Outcomes of Stroke Thrombectomy Performed by Interventional Radiologists versus Neurointerventional Physicians

PurposeTo test the hypothesis that interventional radiologists (IRs) and neurointerventional (NI) physicians have similar outcomes of endovascular stroke thrombectomy (EVT), which could be used to improve the availability of thrombectomy.Materials and MethodsEight hospitals providing EVT performed by IRs and NI physicians at the same institution submitted sequential retrospective data limited to the era of modern devices. Good clinical outcomes (a 90-day modified Rankin score [mRS] of 0–2) and technically successful revascularization (a modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score of ≥2b) were compared between the specialties after adjusting for treating hospital, patient age, stroke severity, Alberta stroke program early computed tomography score, time from symptom onset to door, and clot location. Propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes. A total of 1,009 patients were evaluated (622 treated by IRs and 387 treated by NI physicians).ResultsThe median time from stroke onset to puncture was 245 versus 253 minutes (P = .49), the technically successful revascularization rate was 81.8% versus 82.4% (P = .81), and the good clinical outcome rate was 45.5% versus 50.1% (P = .16). After adjusting, the physician specialty was not a significant predictor of good clinical outcomes (odds ratio, 1.028; 95% confidence interval, 0.760–1.390; P = .86). After matching, an mRS of 0–2 was present in 47.7% of IR treated patients and 51.1% of NI treated patients (P = .366).ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in the successful revascularization rate and good clinical outcomes between IRs and NI physicians. The outcomes of EVT performed by IRs were similar to those of EVT performed by NI physicians, as determined using previously published trials and registries. This may be useful for addressing coverage and access to stroke interventions.     

Burnout among Interventional Radiologists

PurposeTo characterize burnout, as defined by high emotional exhaustion (EE) or depersonalization (DP), among interventional radiologists using a validated assessment tool.Materials and MethodsAn anonymous 34-question survey was distributed to interventional radiologists. The survey consisted of demographic and practice environment questions and the 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey (MBI). Interventional radiologists with high scores on EE (≥ 27) or DP (≥ 10) MBI subscales were considered to have a manifestation of career burnout.ResultsBeginning on January 7, 2019, 339 surveys were completed over 31 days. Of respondents, 263 (77.6%) identified as male, 75 (22.1%) identified as female, and 1 (0.3%) identified as trans-male. The respondents were interventional radiology attending physicians (298; 87.9%), fellows (20; 5.9%), and residents (21; 6.2%) practicing at academic (136; 40.1%), private (145; 42.8%), and hybrid (58; 17.1%) centers. Respondents worked < 40 hours (15; 4.4%), 40–60 hours (225; 66.4%), 60–80 hours (81; 23.9%), and > 80 hours (18; 5.3%) per week. Mean MBI scores for EE, DP, and personal achievement were 30.0 ± 13.0, 10.6 ± 6.9, and 39.6 ± 6.6. Burnout was present in 244 (71.9%) participants. Identifying as female (odds ratio 2.4; P = .009) and working > 80 hours per week (odds ratio 7.0; P = .030) were significantly associated with burnout.ConclusionsBurnout is prevalent among interventional radiologists. Identifying as female and working > 80 hours per week were strongly associated with burnout.     

Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Interventional Radiologists

PurposeTo investigate the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms, defined as aches, pains, discomfort, or numbness, by using a validated assessment tool among interventional radiologists.Materials and MethodsA Web-based survey using the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire was disseminated to interventional radiologist members by email in November 2015. Musculoskeletal symptoms were evaluated in 9 body areas. Information regarding participant demographics, practice details, use of radio-protective equipment, and exercise routines was also gathered. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors associated with more severe symptoms.ResultsOf 4,096 SIR members at the time of the survey, 640 completed the questionnaire in its entirety (16% response rate). Respondents consisted of 69 females (11%) and 571 males (89%), with a mean age of 47.5 ± 10.2 years old, a mean body mass index of 25.5 ± 3.9 kg/m², and a mean practice length of 17.1 ± 9.8 years. Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms was 88% in the 12 months preceding the survey. For those reporting musculoskeletal issues, 58% attributed the symptoms to work-related activities. Lower back (61%), neck (56%), and shoulder complaints (46%) were the most common. Symptoms prevented 21.2% of respondents from being able to work over the same time period. Multivariate analysis identified female gender, above-normal body mass index, and a practice length of 10 years or more as factors associated with a higher risk of moderate-to-severe symptoms.ConclusionsMusculoskeletal symptoms are prevalent among interventional radiologists, the majority of which are attributed to work-related causes.     

Benchmark Status of Women Interventional Radiologists in China

PurposeTo evaluate the current status of women interventional radiologists in China and discuss possible measures to boost their representation in this male-dominated field for a more diverse workplace environment in the future.Materials and MethodsThe list of Chinese interventional radiologists obtained from the Chinese College of Interventionalists was retrospectively reviewed. Key information was extracted from the database, including sex, chronologic trends of representation of women interventional radiologists, position, education level, geographic distribution, interventional radiology (IR) practice time, departmental affiliation, and hospital classification.ResultsOf the 13,855 entries, 7,324 (52.9%) were interventional radiologists having valid information. Among them, 684 (9.3%) were identified as women. The number of women interventional radiologists has continued to increase since the first woman registered in 1992. The average age of women interventional radiologists was 39.1 years ± 5.7 (range, 26–50). The majority of them were attending physicians (n = 280; 40.9%) with a bachelor’s degree (n = 363; 53.1%). Most women interventional radiologists (n = 215, 31.4%) joined this specialty 5–9 years after becoming physicians, whereas 128 (18.7%) started practicing IR from the very beginning. A total of 42.4% of women interventional radiologists were from the departments of IR and cardiology.ConclusionsAlthough the total number shows an upward trend, women interventional radiologists are still underrepresented. Education level, geographic areas, and other socioeconomic factors may simultaneously influence the population size of women interventional radiologists in China.     

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.     

Appendix to the Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Guidelines for the Periprocedural Management of Thrombotic and Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Image-Guided Interventions: Pediatric Considerations

PurposeTo provide guidance on the use of anticoagulant and antithrombotic agents in pediatric patients undergoing interventional radiology procedures.Materials and MethodsA multidisciplinary writing group conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify studies on the topic of interest. Recommendations were developed for procedural risk and medication dosage and withholding. A modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus agreement on the recommendations.ResultsA total of 24 studies, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies, were identified as relevant. The expert writing group agreed on procedural risk categorization, laboratory testing thresholds, and medication dosage and withholding recommendations specific to pediatric practice. They additionally described the nuances of anticoagulation in clinical conditions specific to pediatrics.ConclusionsThe Society of Interventional Radiology recommends following the guidance provided in the document when developing multidisciplinary management protocols for anticoagulation and antithrombotic treatment in pediatric patients undergoing interventional radiology procedures.     

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology

PurposeTo assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice.Materials and MethodsBilling and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures—(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement—were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals).ResultsDepartmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%.ConclusionsDepartmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.     

Patient and Provider Perspectives of Telehealth and In-Person Interventional Radiology Clinic Visits

PurposeTo assess patient and provider satisfaction with interventional radiology (IR) outpatient telehealth and in-person clinic.Materials and MethodsThis institutional review board–approved study analyzed patient satisfaction with clinic via survey after an IR outpatient telehealth or in-person visit. A physician telehealth experience survey was completed by 8 IR physicians.ResultsDuring the initial survey period, 44 (83%) of 53 patients completed a survey via telephone compared with 37 (23%) of 158 patients who were offered an electronic survey during the second survey period. Of 81 respondents, 18 (22%) were in-person and 63 (78%) were via telehealth. Of the respondents, nearly all patients (97%) in the telehealth group reported satisfaction with their telehealth clinic visit, with similar rates of high patient satisfaction between in-person and telehealth visits (P = .51). Most patients (98%) in the telehealth group strongly agreed that their physician’s recommendations were clear in the telehealth visit and that their visit was private, similar to in-person visits (P = .13). A telehealth visit saved time for all patients (100%), with 78% reporting >1 hour of time-saving. All IR physicians (n = 8) reported greater efficiency with telehealth clinic than with in-person clinic and that follow-up patterns would change if telehealth was available. However, all providers (100%) found telephone visits less satisfying than in-person visits, with video visits being either equally satisfying (71%) or less satisfying (29%).ConclusionsPatient satisfaction with the in-person and telehealth outpatient IR clinic was high, with patients and providers reporting time-saving and greater efficiency with telehealth, suggesting that telehealth should remain an important component of outpatient IR clinic care.     

