Dataset Information

Preliminary Results of the Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society National Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To present a new outcomes-based registry to collect data on outpatient endovascular interventions, a relatively new site of service without adequate historical data to assess best clinical practices. Quality data collection with subsequent outcomes analysis, benchmarking, and direct feedback is necessary to achieve optimal care.

Materials and methods

The Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society (OEIS) established the OEIS National Registry in 2017 to collect data on safety, efficacy, and quality of care for outpatient endovascular interventions. Since then, it has grown to include a peripheral artery disease (PAD) module with plans to expand to include cardiac, venous, dialysis access, and other procedures in future modules. As a Qualified Clinical Data Registry approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this application also supports new quality measure development under the Quality Payment Program. All physicians operating in an office-based laboratory or ambulatory surgery center can use the Registry to analyze de-identified data and benchmark performance against national averages. Major adverse events were defined as death, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute onset of limb ischemia, index bypass graft or treated segment thrombosis, and/or need for urgent/emergent vascular surgery.

Results

Since Registry inception in 2017, 251 participating physicians from 64 centers located in 18 states have participated. The current database includes 18,134 peripheral endovascular interventions performed in 12,403 PAD patients (mean age 72.3±10.2 years; 60.1% men) between January 2017 and January 2020. Cases were performed primarily in an office-based laboratory (85.1%) or ambulatory surgery center setting (10.4%). Most frequently observed procedure indications from 16,086 preprocedure form submissions included claudication (59%), minor tissue loss (16%), rest pain (9%), acute limb ischemia (5%), and maintenance of patency (3%). Planned diagnostic procedures made up 12.2% of cases entered, with the remainder indicated as interventional procedures (87.6%). The hospital transfer rate was 0.62%, with 88 urgent/emergent transfers and 24 elective transfers. The overall complication rate for the Registry was 1.87% (n=338), and the rate of major adverse events was 0.51% (n=92). Thirty-day mortality was 0.03% (n=6).

Conclusion

This report describes the current structure, methodology, and preliminary results of OEIS National Registry, an outcomes-based registry designed to collect quality performance data with subsequent outcome analysis, benchmarking, and direct feedback to aid clinicians in providing optimal care.

SUBMITTER: Ahn SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsEuropean Association of Cardiovascular Imaging/Heart Failure Association Cardiac Oncology Toxicity Registry was launched in October 2014 as a European Society of Cardiology multicentre registry of breast cancer patients referred to imaging laboratories for routine surveillance, suspected, or confirmed anticancer drug-related cardiotoxicity (ADRC). After a pilot phase (1 year recruitment and 1 year follow-up), some changes have been made to the protocol (version 1.0) and electronic case report form.Methods and resultsMain changes of the version 2.0 concerned exclusion criteria, registry duration, and clarification of the population characteristics. Breast cancer radiotherapy has been removed as an exclusion criterion, which involves now only history of a pre-chemotherapy left ventricular dysfunction. The period for long-term registry recruitment has been reduced (December 2017), but the target study population was extended to 3000 patients. The characteristics of the population are now better defined: patients seen in an imaging lab, which will include patients undergoing chemotherapy with associated targeted therapy or no targeted therapy, at increased risk of ADRC. In total, 1294 breast cancer patients have been enrolled, and 783 case report forms locked from October 2014 to November 2016. Of these, 481 (61.4%) were seen at first evaluation and 302 (38.6%) while on oncologic treatment with anticancer drugs. Fifty-two patients (17.2%) were not in targeted therapies, 191 (63.3%) were ongoing targeted therapy, and 59 (19.5%) had completed it. Twenty-three (2.9%) patients had a suspected diagnosis and 35 (4.5%) a confirmed diagnosis of ADRC. Arterial hypertension was the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor (29.2%) followed by diabetes (6.1%). Previous history of heart failure accounted for 0.5%, whereas previous cardiac disease was identified in 6.3% of population.ConclusionThe changes of the original protocol of the COT Registry and first update allow a first glance to the panorama of cardiovascular characteristics of breast cancer patients enrolled.

Project description:IntroductionIn patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications.Materials and methodsIn a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6?h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model.ResultsAmong 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval [0.9-11.38]). Sensitivity analyses in a subgroup treated within 4.5?h revealed a higher recanalisation rate among endovascular therapy patients (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval [1.00-14.95]), but no change in the key clinical findings. In a meta-analysis across eight studies (n?=?212 patients), cervical artery dissection patients (110 intravenous thrombolysis and 102 endovascular therapy) showed identical odds for favourable outcome (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.38-2.44]) among endovascular therapy patients and intravenous thrombolysis patients.Discussion and conclusionIn this cohort study, there was no clear signal of superiority of endovascular therapy over intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients, which - given the limitation of our sample size - does not prove that endovascular therapy in these patients cannot be superior in future studies. The observation that symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and deaths in the endovascular therapy group occurred predominantly in bridging patients requires further investigation.