Dataset Information

Prescribing of Statins After Lower Extremity Revascularization Procedures in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The use of statins in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease remains suboptimal despite strong clinical practice guideline recommendations; however, it is unknown whether rates are associated with substantial improvements after lower extremity revascularization.

Objective

To report longitudinal trends of statin use in patients with peripheral artery disease undergoing lower extremity revascularization and to identify the clinical and procedural characteristics associated with prescriptions for new statin therapy at discharge.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry of patients who underwent lower extremity peripheral artery disease revascularization from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019. The Vascular Quality Initiative is a multicenter registry database including academic and community-based hospitals throughout the US. Patients aged 18 years or older undergoing lower extremity revascularization with available statin data (preprocedure and postprocedure) were included. Those not receiving statin therapy for medical reasons were excluded from final analyses.

Exposures

Patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization for whom statin therapy is indicated.

Main outcomes and measures

Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the clinical and procedural characteristics associated with new statin prescription for patients not already taking a statin preprocedure. The overall rates of statin prescription as well as rates of new statin prescription at discharge were determined. In addition, the clinical, demographic, and procedural characteristics associated with new statin prescription were analyzed.

Results

There were 172 025 procedures corresponding to 125 791 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.7 [11.0] years; 107 800 men [62.7%]; and 135 405 White [78.7%]) included in the analysis. Overall rates of statin prescription at discharge improved from 17 299 of 23 093 (75%) in 2014 to 29 804 of 34 231 (87%) in 2019. However, only 12 790 of 42 020 patients (30%) not already taking a statin at the time of revascularization during the study period were newly discharged with a statin medication. New statin prescription rates were substantially lower after endovascular intervention (7745 of 29 581 [26%]) than after lower extremity bypass (5045 of 12 439 [41%]). Body mass index of 30 or greater (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .001), diabetes (diet-controlled vs no diabetes, OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.41; P = .01), smoking (current vs never, OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45; P < .001), hypertension (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; P < .001), and coronary heart disease (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) were associated with an increased likelihood of new statin prescription after endovascular intervention, whereas female sex, older age, antiplatelet use, and prior peripheral revascularization were associated with a decreased likelihood.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, although statin use was associated with a substantial improvement after lower extremity revascularization, more than two-thirds of patients not already taking a statin preprocedure remained not taking a statin at discharge. Further investigations to understand the clinical implications of these findings and develop clinician- and system-based interventions are needed.

SUBMITTER: Singh N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642785 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOptimal patient selection for lower extremity revascularization remains a clinical challenge among the hemodialysis-dependent (HD). The purpose of this study was to examine contemporary real world open and endovascular outcomes of HD patients to better facilitate patient selection for intervention.MethodsA regional multicenter registry was queried between 2003 and 2013 for HD patients (N = 689) undergoing open surgical bypass (n = 295) or endovascular intervention (n = 394) for lower extremity revascularization. Patient demographics and comorbidities were recorded. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb events, and amputation-free survival (AFS). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for death and amputation.ResultsAmong the 689 HD patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization, 66% were male, and 83% were white. Ninety percent of revascularizations were performed for critical limb ischemia and 8% for claudication. Overall survival at 1, 2, and 5 years survival remained low at 60%, 43%, and 21%, respectively. Overall 1- and 2-year AFS was 40% and 17%. Mortality accounted for the primary mode of failure for both open bypass (78%) and endovascular interventions (80%) at two years. Survival, AFS, and freedom from major adverse limb event outcomes did not differ significantly between revascularization techniques. At 2 years, endovascular patency was higher than open bypass (76% vs 26%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.71; P = .02). Multivariate analysis identified age ≥80 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.5; P < .01), indication of rest pain or tissue loss (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .01), preoperative wheelchair/bedridden status (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P < .01), coronary artery disease (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; P < .01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8; P = .01) as independent predictors of death. The presence of three or more risk factors resulted in predicted 1-year mortality of 64%.ConclusionsOverall survival and AFS among HD patients remains poor, irrespective of revascularization strategy. Mortality remains the primary driver for these findings and justifies a prudent approach to patient selection. Focus for improved results should emphasize predictors of survival to better identify those most likely to benefit from revascularization.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high prevalence of peripheral artery disease. How best to manage lower extremity peripheral artery disease remains unclear in this patient population. We therefore sought to compare the outcomes after endovascular versus surgical lower extremity revascularization among patients with CKD.MethodsWe used data from Optum's de-identifed Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, a nationwide database of commercially insured persons in the United States to study patients with CKD who underwent lower extremity endovascular or surgical revascularization. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance covariates. We employed proportional hazard regression to study the primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE), defined as a repeat revascularization or amputation. We also studied each of these events separately and death from any cause.ResultsIn our cohort, 60,057 patients underwent endovascular revascularization and 9,338 patients underwent surgical revascularization. Endovascular revascularization compared with surgical revascularization was associated with a higher adjusted hazard of MALE (hazard ratio (HR) 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-1.59). Endovascular revascularization was also associated with a higher adjusted hazard of repeat revascularization (HR 1.65; 95% CI 1.57-1.72) but a lower adjusted risk of amputation (HR 0.71; CI 0.73-0.89). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization also had a lower adjusted hazard for death from any cause (0.85; CI 0.82-0.88).ConclusionsIn this analysis of patients with CKD undergoing lower extremity revascularization, an endovascular approach was associated with a higher rate of repeated revascularization but a lower risk of subsequent amputation and death compared with surgical revascularization. Multiple factors must be considered when counseling patients with CKD, who have a high burden of comorbid conditions. Clinical trials should include more patients with kidney disease, who are often otherwise excluded from participation, to better understand the most effective treatment strategies for this vulnerable patient population.

