Search

Background: Most previous studies on outpatient cardiac catheterization have been conducted in Western countries, but Japanese studies are rare. We aimed to describe patient characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of outpatient cardiac catheterization compared to those of inpatient cardiac catheterization in Japan., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the JMDC Claims Database. We identified all adult patients aged ≥18 years who underwent cardiac catheterization between April 2012 and October 2021. We investigated patient characteristics and clinical outcomes (i.e. all-cause mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, bleeding, vascular complications, percutaneous coronary intervention, and total healthcare costs) within 2, 7, and 30 days between patients who underwent outpatient cardiac catheterization (outpatient group) and those who underwent inpatient cardiac catheterization (inpatient group)., Results: Of the 37,002 eligible patients (57.6 % <60 years old, and 80.2 % male), 1853 (5.01 %) underwent outpatient cardiac catheterization. The outpatient group was more likely to be male, have more comorbidities, and be performed at non-university hospitals than the inpatient group. The proportion of patients who underwent right heart catheterization and imaging was lower in the outpatient group. There were no significant differences in 7-day major complications between the two groups (all-cause mortality, 0.0 % versus 0.0 %, p = 0.57; acute kidney injury, 0.0 % versus 0.1 %, p = 0.10, bleeding, 0.5 % versus 0.9 %, p = 0.052; vascular complication, 0.0 % versus 0.1 %, p = 0.23, respectively). The 30-day total healthcare costs were lower in the outpatient group than in the inpatient group (mean 3212 US dollars versus 3955 US dollars, p = 0.003)., Conclusions: Approximately 5 % of cardiac catheterizations were performed in an outpatient setting. Given the low adverse event risk observed in this study, it may be a reasonable option to widen outpatient cardiac catheterization to include potential populations in Japan, warranting further studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Nao Setogawa is an employee of Terumo Corporation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) provides precise intravascular information during endovascular therapy (EVT). However, the clinical efficacy of IVUS in patients who undergo EVT remains unknown. The present study aimed to determine whether the use of IVUS-guided EVT is associated with better clinical outcomes in a real-world setting., Methods: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination administrative inpatient database from April 2014 to March 2019, we identified patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis of arteries of extremities and underwent EVT (percutaneous endovascular transluminal angioplasty and thrombectomy for extremities or percutaneous endovascular removal). Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the patients who underwent IVUS on the same day as the first EVT intervention (IVUS group) and the others (non-IVUS group). The primary outcome was major and minor amputation for extremities within 12 months of the first EVT procedure. Secondary outcomes were bypass surgery, stent grafting, reintervention, all-cause death, readmission, and total hospitalization costs within 12 months of the first EVT procedure., Results: Among 85 649 eligible patients, 50 925 (59.5%) were IVUS group. After propensity score matching, the IVUS group had significantly lower incidence of 12-month amputation compared with the non-IVUS group (6.9% in the IVUS group versus 9.3% in the non-IVUS group; hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.89]). Compared with the non-IVUS group, the IVUS group showed a lower risk of bypass surgery and stent grafting and decreased total hospitalization costs, while a higher risk of reintervention and readmission. No significant differences in all-cause death were found between the 2 groups., Conclusions: In this retrospective study, IVUS-guided EVT was associated with a lower amputation risk than non-IVUS-guided EVT. Our findings should be interpreted carefully because of the limitations of an observational study using administrative data. Further studies are warranted to confirm whether IVUS-guided EVT leads to decreased amputations.