National trends and variability of atherectomy use for peripheral vascular interventions from 2010 to 2019
Nfor T, Dababneh E, Jan MF, et al. National trends and variability of atherectomy use for peripheral vascular interventions from 2010 to 2019 [published online ahead of print, 2022 Mar 31]. J Vasc Surg. 2022;S0741-5214(22)01358-1. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.864
OBJECTIVES: Small, older studies suggest atherectomy devices have become common in peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) despite the paucity of strong clinical guidelines. We analyzed the 10-year trends in the use of atherectomy for PVI across the United States and identified main predictors of atherectomy use. METHODS: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative Registry, we identified all patients who had endovascular PVI for occlusive lower-extremity arterial disease from 2010 to 2019. Procedures in which an atherectomy device was recorded as the primary or secondary device were classified as the atherectomy group. We calculated frequency of atherectomy use over time and across geographic regions. Using regression modeling, we identified factors that were independently associated with atherectomy use. RESULTS: There were 205,377 procedures on 152,693 unique patients. Over 10 years, 16.6% of PVI procedures used atherectomy, increasing from 8.5% in 2010 to 19.7% in 2019, P <0.0001. Across 17 geographic regions, there was a significant difference in the prevalence of atherectomy use, ranging from 8.2% to 29%. The strongest predictor of atherectomy use was the procedure being done in an office setting (OR 10.08, 95% CI 9.17-11.09) or ambulatory center (OR 4.0, 95% CI 3.65-4.39) vs hospital setting. The presence of severe (OR 2.6, 95% CI 2.4-2.85) or moderate (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.69) lesion calcification was also predictive of atherectomy use. Other predictors included elective status, insurance provider, lesion length, prior PVI, claudication symptoms, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Atherectomy use in PVI significantly increased between 2010 and 2019. There is wide regional variability in the use of atherectomy that seems to be driven more strongly by non-clinical factors.