Practice patterns of peripheral vascular interventions for peripheral artery disease in the office-based laboratory setting versus outpatient hospital

Abstract

Objective: Controversy exists regarding the value and limitations of different sites of service for peripheral artery disease treatment. We aimed to examine practice patterns associated with peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) performed in the office-based laboratory (OBL) vs outpatient hospital site of service using a nationally representative database.

Methods: Using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data, we identified all patients undergoing PVI for claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) between January 2017 and December 2022. We evaluated the associations of patient and procedure characteristics with site of service using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression. We used multinomial regression models to estimate the relative risk ratios (RRRs) of site of service and intervention type (angioplasty, stent, or atherectomy) and intervention anatomic level (iliac, femoropopliteal, or tibial) after adjusting for baseline patient characteristics and clustering by physician.

Results: Of 848,526 PVI, 485,942 (57.3%) were performed in an OBL. OBL use increased significantly over time from 48.3% in 2017 to 65.5% in 2022 (P < .001). Patients treated in OBLs were more likely to be Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.18) or other non-White race (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18), have fewer comorbidities, and undergo treatment for claudication vs CLTI (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.26-1.33) compared with patients treated in outpatient hospital settings. Physicians with majority practice (>50% procedures) in an OBL were more likely to practice in urban settings (aOR, 21.58; 95% CI, 9.31-50.02), specialize in radiology (aOR, 18.15; 95% CI, 8.92- 36.92), and have high-volume PVI practices (aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 2.10-2.29). The median time from diagnosis to treatment was shorter in OBLs, particularly for patients with CLTI (29 vs 39 days; P < .001). The OBL setting was the strongest predictor of patients receiving an atherectomy alone (adjusted RRR [aRRR] 6.67; 95% CI, 6.59-6.76) or atherectomy + stent (aRRR, 10.84; 95% CI, 10.64-11.05), and these findings were consistent in subgroup analyses stratified by PVI indication. The OBL setting was also associated with higher risk of tibial interventions for both claudication (aRRR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.11-3.25) and CLTI (aRRR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.86-1.92). The average reimbursement (including professional and facility fees) was slightly higher for OBLs compared with the hospital ($8742/case vs $8459/case; P < .001). However, in a simulated cohort resetting the OBL's intervention type distribution to that of the hospital, OBLs were associated with a hypothetical cost savings of $221,219,803 overall and $2602 per case.

Conclusions: The OBL site of service was associated with greater access to care for non-White patients and a shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, but more frequently performed high-cost interventions compared with the outpatient hospital setting. The benefit to patients from improved access to peripheral artery disease care in OBL settings must be balanced with the potential limitations of receiving differential care.

Keywords: Endovascular surgery; Office-based laboratory; Peripheral artery disease; Peripheral vascular interventions; Site of service.