Considerations in Specialty Selections: What Medical Students Think,Know, and Think They Know about Interventional Radiology

PurposeTo compare the motivation, deterrents, knowledge, exposure, and other specialty considerations of first- to fourth-year medical students interested in interventional radiology (IR) with those who are not.Materials and MethodsMatriculants of 5 medical schools varying by region, public/private, class size, and National Institutes of Health research ranking received a 19-question survey with questions about demographics, specialty interests, motivations/deterrents, knowledge, and exposure to IR.ResultsA total of 25.8% (611/2370) of students completed the survey, of which 20.5% (125/611) expressed interest in IR, and 25% (47/186), 26% (40/153), 24% (34/143), and 3% (3/117) of first-year, second-year, third-year, and fourth-year medical students, respectively, were seriously considering IR. Those interested in IR were less motivated by direct patient care (mean, 2.8/5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–3.0) and longitudinal patient care (mean, 1.6/5; 95% CI, 1.4–1.7) (both, P < .01) and more motivated by salary (2.6/5; 95% CI, 2.3–2.9), job market (2.8/5; 95% CI, 2.6–2.9), and procedures (3.1/5; 95% CI, 2.8–3.4) compared with their peers (all P < .05). Those interested in IR were more certain about their IR knowledge (mean range, 1.6–2.0/3.0; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3) than their peers (mean range, 1.9–2.4/3.0; 95% CI, 1.6–2.1, in which 0 = certain, P ≤ .01); however, both groups scored low in actual knowledge (those considering IR: 35.0–73.2% correct; 95% CI, 23.5–81.4; those who were not: 26.6–66.7% correct; 95% CI, 24.3–75.9, P > .05).ConclusionsAlthough medical students showed interest in IR, they had a limited understanding of IR. IR educators may increase IR interest and understanding among medical students by clarifying the procedural aspects and longitudinal care present in a comprehensive IR practice.     

Medicare Reimbursement Trends for Interventional Radiology Procedures: 2012 to 2020

PurposeTo investigate the reimbursement trends for interventional radiology (IR) procedures from 2012 to 2020.Materials and MethodsReimbursement data from the Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was compiled for 20 common IR procedures. The authors then investigated compensation trends after adjusting for inflation and from the unadjusted data between 2012 and 2020.ResultsFrom 2012 to 2020, the mean unadjusted reimbursement for procedures decreased by ?6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], ?13.5% to ?0.34%). This trend was even more profound after inflation was taken into account, with a mean decline in adjusted reimbursement of ?18.7% (95% CI, ?24.4% to ?12.9%) during the study period, with a mean yearly decline of ?2.8%. The difference between the mean unadjusted and adjusted payment amounts was significant (P = .012). Similarly, linear regression analysis of the adjusted average reimbursement across all procedures revealed an overall decline from 2012 to 2020 (R² = 0.97), indicating a steady decline in reimbursement over time.ConclusionsIn just under a decade, IR has experienced significant reimbursement cuts by Medicare, as demonstrated by both the unadjusted and inflation-adjusted payment trends. Knowledge of these trends is critically important for practicing interventional radiologists, leaders within the field, and legislators, who may play a role in formulating future reimbursement schedules for IR. These data may be used to help support more amenable reimbursement plans to sustain and facilitate the growth of the specialty.     

COVID-19: What Should Interventional Radiologists Know and What Can They Do?

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has been characterized as a “pandemic” by the World Health Organization and has resulted in 81,603 confirmed cases in China, among the 334,981 cases confirmed in 189 countries as of 09:00 am, March 24, 2020 (China central standard time). During the past 3 months, hundreds of thousands of Chinese health care workers, including interventional radiologists (IRs), have been fighting this battle against the horrifying COVID-19 disease. As IRs, what should we know and what can we do when facing this challenge? This paper shares the experience we have gone through.     

