Time-Driven Cost Analysis of Noncuffed Venous Catheter Placement in Infants: Bedside versus IR Suite

PurposeTo compare the direct bundled costs of interventional radiology (IR) suite versus bedside placement of noncuffed central venous catheters in infants.MethodsA single-center retrospective review was performed of all noncuffed upper extremity (peripherally inserted central venous catheter [PICC]) and tunneled femoral (tunneled femoral central venous catheter [TCVC]) catheters placed in infants between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score matching was performed adjusting for age, birth weight, procedure weight, and catheter days. Process maps for each procedure were created based on location and sedation type. Technical success and complications were recorded for each placement. The total direct bundled cost for each catheter placement was calculated by summing the procedure and complication costs.ResultsA total of 142 procedures were performed on 126 matched patients with a technical success of 96% at the bedside and 100% in the IR suite (P = .08). The complication rates did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .51). The total direct bundled costs for catheter placement were $1421.3 ± 2213.2 at the bedside and $2256.8 ± 3264.7 in the IR suite (P = .001).ConclusionsThe bundled cost of bedside femoral catheter placement is significantly less than that of fluoroscopic TCVC and PICC placement performed in the IR suite, mainly related to differences in sedation costs.     

Shorter Perceived Outpatient MRI Wait Times Associated With Higher Patient Satisfaction

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess differences in perceived versus actual wait times among patients undergoing outpatient MRI examinations and to correlate those times with patient satisfaction.MethodsOver 15 weeks, 190 patients presenting for outpatient MR in a radiology department in which “patient experience” is one of the stated strategic priorities were asked to (1) estimate their wait times for various stages in the imaging process and (2) state their satisfaction with their imaging experience. Perceived times were compared with actual electronic time stamps. Perceived and actual times were compared and correlated with standardized satisfaction scores using Kendall τ correlation.ResultsThe mean actual wait time between patient arrival and examination start was 53.4 ± 33.8 min, whereas patients perceived a mean wait time of 27.8 ± 23.1 min, a statistically significant underestimation of 25.6 min (P < .001). Both shorter actual and perceived wait times at all points during patient encounters were correlated with higher satisfaction scores (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients undergoing outpatient MR examinations in an environment designed to optimize patient experience underestimated wait times at all points during their encounters. Shorter perceived and actual wait times were both correlated with higher satisfaction scores. As satisfaction surveys play a larger role in an environment of metric transparency and value-based payments, better understanding of such factors will be increasingly important.     

Interventional Radiologists Achieve Equivalent Outcomes and Lower Costs for Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Placement Compared to Operating Room Placement

PurposeTo compare the cost and outcomes of surgical and interventional radiology (IR) placement of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) within a large regional health system to determine the service line with better outcomes and lower costs to the health system.Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of all chest port placements performed in the operating room (OR) and IR suite over 12 months was conducted at a large, integrated health system with 6 major hospitals. Secondary electronic health record and cost data were used to identify TIVAD placements, follow-up procedures indicating port malfunction, early adverse events (within 1 month after the surgery), late adverse events (2–12 months after the procedure), and health system cost of TIVAD placement and management.ResultsFor 799 total port placements included in this analysis, the rate of major adverse events was 1.3% and 1.9% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .5655) and 4.9% and 2.8% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .5437). Malfunction-related follow-up procedure rates were 1.8% and 2.6% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .4787) and 12.4% and 10.5% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .4354). The mean cost of port placement per patient was $4,509 and $5,247 for the IR and OR groups, respectively. The difference in per-patient cost of port placement was $1,170 greater for the OR group (P = .0074).ConclusionsThe similar rates of adverse events and follow-up procedures and significant differences in insertion cost suggest that IR TIVAD placement may be more cost effective than surgical placement without affecting the quality.     

