OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of peripheral vascular interventions performed in a private, outpatient catheterization laboratory. BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular interventions have been traditionally performed in the inpatient setting. However, there has been a recent shift away from hospital-based vascular interventions toward outpatient-based procedures. Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of such procedures being performed in the outpatient setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of the first 500 consecutive procedures that were performed at an outpatient catheterization laboratory from February 2012 through February 2013. We separated the procedures into arteriovenous fistula (AVF)-related procedures, peripheral arterial disease (PAD)-related procedures, and miscellaneous procedures. The primary endpoint was procedure success rate, defined as postintervention residual stenosis of <30% on angiography. The secondary endpoint was procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: The success rate for AVF-related interventions was 90%, and 93% when including partially successful interventions. The success rate for PAD-related interventions was 82%, and 92% when including partially successful interventions. The procedure success rate for miscellaneous interventions was 89%. Five AVF-related procedures suffered an adverse event (1.49%). Two PAD-related procedures suffered an adverse event (1.3%), while no adverse events were noted among miscellaneous procedures. One patient required immediate postprocedure hospitalization due to iliac artery perforation. CONCLUSION: Peripheral vascular procedures performed in the outpatient setting are safe and effective. A comparison of outcomes between outpatient and inpatient facilities when performing similar peripheral vascular interventions is needed in order to determine whether a transition of further vascular procedures into an outpatient setting is justified.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of peripheral vascular interventions performed in a private, outpatient catheterization laboratory. BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular interventions have been traditionally performed in the inpatient setting. However, there has been a recent shift away from hospital-based vascular interventions toward outpatient-based procedures. Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of such procedures being performed in the outpatient setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of the first 500 consecutive procedures that were performed at an outpatient catheterization laboratory from February 2012 through February 2013. We separated the procedures into arteriovenous fistula (AVF)-related procedures, peripheral arterial disease (PAD)-related procedures, and miscellaneous procedures. The primary endpoint was procedure success rate, defined as postintervention residual stenosis of <30% on angiography. The secondary endpoint was procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: The success rate for AVF-related interventions was 90%, and 93% when including partially successful interventions. The success rate for PAD-related interventions was 82%, and 92% when including partially successful interventions. The procedure success rate for miscellaneous interventions was 89%. Five AVF-related procedures suffered an adverse event (1.49%). Two PAD-related procedures suffered an adverse event (1.3%), while no adverse events were noted among miscellaneous procedures. One patient required immediate postprocedure hospitalization due to iliac artery perforation. CONCLUSION: Peripheral vascular procedures performed in the outpatient setting are safe and effective. A comparison of outcomes between outpatient and inpatient facilities when performing similar peripheral vascular interventions is needed in order to determine whether a transition of further vascular procedures into an outpatient setting is justified.