Deep learning with convolutional neural network for estimation of the characterisation of coronary plaques: Validation using IB-IVUS

IntroductionDeep learning approaches have shown high diagnostic performance in image classifications, such as differentiation of malignant tumors and calcified coronary plaque. However, it is unknown whether deep learning is useful for characterizing coronary plaques without the presence of calcification using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of deep learning with a convolutional neural network (CNN) with that of radiologists in the estimation of coronary plaques.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 178 patients (191 coronary plaques) who had undergone CCTA and integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasonography (IB-IVUS) studies. IB-IVUS diagnosed 81 fibrous and 110 fatty or fibro-fatty plaques. We manually captured vascular short-axis images of the coronary plaques as Portable Network Graphics (PNG) images (150 × 150 pixels). The display window level and width were 100 and 700 Hounsfield units (HU), respectively. The deep-learning system (CNN; GoogleNet Inception v3) was trained on 153 plaques; its performance was tested on 38 plaques. The area under the curve (AUC) obtained by receiver operating characteristic analysis of the deep learning system and by two board-certified radiologists was compared.ResultsWith the CNN, the AUC and the 95% confidence interval were 0.83 and 0.69–0.96, respectively; for radiologist 1 they were 0.61 and 0.42–0.80; for radiologist 2 they were 0.68 and 0.51–0.86, respectively. The AUC for CNN was significantly higher than for radiologists 1 (p = 0.04); for radiologist 2 it was not significantly different (p = 0.22).ConclusionDL-CNN performed comparably to radiologists for discrimination between fatty and fibro-fatty plaque on CCTA images.Implications for practiceThe diagnostic performance of the CNN and of two radiologists in the assessment of 191 ROIs on CT images of coronary plaques whose type corresponded with their IB-IVUS characterization was comparable.     

Hepatic Hilar Nerve Block for Adjunctive Analgesia during Percutaneous Thermal Ablation of Hepatic Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis

PurposeTo determine whether hepatic hilar nerve block techniques reduce analgesic and sedation requirements during percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation of hepatic tumors.Materials and MethodsA single-center retrospective cohort analysis was performed of 177 patients (median age, 67 years; range, 33–86 years) who underwent percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors. All patients were treated utilizing local anesthetic and moderate sedation between November 2018 and November 2021 at a tertiary level hospital, with or without the administration of a hepatic hilar nerve block. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between the administration of the hilar nerve block and fentanyl and midazolam dosages.ResultsA total of 114 (64%) patients received a hilar nerve block in addition to procedural sedation, and 63 (36%) patients received procedural sedation alone. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic and tumor characteristics between the cohorts. The procedure duration was longer in the hilar block cohort than in the unblocked cohort (median, 95 vs 82 minutes; P = .0012). The technical success rate (98% in both the cohorts, P = .93) and adverse event rate (11% vs 3%, P = .14) were not significantly different between the cohorts. After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, ablation modality, and procedure and ablation durations, hilar nerve blocks were associated with lower fentanyl (?18.4%, P = .0045) and midazolam (?22.7%, P = .0007) dosages.ConclusionsHepatic hilar nerve blocks significantly decrease the fentanyl and midazolam requirements during thermal ablation of hepatic tumors, without a significant change in the technical success or adverse event rates.     

Trends in Percutaneous Embolization Procedures by Radiologists and Other Specialists

PurposeTo evaluate utilization trends in percutaneous embolization among radiologists and nonradiologist providers.Materials and MethodsThe nationwide Medicare Part B fee-for-service databases for 2005–2016 were used to evaluate percutaneous embolization codes. Six codes describing embolization procedures were reviewed. Physician providers were grouped as radiologists, vascular surgeons, cardiologists, nephrologists, other surgeons, and all others.ResultsThe total volume of Medicare percutaneous embolization procedures increased from 20,262 in 2005 to 45,478 in 2016 (+125%). Radiologists performed 13,872 procedures in 2005 (68% of total volume) and 33,254 in 2016 (73% of total volume), a 140% increase in volume. While other specialists also increased the number of cases performed from 2005 to 2016, radiologists strongly predominated, performing 87% of arterial and 30% of venous procedures in 2016, more than any other single specialty. In 2014 and 2015, a sharp increase in venous embolization cases performed by nonradiologists preceded a sharp decrease in 2016, likely the result of complicated billing codes for venous procedures. Radiologists maintained a steady upward trend in the number of cases they performed during those years.ConclusionsThe volume of percutaneous embolization procedures performed in the Medicare population increased from 2005 to 2016, reflecting a trend toward minimally invasive intervention. In 2016, radiologists performed nearly 10 times more arterial embolization procedures than the second highest specialty and more venous embolization procedures than any other single specialty.     

Outcomes of Hemorrhoidal Artery Embolization from a Multidisciplinary Outpatient Interventional Center

PurposeTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of outpatient transarterial embolization for symptomatic refractory internal hemorrhoids.Materials and MethodsRetrospective analysis of 134 patients who underwent hemorrhoidal artery embolization (HAE) for symptomatic internal hemorrhoids between August 2021 and June 2022 (76 men and 58 women) was performed. The mean age was 54.9 years, with a mean Goligher hemorrhoid grade (HG) of 2.1. Branches of the superior rectal artery (SRA) or middle rectal artery supplying the corpus cavernosum recti were embolized with both spherical particles and microcoils. Standard-of-care evaluations were performed at baseline and the 1 month follow-up, which included hemorrhoid-related pain (HRP) (0–10), hemorrhoid symptoms score (HSS) (5–20), quality of life (QoL) (0–4), French bleeding score (FBS) (0–9), and HG (0–4). Clinical success was defined as improvement of symptoms without additional treatment.ResultsEmbolization of at least 1 hemorrhoidal artery was achieved in 133 (99%) of the 134 patients. The mean number of SRA branches embolized per patient was 2.9 ± 1.0. Clinical success was seen in 93% (124 of 134) of patients at the 1-month follow-up, with 10 patients requiring repeat embolization. There were significant improvements in all mean outcomes at 1 month: HSS (11–7.8; P < .01), HRP (4.1–1.3; P < .01), QoL (2.2–0.8; P < .01), FBS (4.4–2.2; P < .01), and HG (2.3–1.2; P < .05). There were no severe adverse events.ConclusionsHAE is a safe and effective outpatient treatment for refractory symptomatic internal hemorrhoids in the short term.     

External Validation of the Percutaneous Renal Ablation Complexity Scoring System in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Cryoablation or Microwave Ablation of Renal Tumors

PurposeTo assess the ability of the Percutaneous Renal Ablation Complexity (P-RAC) scoring system to predict procedural complexity or adverse events (AEs) in adult patients undergoing percutaneous thermal ablation of renal tumors.Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of 240 consecutive adult patients who underwent percutaneous thermal renal ablation from 2004 to 2018 was conducted. The P-RAC score was calculated for each renal tumor and procedural complexity recorded. A correlation coefficient was calculated for the P-RAC score and both the number of probes used and procedural duration. Receiver operating characteristic curves assessed the score’s ability to predict the use of adjunctive techniques and/or major AEs, classified according to the Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines.ResultsFor the entire cohort, there was a weak correlation between P-RAC scores and both the number of probes used (r = 0.31; P < .001) and procedural duration (r = 0.18; P = .03). When evaluating only patients treated with microwave ablation (MWA), no correlation between P-RAC scores and either the number of probes (P = .7) used or procedural duration (P = .4) was found. The area under the curve (AUC) for the P-RAC score to predict the use of adjunctive techniques was 0.55 and 0.53 for the entire cohort and MWA group, respectively. The AUC for the P-RAC score to predict major AEs was 0.70, 0.71, and 0.73 for the entire cohort, MWA group, and cryoablation group, respectively.ConclusionsThe P-RAC scoring system is limited in its ability to predict percutaneous thermal renal tumor ablation procedural complexity, especially in patients treated with MWA. The scoring system may have a role in identifying patients at risk of major AEs.     

Perioperative Blood Loss after Preoperative Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients Undergoing Simple Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score‒Matched Study

PurposeTo assess perioperative blood loss following prostatic artery embolization (PAE) before surgery in patients undergoing simple prostatectomy.MethodsA retrospective chart review was used to identify 63 patients (mean age, 65.3 ± 8.0 years) with prostatic hypertrophy and severe lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent prostatectomy from September 2014 to December 2019, 18 (28.5%) of whom underwent PAE before surgery. Demographic data, pertinent laboratory results, procedural or operative information, hospital course details, and pathology reports were obtained. A 2:1 propensity score‒matching analysis was performed to compare intraoperative blood loss in patients who underwent prostatectomy alone with intraoperative blood loss in those who first underwent bilateral PAE before surgery.ResultsSixteen (89%) of the 18 patients underwent bilateral PAE before surgery. Thirty-two patients who underwent prostatectomy without embolization before surgery were selected for the 2:1 propensity score‒matched analysis based on age, race, surgery type, prostate gland size, and comorbidities. The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for prostatectomy alone was 545 ± 380 mL (mean ± standard deviation). There was a statistically significant reduction in the EBL for patients who underwent bilateral PAE (303 ± 227 mL, P < .01). The operative time was also significantly decreased for patients who underwent PAE before surgery (P < .05). For patients who underwent PAE, there were no complications related to the procedure.ConclusionsBilateral PAE before surgery appears to be safe and may be effective in reducing perioperative bleeding and operative time.     

Public Awareness of Interventional Radiology: Population-Based Analysis of the Current State of and Pathways for Improvement

PurposeTo evaluate the awareness of interventional radiology (IR) among the public and identify methods for improvement.Materials and MethodsParticipants (N = 1,000) were anonymously surveyed using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform about medical and IR-specific knowledge, preferred methods of acquisition of medical information, and suggestions for improving awareness of IR. The survey consisted of 69 questions, including both Likert Scale and free text questions.ResultsOf the participants, 92% preferred undergoing a minimally invasive procedure over surgery. However, 39.8% recognized IR as a medical specialty, and less than 50% of these participants correctly identified IR as procedurally oriented. Of those who discussed or underwent an IR procedure (n = 113), most were also offered to undergo the procedure performed by a surgeon (n = 66). Furthermore, 71% (n = 20) of those who underwent the procedure performed by a surgeon reported that lack of awareness of IR played a role in their decision. Almost half of the respondents (n = 458) were interested in learning more about IR, particularly the diseases treated and procedures performed (42% and 37%, respectively). Short (<10-minute) educational videos and increased patient education by primary care providers (PCPs) were among the most suggested ways to improve awareness. Regarding the ambiguity of the name “interventional radiology,” most respondents (n = 555) reported this to be true, and “minimally invasive radiologist” was the most preferred alternative (21.18%).ConclusionsLack of awareness of IR may underlie underutilization. When presented with the knowledge that IR improves patient outcomes, minimally invasive procedures by an interventional radiologist are more often desired by the public than surgical options. Educational videos and patient education by PCPs may increase awareness of IR.     

Changes in the National Endovascular Management of Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease: An Analysis of the 2011–2019 Medicare Data

PurposeTo describe national trends in the utilization of endovascular approaches (including balloon angioplasty, atherectomy, and stent placement) for the management of femoropopliteal peripheral arterial disease (PAD).Materials and MethodsThe Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary dataset containing 100% of Part B claims was interrogated for years 2011–2019. The Current Procedural Terminology codes specific for femoropopliteal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy were used to create summary statistics for utilization by year, place of service (hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and office-based laboratory), and provider specialty (cardiology, radiology, and surgery).ResultsThe use of atherectomy increased from 34,732 (33%) procedures in 2011 to 75,435 (53%) procedures in 2019, and atherectomy became the dominant treatment strategy for femoropopliteal PAD. The relative utilization of stent placement (36,793 [35%] to 28,899 [20%]) and angioplasty only (34,398 [32%] to 38,228 [27%]) decreased concomitantly from 2011 to 2019. By 2019, the use of atherectomy was twofold higher in office-based laboratories than in the outpatient hospital setting (44,767 and 20,901, respectively). Treatment strategy varied by provider specialty in 2011 when cardiologists used atherectomy most frequently (17,925 [43%]), whereas radiologists used angioplasty alone (5,928 [6%]) and surgeons stented (18,009 [37%]) most frequently. By 2019, all specialties utilized atherectomy most frequently (29,564 [59%] for cardiology, 10,912 [58%] radiology, and 33,649 [47%] surgery).ConclusionsThe national approach to endovascular management of femoropopliteal PAD has changed since 2011 toward an implant-free strategy, including a multifold increase in the use of atherectomy. Discordant rates of atherectomy use between the ambulatory hospital and office-based settings highlight the need for comparative effectiveness studies to guide management.