Cost and Morbidity Analysis of Chest Port Insertion: Interventional Radiology Suite Versus Operating Room

PurposeTo compare complications and cost, from a hospital perspective, of chest port insertions performed in an interventional radiology (IR) suite versus in surgery in an operating room (OR).MethodsThis study was approved by an institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Medical records were retrospectively searched on consecutive chest port placement procedures, in the IR suite and the OR, between October 22, 2010 and February 26, 2013, to determine patients’ demographic information and chest port-related complications and/or infections. A total of 478 charts were reviewed (age range: 21-85 years; 309 women, 169 men). Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with an increased complication rate. Cost data on 149 consecutive Medicare outpatients (100 treated in the IR suite; 49 treated in the OR) who had isolated chest port insertions between March 2012 and February 2013 were obtained for both the operative services and pharmacy. Nonparametric tests for heterogeneity were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis method.ResultsEarly complications occurred in 9.2% (22 of 239) of the IR patients versus 13.4% (32 of 239) of the OR patients. Of the 478 implanted chest ports, 9 placed in IR and 18 placed in surgery required early removal. Infections from the ports placed in IR versus the OR were 0.25 versus 0.18 infections per 1000 catheters, respectively. Overall mean costs for chest port insertion were significantly higher in the OR, for both room and pharmacy costs (P < .0001). Overall average cost to place chest ports in an OR setting was almost twice that of placement in the IR suite.ConclusionsHospital costs to place a chest port were significantly lower in the IR suite than in the OR, whereas radiology and surgery patients did not show a significantly different rate of complications and/or infections.     

Current State of Private Practice and Academic Interventional Radiology: Differences in Practice Structure,Case Mix,and Productivity

PurposeTo investigate whether private practice interventional radiology (IR) groups self-report higher overall productivity given differing case mix and more diagnostic radiology interpretation.Materials and MethodsA 60-question survey was distributed to 3,159 self-identified US IR physicians via the Society of Interventional Radiologists member search engine, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Of these responses, there were 258 unique practices from 34 US states.ResultsOut of 84 IR group responses, private practice IR (PPIR) physicians reported a minimal trend for higher annual work relative value units (wRVUs) per clinical full-time equivalent compared with academic IR physicians (8,000 versus 7,140, P = .202), but this did not reach statistical significance. PPIR groups reported fewer median weekly hours (50 versus 52), more frequent call (every 6 versus every 5 days), and significantly higher median tenured compensation ($573,000 versus $451,000, P = .000). Out of 179 responses, academic practices reported significantly higher case percentages of interventional oncology and complex hepatobiliary intervention (P <.001), and private practices reported significantly higher percentages of musculoskeletal intervention (P < .001) with a nonsignificant trend for stroke or neurologic intervention (P = .010). Private practices reported more wRVUs from the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, at 26% of total wRVU production compared with 7% of total wRVU production for academic practices (P < .001; n = 131).ConclusionsSelf-reported data from private and academic IR groups suggest minimally higher wRVUs per clinical full-time equivalent among PPIRs with lower weekly work hours, more frequent call, differing case mix, and significantly higher tenured compensation among PPIR groups.     

Chest Radiograph–based Algorithm for Managing Malfunctioning Ports

PurposeTo evaluate a chest x-ray–based algorithm for managing malfunctioning ports.Materials and MethodsA review of interventional radiology procedures on malfunctioning ports during the period 2000–2012 was performed. Events were divided into two periods: before and after implementation of an algorithm beginning with tip position evaluation using a chest x-ray. Time to return to usability, frequency of interventions to restore function, and frequency of malfunctioning ports remaining in use after the procedure were calculated.ResultsThe review included 303 procedures before implementation of the algorithm on 237 access sites in 227 patients (mean age, 56 y; 38% male) and 155 procedures after implementation of the algorithm on 131 access sites in 130 patients (mean age, 55 y; 35% male). Implementation of the algorithm was associated with significantly fewer repeat checks on the same access (27% before algorithm, 9% after algorithm, P < .001) and reduced frequency of a malfunctioning port remaining in use after the interventional radiology procedure (43% before algorithm to 14% after algorithm, P < .001). Median time from consultation to revision was significantly less after implementing the algorithm (13 days before algorithm, 1 day after algorithm, P < .001). Median time from consultation to port usability was also less after implementing the algorithm (2.7 days before algorithm, 1 day after algorithm, P < .001).ConclusionsImplementation of the algorithm was associated with significantly less frequent repeat procedures on the same port and a lower frequency of malfunctioning ports remaining in place. Use of the algorithm was associated with significantly reduced time from consultation to revision and to return to usability. These findings suggest the algorithm allows triage of patients with malfunctioning ports to the appropriate intervention before undergoing a procedure.     

