Feasibility, safety, and patient satisfaction of same‐day discharge following peripheral arterial interventions: A randomized controlled study

Islam, Ashequl; Alreja, Gaurav; Mallidi, Jaya; Hoque, Mohammed Ziaul; Friderici, Jennifer

doi:10.1002/ccd.27580

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, a single centre randomised clinical trial including 19 patients assessed the safety of same day discharge vs. overnight stays following peripheral arterial interventions but Islam et al did not evaluate the costs of the procedure. 8 The goal of the AMBUVASC randomised controlled trial was to assess the cost effectiveness of outpatient compared with inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair for LEAD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor's Choice – A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Outpatient versus Inpatient Hospitalisation for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease Endovascular Revascularisation in France: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Gouëffic

Pin²,

Sabatier

et al. 2021

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS AMBUVASC was the first cost effectiveness analysis associated with a prospective randomised controlled trial in France that compared outpatient vs. inpatient hospitalisation for the endovascular repair of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). From a societal perspective, considering a one month time horizon, outpatient hospitalisation was not cost effective compared with inpatient hospitalisation for a V50 000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) threshold (the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was V67 741 per QALY). This result was mainly explained by the higher number of re-admissions in the outpatient arm. More data are required to support the cost effectiveness for LEAD endovascular revascularisation. Objective: The AMBUVASC trial evaluated the cost effectiveness of outpatient vs. inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). Methods: AMBUVASC was a national multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial conducted in nine public and two private French centres. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined by cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was conducted from a societal perspective, excluding indirect costs, and considering a one month time horizon. Results: From 16 February 2016 to 29 May 2017, 160 patients were randomised (80 per group). A modified intention to treat analysis was performed with 153 patients (outpatient hospitalisation: n ¼ 76; inpatient hospitalisation: n ¼ 77).The patients mainly presented intermittent claudication (outpatient arm: 97%; inpatient arm: 92%). Rates of peri-operative complications were 20% (15 events) and 18% (14 events) for the outpatient and inpatient arms respectively (p ¼ .81). Overall costs (difference: V187.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] À275.68e651.34) and QALYs (difference: 0.00277; 95% CI e0.00237 e 0.00791) were higher for outpatients due to more re-admissions than the inpatient arm. The mean ICER was V67 741 per QALY gained for the base case analysis with missing data imputed using multiple imputation by predictive mean matching. The outpatient procedure was not cost effective for a willingness to pay of V50 000 per QALY and the probability of being cost effective was only 59% for a V100 000/QALY threshold. Conclusion: Outpatient hospitalisation is not cost effective compared with inpatient hospitalisation for endovascular repair of patients with claudication at a V50 000/QALY threshold.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor's Choice – A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Outpatient versus Inpatient Hospitalisation for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease Endovascular Revascularisation in France: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Gouëffic

Pin²,

Sabatier

et al. 2021

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This tool serves as a convenient and fairly universal way to assess any treatment method with the maximum accuracy of the estimated values. 29–32 Using 5-point Likert scale instrument, Thors et al, reported high satisfaction in 100% of patients after endovascular treatment for PCS. 33…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This tool serves as a convenient and fairly universal way to assess any treatment method with the maximum accuracy of the estimated values. [29][30][31][32] Using 5-point Likert scale instrument, Thors et al, reported high satisfaction in 100% of patients after endovascular treatment for PCS. 33 In the present study, the authors focused the attention of patients only on assessing the outcomes of endovascular embolization and endoscopic resection of the gonadal veins for treating PeVD.…”

Section: Patients' Satisfaction With Treatment At Month 6 After Inter...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a novel Likert scale instrument to assess patient satisfaction following endovascular and surgical treatment of pelvic venous disorders

Grishenkova

Mishakina

et al. 2022

Phlebology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The study was aimed at assessing satisfaction with endovascular and surgical treatment, using a novel Likert scale procedure satisfaction instrument, in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) caused by the gonadal vein reflux. Methods This prospective cohort study included 100 women with PeVD who underwent gonadal veins embolization with coils (GVE group, n = 71) or gonadal veins endoscopic resection (GVR group, n = 29) in 2012–2020. The GVE was performed under local anesthesia and sedation, and was left-sided in 61, right-sided in three, and bilateral in seven patients. The GVR was performed under general anesthesia through transperitoneal ( n = 19) or retroperitoneal ( n = 10) access with three access ports in both cases. The GVR was left-sided in 19, right-sided in one, and bilateral in nine patients. To assess satisfaction with GVE and GVR treatment of PeVD, patients were asked to evaluate statements related to their experience using a new Likert scale instrument. The responses for each item were compared between the groups at Day 7 (D7) and at Month 6 (M6) after the procedure, as was a summary score of all the responses at both time points. The summary score allowed categorization on a spectrum from “completely satisfied” to “completely dissatisfied.” Results The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at D7 showed that 80% and 100% of patients, accordingly, reported the overall summary satisfaction, 49% and 79% agreed with a complete pelvic pain relief by D7, 79% and 0% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort during the first postoperative day, 71% and 100% reported no need for analgesics to relief pain in the assess area, 80% and 100% reported fast return to daily activity, and 19.7% and 100% still experienced pelvic pain at D7 (pain in the GVR group was more severe and required the use of analgesics) (all p < .05). At the same time, 94% and 96% patients were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure at D7 ( p = n.s.). The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at M6 showed that 100% of patients in both groups reported overall satisfaction with treatment ( p = n.s.), 96% and 100% confirmed a complete pelvic pain relief by M6, 79% and 65% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort after the procedure, 79% and 65% reported no need for analgesics, 83% and 100% reported about the return to daily activity (all p < .05), and 100% in both groups were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure ( p = n.s.). Conclusions In patients with PeVD, both GVE and GVR are associated with a high, although not significantly different, overall treatment satisfaction in the long term and have advantages and disadvantages. GVE is associated with less severe post-procedural pain, while GVR provides faster relief of pelvic pain and a return to usual daily activity.

show abstract

“…We read with great interest the article by Islam et al . The authors should be congratulated for this well‐conducted and timely trial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Same day discharge for peripheral arterial interventions: Who are we trying to satisfy?

Rassa

Cigarroa

2018

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Feasibility, safety, and patient satisfaction of same‐day discharge following peripheral arterial interventions: A randomized controlled study

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Editor's Choice – A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Outpatient versus Inpatient Hospitalisation for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease Endovascular Revascularisation in France: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Editor's Choice – A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Outpatient versus Inpatient Hospitalisation for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease Endovascular Revascularisation in France: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Use of a novel Likert scale instrument to assess patient satisfaction following endovascular and surgical treatment of pelvic venous disorders

Same day discharge for peripheral arterial interventions: Who are we trying to satisfy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About