Project description:BackgroundDual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after coronary stenting prolongs survival by preventing both in-stent thrombosis and other cardiovascular atherothrombotic events. Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) typically have a heavy burden of unrevascularized coronary artery disease and also stand to benefit from increased atherothrombotic protection with DAPT. The potential benefit of DAPT compared with aspirin alone in patients with PAD is not well described.MethodsWe identified all patients undergoing an initial elective lower extremity revascularization (bypass or endovascular) from 2003 to 2016 in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry discharged on aspirin or aspirin plus a thienopyridine antiplatelet agent (DAPT). We first estimated models predicting the likelihood of receiving DAPT and then used inverse probability weighting to account for baseline differences in the likelihood of receiving DAPT and compared late survival. For sensitivity analysis, we also performed Cox proportion hazard modeling on the unweighted cohorts and generated adjusted survival curves.ResultsWe identified 57,041 patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization (28% bypass). Of 15,985 bypasses (69% for critical limb ischemia [CLI]), 38% were discharged on DAPT. Of 41,056 endovascular interventions (39% for CLI), 69% were discharged on DAPT. Analyses using inverse probability weighting demonstrated a small survival benefit to DAPT at 1 year for bypass (93% vs 92% [P = .001]) and endovascular interventions (93% vs 92% [P = .005]) that was sustained through 5 years of follow-up (bypass, 80% vs 78% [P = .004]; endovascular, 76% vs 73% [P = .002]). When stratified by severity of PAD, DAPT had a survival benefit for patients with CLI undergoing bypass (5 years, 70% vs 66% [P = .04]) and endovascular intervention (5 years, 71% vs 67% [P = .01]) but not for patients with claudication (bypass, 89% vs 88% [P = .36]; endovascular, 87% vs 85% [P = .46]). The protective effect of DAPT was similar when using Cox proportional hazard models after bypass (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90]) and endovascular intervention (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95]).ConclusionsDAPT at time of discharge was associated with prolonged survival for patients with CLI undergoing lower extremity revascularization but not for those with claudication. Further research is needed to quantify the risks associated with DAPT and to identify subgroups at increased risk of thrombotic and bleeding complications to guide medical management of patients with PAD.

Project description:Background The long-term effectiveness of atherectomy treatment for peripheral arterial disease is unknown. We studied 5-year clinical outcomes by endovascular treatment type among patients with peripheral arterial disease. Methods and Results We queried the Medicare-linked VQI (Vascular Quality Initiative) registry for endovascular interventions from 2010 to 2015. The exposure was treatment type: atherectomy (with or without percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [ PTA] ), stent (with or without PTA ), or PTA alone. The outcomes were major amputation, any amputation, and major adverse limb event (major amputation or any reintervention). We used the center-specific proportions of atherectomy procedures performed in the 12 months before a patient's procedure as the instruments to perform an instrumental-variable Cox model analysis. Among 16 838 eligible patients (median follow-up: 1.3-1.5 years), 11% underwent atherectomy, 40% received PTA alone, and 49% underwent stenting. Patients receiving atherectomy commonly underwent femoropopliteal artery treatment (atherectomy: 65%; PTA : 49%; stenting: 43%; P<0.001) and had worse disease severity (Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus score [TASC] B and greater; atherectomy: 77%; PTA : 68%; stenting: 67%; P<0.001). The 5-year rate of major adverse limb events was 38% in patients receiving atherectomy versus 33% for PTA and 32% for stenting (log rank P<0.001). Controlling for unmeasured confounding using instrumental-variable analysis, patients treated with atherectomy experienced outcomes similar to those of patients treated with PTA , except for a higher risk of any amputation (hazard ratio: 1.51; 95% CI , 1.08-2.13). However, compared with stenting, atherectomy patients had a higher risk of major amputation (hazard ratio: 3.66; 95% CI , 1.72-7.81), any amputation (hazard ratio: 2.73; 95% CI , 1.60-4.76), and major adverse limb event (hazard ratio: 1.61; 95% CI , 1.10-2.38). Conclusions Atherectomy is used to treat severe femoropopliteal and tibial peripheral arterial disease even though long-term adverse outcomes occur more frequently after this treatment modality.

Project description:BackgroundMany believe that variation in vascular practice may affect limb salvage rates in patients with severe peripheral arterial disease. However, the extent of variation in procedural vascular care obtained by patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains unknown.Methods and resultsBy using Medicare 2003 to 2006 data, we identified all patients with CLI who underwent major lower extremity amputation in the 306 hospital referral regions described in the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare. For each patient, we studied the use of lower extremity vascular procedures (open surgery or endovascular intervention) in the year before amputation. Our main outcome measure was the intensity of vascular care, defined as the proportion of patients in the hospital referral region undergoing a vascular procedure in the year before amputation. Overall, 20,464 patients with CLI underwent major lower extremity amputations during the study period, and collectively underwent 25,800 vascular procedures in the year before undergoing amputation. However, these procedures were not distributed evenly: 54% of patients had no vascular procedures performed in the year before amputation, 14% underwent 1 vascular procedure, and 32% underwent >1 vascular procedure. In the regions in the lowest quintile of vascular intensity, vascular procedures were performed in 32% of patients. Conversely, in the regions in the highest quintile of vascular intensity, revascularization was performed in 58% of patients in the year before amputation (P<0.0001). In analyses accounting for differences in age, sex, race, and comorbidities, patients in high-intensity regions were 2.4 times as likely to undergo revascularization in the year before amputation than patients in low-intensity regions (adjusted odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.6; P<0.001).ConclusionsSignificant variation exists in the intensity of vascular care provided to patients in the year before major amputation. In some regions, patients receive intensive care, whereas in other regions, far less vascular care is provided. Future work is needed to determine the association between intensity of vascular care and limb salvage.