Virtual Reality Simulation Training in a High-fidelity Procedure Suite: Operator Appraisal

PurposeTo assess the face and content validity of a novel, full physics, full procedural, virtual reality simulation housed in a hybrid procedure suite.Methods and MaterialsAfter completing 60 minutes of hands-on training in uterine artery embolization and coronary angioplasty, 24 radiologists and 18 cardiologists with mean 10 years of endovascular experience assessed the functionality of a comprehensive hybrid procedure suite simulation (Orcamp; Orzone, Gothenburg, Sweden).ResultsC-arm and operating table functionality and realism were reliably (α = 0.0.89–0.92) rated highly (80/100). Performance realism of the catheter, guide wire, fluoroscopy image, electrocardiogram, and vital signs readout also reliably and statistically significantly predicted subjects' overall positive assessment (mean = 87/100) of the simulation experience in a multiple regression model (α = .83; r = 0.85 and r² = 0.67; P < .0001).ConclusionsThis study reports a quantitative evaluation of a comprehensive simulation of an authentic procedure suite for image-guided intravascular procedures. This new facility affords the opportunity for trainers to provide higher fidelity training of operative technical, procedural, and management skills in the realistic context of a complete procedure suite with all its complexities and potential distractions.     

Single-Use versus Reusable Endoscopes for Percutaneous Biliary Endoscopy with Lithotripsy: Technical Metrics,Clinical Outcomes,and Cost Comparison

PurposeTo compare procedure and fluoroscopy time, technical and clinical success, and costs between single-use and reusable endoscopes in patients undergoing percutaneous biliary endoscopy (PBE) with lithotripsy.Material and MethodsThirty-four patients (67 procedures) were retrospectively included in the study. The patients were treated with PBE for gallstone removal from October 24, 2014, to February 12, 2020, using reusable (28 procedures) or single-use (39 procedures) endoscopes. The procedure time, fluoroscopy time, technical success rate (accessing the biliary system and locating the gallstone), clinical success rate (at least partial gallstone removal), complication rate, and cost of use were compared between the procedures.ResultsThe mean (± standard deviation) procedure time was not significantly different between single-use (136 minutes ± 45) and reusable endoscopes (136 minutes ± 51) (P = .47). The mean fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter for single-use endoscopes (11 minutes ± 8.4) than for reusable endoscopes (18 minutes ± 12) (P = .01). When comparing single-use versus reusable endoscopes, the technical success (95% [n = 37] vs 93% [n = 26]) and the clinical success (90% [n = 35] vs 75% [n = 21]) rates were not significantly different (both, P > .05). Only 1 complication was noted in the reusable endoscope group (P = .42). The cost per case was lower for single-use ($1,500) than for reusable ($3,987) endoscope procedures, primarily due to differences in capital costs and repair costs.ConclusionsSingle-use endoscopes offer the potential for lower patient radiation exposure and lower cost per case, which may reduce the financial barriers to offering PBE in interventional radiology practices. The clinical and technical success rates did not differ by endoscope type.     

Evaluation of the Benefit of Extended Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis with Serial Angiography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism

PurposeTo evaluate whether extended catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) with repeat visits to the angiography suite provide added benefit in treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE).Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective review of CDT procedures performed for acute PE in 156 patients (age 56.1 y ± 15.3, 46.2% women) between 2009 and 2019. All patients underwent at least 1 follow-up visit to the angiography suite for evaluation of pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and thrombus burden (Miller score) before termination (111/156, 71.2%) or continuation of CDT (45/156, 28.8%).ResultsPatients who had CDT extended beyond the first follow-up visit required a higher total dose of tissue plasminogen activator (40.7 mg ± 14.3 vs 22.6 mg ± 9.9, P < .001) to achieve a similar final Miller score (6.4 ± 3.8 vs 7.6 ± 3.9, P = .1) and a similar reduction in systolic PAP (?14.4 mm Hg ± 10.2 vs ?12.6 mm Hg ± 11.9, P = .6). The initial Miller scores were similar in both groups (19.7 ± 5.8 vs 19 ± 4, P = .4) but were significantly higher during the first follow-up visit (after 18 hours ± 5.5 vs 20 hours ± 4.8, P = .06) in patients requiring multiple follow-up visits (12.2 ± 5 vs 7.6 ± 3.9, P < .001). Multiple regression analyses identified heart rate > 100 beats/min and systolic PAP > 55 mm Hg as associated with the need for extended CDT. Extended CDT did not result in a higher hemorrhagic complication rate (1/45 vs 6/111, P = .7).ConclusionsPatients presenting with higher heart rates and systolic PAP may benefit from extended CDT to achieve similar reductions in PAP and thrombus burden, without clear added risk of hemorrhage.     

CT-Guided Percutaneous Drainage Catheter Placement in the Abdomen and Pelvis: Predictors of Outcome and Protocol for Follow-up

PurposeTo determine predictors of outcomes for patients who undergo computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous abdominal or pelvic drainage catheter placement and to identify which patients benefit from fluoroscopic drainage catheter interrogation (abscessogram).Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of 383 patients (mean, 52 years old; range 8–89 years old; 158 males: 225 females) who underwent 442 CT-guided procedures and 489 catheter placements for fluid collections in the abdomen or pelvis from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016 was performed. Variables including underlying disease, fluid location, number of collections drained, number of catheter exchanges and follow-up abscessograms performed, catheter size, and fistula detection were analyzed to determine factors associated with fistula formation and increased catheter dwell time.ResultsA single abscessogram followed by catheter removal was performed for 217 catheters (44%). An increased number of abscessograms was significantly associated with drainage catheter size (P < .001) and presence of a fistula (P < .001). Fistulae were detected in 95 cases (19%) and were significantly associated with an increased number of drain exchanges (P < .001) and an underlying diagnosis of Crohn’s disease (P = .02). Based on these data, a clinical algorithm for drain management is presented.ConclusionsAbscessograms performed after CT-guided percutaneous drainage catheter placement are useful to detect catheter malposition, occluded catheters, and fistulae but are not necessary for all patients. If performed selectively, particularly in patients with an underlying diagnosis of Crohn’s disease or those at high risk for developing fistulae, unnecessary examinations can be avoided, reducing cost, extra hospital visits, and radiation dose.     

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty for Pathologic Vertebral Fractures in the Medicare Population: Safer and Less Expensive than Open Surgery

PurposeTo compare cost and outcomes of surgical and percutaneous treatments of pathologic vertebral fractures.Materials and MethodsStandard Medicare 5% anonymized inpatient files (1999–2009) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a diagnosis of vertebral fracture without spinal cord injury and primary or metastatic bony malignancy were divided into percutaneous or surgical groups based on whether they received vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty or surgical treatment. Patients who had no intervention or both interventions were excluded. Cost, length of stay, and type of discharge were examined while controlling for demographic and comorbidity variables.ResultsA total of 451 patients were included; 52% received percutaneous treatment and 48% received surgery. Patients treated percutaneously were older (P<.001) and more likely to be female (P=.04). Percutaneous therapy predicted $14,862 less Medicare cost and $13,565 less overall cost (P<.001 for both), and 4.1 fewer inpatient days (P<.001). Patients who underwent surgery had higher odds of death (odds ratio=3.38, P=.016), discharge to a rehabilitation facility (odds ratio=3.3, P=.003), and transfer to another inpatient facility (odds ratio=8.53, P<.001), and lower odds of discharge to home (odds ratio=0.42, P<.001) and hospice (odds ratio=0.08, P=.002).ConclusionsIn a Medicare population with bony malignancy and vertebral fractures, percutaneous therapy predicted significantly reduced cost and length of stay versus surgery. Patients who underwent percutaneous therapy were significantly less likely to die, be transferred, or be discharged to rehabilitation facilities, and were more likely to be discharged to home or hospice.     

Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Outcomes with Percutaneous Treatment for Infrapopliteal Atherosclerotic Disease

