eLER volume: low volume (<100 eLER procedures), moderate volume (100-550 eLER procedures), and high volume (>550 eLER procedures). Stepwise multivariable regression models were used. The main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events, defined as the composite of amputation, acute limb ischemia, or repeat revascularization.

Results: Among 145,785 hospitalizations for eLER for CLI, 5,199 (3.6%) were at low-volume eLER hospitals, 27,857 (19.1%) at moderate-volume eLER hospitals, and 112,728 (77.3%) at high-volume eLER hospitals. On multivariable analysis, there was no difference with regard to in-hospital mortality among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.01) and high-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.64-1.05) compared with low-volume hospitals. There was lower risk of in-hospital major amputation (adjusted OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.96) and minor amputation at high- versus low-volume hospitals. The length of hospital stay was shorter and discharges to nursing facilities were fewer among moderate- and high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals. Compared with low-volume hospitals, eLER for CLI at high-volume hospitals had a lower risk for 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events (adjusted OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70-0.99), while there was no difference among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77-1.10).

Conclusions: This nationwide observational analysis suggests that annual eLER volume does not influence in-hospital mortality after eLER for CLI. However, high eLER volume (>550 eLER procedures) was associated with better rates of limb preservation after eLER for CLI.

Keywords: adverse limb events; critical limb ischemia; endovascular revascularization; procedural volume.

Publication types

  • Observational Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Amputation, Surgical
  • Critical Illness
  • Endovascular Procedures* / adverse effects
  • Hospitals, Low-Volume
  • Humans
  • Ischemia / diagnostic imaging
  • Ischemia / surgery
  • Limb Salvage
  • Peripheral Arterial Disease* / diagnostic imaging
  • Peripheral Arterial Disease* / surgery
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Factors
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome