TY - JOUR
T1 - Nationwide study of six-month readmissions in critical limb ischemia
T2 - Predictors and impact of revascularization strategies
AU - Acharya, Prakash
AU - Sethi, Prince
AU - Ranka, Sagar
AU - Alli, Adam
AU - Hance, Kirk
AU - Prasad, Anand
AU - Shah, Zubair
AU - Gupta, Kamal
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Objective: There is a paucity of data regarding six-month readmissions in critical limb ischemia patients and the influence of management strategy during index-admission [endovascular, surgical, hybrid procedure, medical therapy, and amputation]. We aimed to investigate the incidence, predictors, and impact of management strategies on six-month readmission in patients with critical limb ischemia. Methods: A secondary analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016–2017) was conducted. Propensity score matching was performed for subgroup analysis. Results: We identified 50,058 patients with primary diagnosis of critical limb ischemia. Six-month all-cause and critical limb ischemia-related readmission rate was 52.36% and 10.86%, respectively. The risk of all-cause readmission was lower with amputation but was similar among other subgroups. Patients receiving surgical [HR 0.62, CI(0.48–0.79), p < 0.001] and hybrid procedure [HR 0.65 (0.46–0.93), p = 0.02] had lower risk of unplanned critical limb ischemia-related readmission compared to endovascular, though the risk of unplanned revascularization/amputation during readmission was similar between the three strategies. The risk of non-critical limb ischemia-related readmission was higher with surgical [HR 1.13, CI(1.04–1.23), p = 0.003] and hybrid procedure [HR 1.17, CI(1.08–1.28), p < 0.001], driven by increased procedure-related/wound complications. Eventhough endovascular patients were older with more severe critical limb ischemia presentation, a lower proportion received home-health or placement upon discharge from index-admission. This could account for higher readmission without higher repeat revascularization in endovascular group. Conclusion: The risk of critical limb ischemia and non-critical limb ischemia-related readmission differ according to the management strategy. Significant differences in discharge disposition exist depending on revascularization strategy. Study findings identify opportunities for reducing readmissions by focusing on nonprocedural aspects like wound-care, discharge planning and placement.
AB - Objective: There is a paucity of data regarding six-month readmissions in critical limb ischemia patients and the influence of management strategy during index-admission [endovascular, surgical, hybrid procedure, medical therapy, and amputation]. We aimed to investigate the incidence, predictors, and impact of management strategies on six-month readmission in patients with critical limb ischemia. Methods: A secondary analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016–2017) was conducted. Propensity score matching was performed for subgroup analysis. Results: We identified 50,058 patients with primary diagnosis of critical limb ischemia. Six-month all-cause and critical limb ischemia-related readmission rate was 52.36% and 10.86%, respectively. The risk of all-cause readmission was lower with amputation but was similar among other subgroups. Patients receiving surgical [HR 0.62, CI(0.48–0.79), p < 0.001] and hybrid procedure [HR 0.65 (0.46–0.93), p = 0.02] had lower risk of unplanned critical limb ischemia-related readmission compared to endovascular, though the risk of unplanned revascularization/amputation during readmission was similar between the three strategies. The risk of non-critical limb ischemia-related readmission was higher with surgical [HR 1.13, CI(1.04–1.23), p = 0.003] and hybrid procedure [HR 1.17, CI(1.08–1.28), p < 0.001], driven by increased procedure-related/wound complications. Eventhough endovascular patients were older with more severe critical limb ischemia presentation, a lower proportion received home-health or placement upon discharge from index-admission. This could account for higher readmission without higher repeat revascularization in endovascular group. Conclusion: The risk of critical limb ischemia and non-critical limb ischemia-related readmission differ according to the management strategy. Significant differences in discharge disposition exist depending on revascularization strategy. Study findings identify opportunities for reducing readmissions by focusing on nonprocedural aspects like wound-care, discharge planning and placement.
KW - Critical limb ischemia
KW - endovascular intervention
KW - peripheral hybrid revascularization
KW - peripheral vascular surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105485097&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85105485097&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/17085381211011357
DO - 10.1177/17085381211011357
M3 - Article
C2 - 33906558
AN - SCOPUS:85105485097
SN - 1708-5381
VL - 30
SP - 255
EP - 266
JO - Vascular
JF - Vascular
IS - 2
ER -