PurposeThe need for specialty devices to improve the technical outcome of endovascular interventions is dependent on the rate of early failure in such procedures. This meta-analysis assessed procedural outcomes of such interventions to elucidate the rate of early procedural failures and the need for such specialty devices.Materials and MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for contemporary studies (2000–2012) reporting procedural or short-term outcomes for revascularization of infrapopliteal atherosclerotic lesions. A random-effects metaanalysis was performed, which included post hoc comparisons among treatment groups.ResultsA total of 42 studies with 52 treatment arms representing 3,660 unique patients were included. Technical success rates were higher with bare metal stents (BMSs; 98.6%) than with atherectomy (92.2%; P < .05) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA; 91.2%; P = .01), and higher with drug-eluting stents (DESs) than with PTA (P < .001). DES use had higher primary patency rates than atherectomy (P < .05), BMS use (P < .001), and PTA (P < .01). The 30-day rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly higher with PTA (8.1%) than with BMSs (2.2%; P < .05) and DESs (1.1%; P < .05). Thirty-day rates of major unplanned amputation (range, 1.5%–4.4%) and mortality (range, 0.9%–3.3%) were comparable among treatment groups. Significant heterogeneity among studies was noted for most PTA outcomes. Publication bias was evident for most PTA and DES outcomes.ConclusionsEarly failure of percutaneous therapies in patients with infrapopliteal atherosclerotic lesions is device- and technique-dependent. Specialty devices designed to reduce technical failure rates may therefore be of benefit in this selected group of patients. Study results are confounded by inconsistent data reporting, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and publication bias.     

Factors Influencing Patients’ Perspectives of Radiology Imaging Centers: Evaluation Using an Online Social Media Ratings Website

PurposeThe goal of this study was to use patient reviews posted on Yelp.com, an online ratings website, to identify factors most commonly associated with positive versus negative patient perceptions of radiology imaging centers across the United States.MethodsA total of 126 outpatient radiology centers from the 46 largest US cities were identified using Yelp.com; 1,009 patient reviews comprising 2,582 individual comments were evaluated. Comments were coded as pertaining to either the radiologist or other service items, and as expressing either a positive or negative opinion. Distribution of comments was compared with center ratings using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsOverall, 14% of comments were radiologist related; 86% pertained to other aspects of service quality. Radiologist-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers (mean rating ≤2 on 1-5 scale) than high-performing centers (rating ≥4) pertained to imaging equipment (25% versus 7%), report content (25% versus 2%), and radiologist professionalism (25% versus 2%) (P < .010). Other service-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers pertained to receptionist professionalism (70% versus 21%), billing (65% versus 10%), wait times (60% versus 26%), technologist professionalism (55% versus 12%), scheduling (50% versus 17%), and physical office conditions (50% versus 5%) (P < .020). Positive comments more frequent in high-performing centers included technologist professionalism (98% versus 55%), receptionist professionalism (79% versus 50%), wait times (72% versus 40%), and physical office conditions (64% versus 25%) (P < .020).ConclusionsPatients’ perception of radiology imaging centers is largely shaped by aspects of service quality. Schedulers, receptionists, technologists, and billers heavily influence patient satisfaction in radiology. Thus, radiologists must promote a service-oriented culture throughout their practice.     

Interventional radiology procedural volume changes during COVID-19 initial phase: A tertiary level Midwest health system experience

BackgroundTo evaluate Interventional Radiology (IR) procedural volume changes at a large Midwest health system between March 17, 2020 and April 30, 2020 following a state-mandated shutdown of nonessential procedures during the initial phase of COVID-19.MethodsIR procedural volumes were compiled, stratified by location and compared with Diagnostic Radiology (DR) volumes during the same timeframe. Procedure volume was categorized by type, including oncology, dialysis interventions, and drainage procedures with comparisons made using Z-score test for proportions. IR and system-wide surgical procedural volume was compared with baseline values.ResultsSystem-wide IR procedural volume decreased by 35%, with a 41% decrease in outpatient and a 25% decrease in inpatient volume during the state-mandated order. DR volume decreased by 45%, with a 57% decrease in outpatient and a 22% decrease in inpatient volume. Total IR procedural volume during the mandate was 1077 versus 1518 during the preceding six weeks. The proportion of Interventional Oncology and dialysis interventions showed no significant change (p > 0.05) while that of drainage procedures increased (p < 0.05). Compared to baseline values, system-wide procedural volumes for IR, Vascular Surgery, Urology, General Surgery, Gastroenterology and Gynecology decreased by 3%, 11%, 25%, 20%, 38% and 31% in March 2020 and 25%, 47%, 68%, 63%, 79% and 73% in April 2020 respectively.ConclusionOutpatient IR volumes were less impacted compared to DR during the initial phase of COVID-19. Oncology, dialysis and drainage interventions may be considered essential procedures due to their stability. IR volumes were less affected compared to other procedural specialties.     

The Role of Physician-Driven Device Preference in the Cost Variation of Common Interventional Radiology Procedures

PurposeTo analyze the impact of physician-specific equipment preference on cost variation for procedures typically performed by interventional radiologists at a tertiary care academic hospital.Materials and MethodsFrom October 2017 to October 2019, data on all expendable items used by 9 interventional radiologists for 11 common interventional radiology procedure categories were compiled from the hospital analytics system. This search yielded a final dataset of 44,654 items used in 2,121 procedures of 11 different categories. The mean cost per case for each physician as well as the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation (CV) of the mean cost per case across physicians were calculated. The proportion of spending by item type was compared across physicians for 2 high-variation, high-volume procedures. The relationship between the mean cost per case and case volume was examined using linear regression.ResultsThere was a high variability within each procedure, with the highest and the lowest CV for radioembolization administration (56.6%) and transjugular liver biopsy (4.9%), respectively. Variation in transarterial chemoembolization cost was mainly driven by microcatheters/microwires, while for nephrostomy, the main drivers were catheters/wires and access sets. Mean spending by physician was not significantly correlated with case volume (P =.584).ConclusionsPhysicians vary in their item selection even for standard procedures. While the financial impact of these differences vary across procedures, these findings suggest that standardization may offer an opportunity for cost savings.     

An expanding role for interventional radiology: Medicare trends in fluoroscopic,endoscopic, and surgical enteric tube placement and maintenance from 2010 to 2018

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to provide an update on trends in physician volume and payments for enteric tube placement and maintenance procedures by method, provider specialty, and practice setting amongst Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018.Materials and methodsClaims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File (PSPSMF) for the years 2010 to 2018 were extracted using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for gastrostomy and jejunostomy placement, as well as conversion of gastrostomy to gastrojejunostomy, fluoroscopy guided and non-image guided replacement. Total volumes and provider reimbursement were analyzed by provider specialty and practice setting.ResultsVolume of de novo placement of all enteric tubes decreased from 157,123 to 106,549 (−32.2%). While endoscopic placement decreased from 133,658 to 81,171 (−39.3%), the volume of fluoroscopic placement increased from 17,999 to 21,277 (18.2%). Fluoroscopic placement was largely performed by interventional radiology (IR) (91.7% in 2018). Surgical placement decreased from 5466 to 4101 (−25.0%). Volume of fluoroscopic replacement increased from 24,799 to 38,470 (55.1%), while non-image guided replacements decreased from 61,377 to 55,116 (−10.2%). Share of both fluoroscopic and non-image guided replacements by advanced practice providers (APPs) more than doubled over this time period.ConclusionDe novo placement of enteric tubes decreased from 2010 to 2018, likely related to increased awareness of the complications and limited benefits in scenarios such as end of life care. In contrast to the diminishing volume for gastroenterologists, there was increased participation by IR in both placement and maintenance procedures under fluoroscopic guidance.Summary statementDecreasing placement of enteric tubes suggests shifting attitudes and recommendations around end-of-life care. Increase in role by IR/APPs highlights the need for comprehensive care in these patients.     

Case-Control Comparison of Conventional End-Hole versus Balloon-Occlusion Microcatheter Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PurposeTo compare procedural metrics and clinical improvement for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) performed with a balloon-occlusion (BO) versus end-hole (EH) microcatheter in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.Materials and MethodsRetrospective review was performed of 129 patients undergoing PAE with 100–300 μm Embosphere microspheres from April 2013 through August 2018. Microcatheter selection was nonrandom, based on prostatic artery anatomy. Five technical failures and 5 microcatheter crossover cases were excluded. BO group (n = 46, age 72.8 y ± 9.0, gland volume 184 mL ± 83, 42% in retention) and EH group (n = 73, age 76.0 y ± 9.0, gland volume 190 mL ± 116, 44% in retention) were compared using procedural metrics (excluding 30 EH learning-curve cases); symptomatic improvement at 3, 6, and 12 months after PAE; voiding trial success; and adverse events (reported used Clavien-Dindo classification).ResultsProcedural and fluoroscopy times were lower in the BO group (n = 46) vs EH group (n = 43) (152.0 min ± 34.0 vs 172.8 min ± 47.9, P < .02; 37.8 min ± 12.9 vs 50.3 min ± 18.9, P < .001). Collaterals coiled, contrast material used, and injected particle volume were similar for both groups (P = NS). International Prostate Symptom Score improvement was similar for BO group (n = 25) (before PAE 23.5 ± 6.5, 12 months after PAE 7.6 ± 6.8) and EH group (n = 30) (before PAE 20.9 ± 5.9, 12 months after PAE 6.6 ± 5.2) (P = NS). Quality-of-life improvements were also similar (BO: before PAE 4.5 ± 1.2, 12 months after PAE 1.4 ± 0.9; EH: before PAE 4.1 ± 1.0, 12 months after PAE 0.9 ± 0.7), as were 12-month postvoid residual improvements, voiding trial failure rates (EH 12%, BO 8%), and adverse event rates (grade II, III: EH 15%, BO 11%) (P = NS for all).ConclusionsBO microcatheter use in PAE did not affect injected particle volume, contrast material use, or protective coiling and did not impact symptomatic improvement, postvoid residual improvement, voiding trial success, or adverse events after PAE. Lower procedure and fluoroscopy times with BO microcatheter were likely due to selection bias.     

Prospective,Randomized Study of Coil Embolization versus Surefire Infusion System during Yttrium-90 Radioembolization with Resin Microspheres

PurposeTo compare standard coil embolization versus the use of an antireflux microcatheter (ARM) in patients undergoing planning angiography before selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT).Materials and MethodsA prospective, single-center trial was performed in which 30 patients were randomly assigned to undergo SIRT with coil embolization or the use of an ARM. The coil group underwent detachable coil embolization of nontarget vessels, and the ARM group underwent infusion of macroaggregated albumin with use of an ARM system, without coil embolization. Single-photon emission computed tomography (CT)/CT was then performed to assess for nontarget distribution. The primary endpoint was fluoroscopy time during planning angiography. Secondary endpoints included deployment time, total procedure time, radiation dose–area product, contrast agent used, and adverse events. Endpoints were evaluated during planning angiography and SIRT.ResultsOver a 9-month period, 30 consecutive patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio between coil embolization and ARM groups. Technical success rates were 100% in both groups. Mean fluoroscopy time was significantly reduced in the ARM group versus the coil embolization group (1.8 min [range, 0.4–4.9 min] vs 6.0 min [range, 1.9–15.7 min]; P = .002). The planning procedure time (P < .001), deployment time (P < .001), dose–area product (P = .04), and amount of contrast agent used (P < .001) were also significantly less in the ARM group than in the coil embolization group. No nontarget distribution was detected in either group. There was no difference between groups in dose delivered on the day of SIRT (P = .71). There were no major or minor adverse events at 30 days.ConclusionsThe use of an ARM during planning angiography can significantly reduce fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and radiation dose.     

Impact of Electronic Procedural Protocoling on the Timeliness of Pre-operative Breast Localization Procedures

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of a new electronic procedural protocol on start times of pre-operative breast localization procedures.MethodsThis HIPAA-compliant, Institutional Review Board-exempted, quality improvement initiative was performed at a large tertiary academic center. In May 2018, an electronic version of the pre-procedure protocol for breast localizations was created within the electronic health record; prior to this time, the protocol was completed manually on a paper form. Mean time between: (1) appointment time and procedure start time, (2) procedure begin-to-end time, and (3) arrival to appointment time were compared for all female patients undergoing pre-operative breast localization procedures during 4-month periods pre-implementation of the electronic procedural protocol (January-April 2018), and post-implementation (June-September 2018), excluding the May 2018 implementation month. Statistical analysis was done by two tailed t-test and statistical process control charting.ResultsPre-implementation, 427 procedures were performed, and post-implementation 409 procedures were performed. Three pre-implementation cases performed more than 3 hours prior to appointment time were excluded (presumed to be rescheduled cases). Mean time between appointment time and procedure start time decreased from 2.7 minutes after to 5.6 minutes before appointment start time, an 8.3-minute improvement (P = 0.0001), with sustained improvement by statistical process control analysis. Mean time for procedure length increased by 4.7 minutes (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in mean time of patient arrival to appointment time pre- and post-implementation.ConclusionImplementation of an electronic protocol process for pre-operative breast localizations was associated with a significant and sustained reduction in time between appointment time and procedure start time.