Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1571–1578 | Cite as

Observation time after outpatient non-arterial interventional procedures: standards, safety, and outcomes

  • Christine K. Chen
  • Johannes Boos
  • Ammar Sarwar
  • Bridget O’Bryan-Alberts
  • Muneeb Ahmed
  • Olga R. Brook
Article
  • 176 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of standardized reduced post-procedure observation time on subsequent healthcare encounters such as emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and clinic visits.

Methods

800 consecutive patients undergoing outpatient non-arterial interventional radiologic procedures within the vascular interventional department between 1 June 2013 and 21 July 2014 were included in this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant single center observational retrospective study. Electronic medical records were reviewed for subsequent healthcare encounters, such as ED visits, hospital admissions, and clinic visits. An attending interventional radiologist and radiology resident reviewed, in consensus, medical records for relevance of the encounter to the index procedure. Procedure-related encounters were analyzed to determine relationship to length of observation time, using Matlab for statistical analysis.

Results

397 and 403 patients were in the pre- and post-standardization groups, respectively. Median observation time decreased overall from 1.67 h [interquartile range (IQR) 1.17–2.17] to 1.42 h (IQR 1.08–1.92), p < 0.001. There was no significant change in either overall or procedure-related ED visits (16.6% [66/397] and 1.0% [4/397] pre-standardization vs. 20.1% [81/403] and 2.2% [9/403] post-standardization, p = 0.24 and 0.26), hospital admissions (27.7% [110/397] and 4.0% [16/397] prestandardization vs. 28.3% [114/403] and 2.7% [11/403] post-standardization, p = 0.88 and 0.33), or clinic visits (41.3% [164/397] and 1.0% [4/397] pre-standardization vs. 39.5% [159/403] and 2.2% [9/403] post-standardization, p = 0.61 and 0.26).

Conclusion

Proposed standardized shortened observation times after outpatient interventional radiologic procedures are safe, without change in either total or procedure-related ED visits, hospital admissions, or clinic visits.

Keywords

Post-procedure Observation times Outcomes Interventional radiology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alexander Brook and Donna Wolfe for their help in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Gradinscak DJ, Young N, Jones Y, et al. (2004) Risks of outpatient angiography and interventional procedures: a prospective study. Am J Roentgenol 183:377–381. doi: 10.2214/ajr.183.2.1830377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young N, Chi KK, Ajaka J, et al. (2002) Complications with outpatient angiography and interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 25:123–126. doi: 10.1007/s00270-001-0105-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang DY, Ong CM, Walters HL, et al. (2008) Day-case diagnostic and interventional peripheral angiography: 10-year experience in a radiology specialist nurse-led unit. Br J Radiol 81:537–544. doi: 10.1259/bjr/54749779 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arepally A, Oechsle D, Kirkwood S, Savader SJ (2001) Safety of conscious sedation in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 24:185–190. doi: 10.1007/s002700002549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aruny JE, Lewis CA, Cardella JF, et al. (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous management of the thrombosed or dysfunctional dialysis access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S247–S253. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000094593.83406.45 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caplin DM, Nikolic B, Kalva SP, et al. (2011) Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1499–1506. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.07.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dariushnia SR, Gill AE, Martin LG, et al. (2014) Quality improvement guidelines for diagnostic arteriography. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:1873–1881. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.07.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dariushnia SR, Wallace MJ, Siddiqi NH, et al. (2010) Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:976–981. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2010.03.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Itkin M, DeLegge MH, Fang JC, et al. (2011) Multidisciplinary practical guidelines for gastrointestinal access for enteral nutrition and decompression from the Society of Interventional Radiology and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, with endorsement by Canadian Intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1089–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.04.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramchandani P, Cardella JF, Grassi CJ, et al. (2003) Percutaneous nephrostomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:277–281. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000094598.83406.b4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheth RA, Walker TG, Saad WE, et al. (2014) Quality improvement guidelines for vascular access and closure device use. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:73–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.08.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spies JB, Bakal CW, Burke DR, et al. (2003) Angioplasty standard of practice. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S219–S221. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000094587.83406.e5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Success DOF (2003) Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S209–s217. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000094586.83406.ac CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallace MJ, Chin KW, Fletcher TB, et al. (2010) Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous drainage/aspiration of abscess and fluid collections. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:431–435. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.12.398 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kruse JR, Cragg AH (2000) Safety of short stay observation after peripheral vascular intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomson KR, Koukounaras J, Given MF (2014) Adrenal venous sampling. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-guided intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 809–812Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bream PR Jr (2014) Tunneled central venous catheters. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-Guided Intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 869–875Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. (1999) Same-day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complication study. Gastrointest Endosc 49:580–586. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70385-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kos S, Bilecen D, Jacob AL, Heim MH (2014) Transjugular liver biopsy. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-guided intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 431–435Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leoni CJ, Potter JE, Rosen MP, et al. (2001) Classifying complications of interventional procedures: a survey of practicing radiologists. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:55–59. doi: 10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61403-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patel AA, Trerotola S (2014) Management of clotted hemodialysis access grafts. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-guided intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 850–855Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Power S, Lee MJ (2014) Gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-guided intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 969–975Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saad WEA (2014) Management of benign biliary strictures. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-guided intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 994–1001Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stokes LS, Meranze SG (2014) Percutaneous nephrostomy, cystostomy, and nephroureteral stenting. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson KR, et al. (eds) Image-guided intervention, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp 1076–1088Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tapping CR, Byass OR, Cast JEI (2011) Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) with or without stenting-complications, re-stent rate and a new risk stratification score. Eur Radiol 21:1948–1955. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2121-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Committee for Ambulatory Surgical Care (2013) Guidelines for ambulatory anesthesia and surgery. http://www.asahq.org/quality-and-practice-management/standards-and-guidelines. Accessed 4 Jan 2016
  27. 27.
    Chung F, Chan VWS (1995) A post-anesthetic discharge scoring system for home readiness after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 7:500–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blevins SJ (1994) The role of the radiology nurse. Radiol Manag 16:46–48Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Royal College of Nursing and The Royal College of Radiologists (2014) Guidelines for nursing care in interventional radiology, 2nd edn. London: RCRGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jabara R, Gadesam R, Pendyala L, et al. (2008) Ambulatory discharge after transradial coronary intervention: preliminary US single-center experience (Same-day TransRadial Intervention and Discharge Evaluation, the STRIDE Study). Am Heart J 156:1141–1146. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.07.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tan KT, Cleveland TJ, Berczi V, et al. (2003) Timing and frequency of complications after carotid artery stenting: what is the optimal period of observation? J Vasc Surg 38:236–243. doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00316-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Small A, Klinke P, Della Siega A, et al. (2007) Day procedure intervention is safe and complication free in higher risk patients undergoing transradial angioplasty and stenting. The discharge study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 70:907–912. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21277 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khater M, Zureikat H, Alqasem A, et al. (2007) Contemporary outpatient percutaneous coronary intervention: feasible and safe. Coron Artery Dis 18:565–569. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0b013e3282eff1da CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine K. Chen
    • 1
  • Johannes Boos
    • 1
  • Ammar Sarwar
    • 1
  • Bridget O’Bryan-Alberts
    • 1
  • Muneeb Ahmed
    • 1
  • Olga R. Brook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations