Day Case Vascular Intervention

  • Ounali S. Jaffer
  • Dean Y. Huang
  • Paul S. Sidhu
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Over the last 20 years, there has been a change in the management of vascular disease. Endovascular treatment is now more likely to be considered a first-line option for the treatment of vascular disease which would have previously fallen within the province of more invasive open surgery. While this change in emphasis may be attributed to numerous factors, primarily the improvement in techniques and equipment, the availability and safety of day-case procedures have been contributory to this development. Day-case procedures have a proven safety record, are favoured by the majority of patients and are cost-effective, which are particularly pertinent given the current atmosphere of cost-control. Within this chapter we shall discuss the necessary framework required to establish an effective and efficient day-case service. A particular emphasis will be placed on appropriate patient selection, the benefits of defined clinical roles and the required infrastructure to allow optimum safety, as well as effectiveness. We shall describe the benefits and detail-associated complication. The reader should be informed on the available evidence on day-case procedures, how to establish a service and the current status and possible future direction of day-case procedures.


Puncture Site Peripheral Insert Central Catheter Uterine Fibroid Embolisation Angiographic Procedure Percutaneous Mechanical Thrombectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akopian G, Katz SG (2006) Peripheral angioplasty with same-day discharge in patients with intermittent claudication. J Vasc Surg 44:115–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Radiology—Society of Interventional Radiology (2007) ACR-SIR practice guideline for the performance of diagnostic arteriography in adults. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns BJ, Phillips AJ, Fox A, Boardman P, Phillips-Hughes J (2000) The timing and frequency of complications after peripheral percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and iliac stenting: is a change from inpatient to outpatient therapy feasible? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:452–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gradinscak DJ, Young N, Jones Y, O’Neil D, Sindhusake D (2004) Risks of outpatient angiography and interventional procedures: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:377–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gray RR, So CB, McLoughlin RF, Pugash RA, Saliken JC, Macklin NI (1996) Outpatient percutaneous nephrostomy. Radiology 198:85–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 81:537–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hvelplund A, Jeger R, Osterwalder R et al (2011) The Angio-Seal femoral closure device allows immediate ambulation after coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention 7:234–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kruse JR, Cragg AH (2000) Safety of short stay observation after peripheral vascular intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lemarbre L, Hudon G, Coche G, Bourassa MG (1987) Outpatient peripheral angioplasty: survey of complications and patients’ perceptions. Am J Roentgenol 148:1239–1242Google Scholar
  10. Lombardi JV, Calligaro KD, Dougherty MJ (2002) Safety and cost savings of endovascular procedures: are outpatient interventions feasible when combined with open surgery? Vasc Endovascular Surg 36:231–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macdonald S, Thomas SM, Cleveland TJ, Gaines PA (2002) Outpatient vascular intervention: a two-year experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 25:403–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maher MM, Rizzo S, Kalra M et al (2008) Radiological management of patients with urinary obstruction following urinary diversion procedures: technical factors, complications, long-term management and outcome. Experience with 378 procedures. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manashil GB, Thunstrom BS, Thorpe CD, Lipson SR (1983) Outpatient transluminal angioplasty. Radiology 147:7–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathie AG, Bell SD, Saibil EA, Magissano R, Kucey DS (1999) Safety of outpatient arterial stenting. Can Assoc Radiol J 50:268–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH et al (1995) The independent contributions of diabetic neuropathy and vasculopathy in foot ulceration. How great are the risks? Diabetes Care 18:216–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Middlebrook MR, Amygdalos MA, Soulen MC et al (1995) Thrombosed hemodialysis grafts: percutaneous mechanical balloon declotting versus thrombolysis. Radiology 196:73–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA (1999) Contrast-media-induced nephrotoxicity: a consensus report. Contrast media safety committee, European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR). Eur Radiol 9:1602–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morcos SK (2005) Prevention of contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity after angiographic procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:13–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Brien-Irr MS, Harris LM, Dosluoglu HH, Dayton M, Dryjski ML (2008) Lower extremity endovascular interventions: can we improve cost-efficiency? J Vasc Surg 47:982–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paul HJ, Moss JG (1997) Day case lower limb angioplasty: a postal survey amongst members of the british society of interventional radiologists and review of the literature. J Interv Radiol 12:103–105Google Scholar
  21. Peterson RA, Baldauf CG, Millward SF, Aquino J Jr, Delbrouck N (2000) Outpatient percutaneous transluminal renal artery angioplasty: a Canadian experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:327–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Redman HC (1987) Has the time come for outpatient peripheral angioplasty? Am J Roentgenol 148:1241–1242Google Scholar
  23. Singh H, Cardella JF, Cole PE et al (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for diagnostic arteriography. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S283–S288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Siskin GP, Stainken BF, Dowling K, Meo P, Ahn J, Dolen EG (2000) Outpatient uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids: experience in 49 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:305–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soulier-Parmeggiani L, Schneider PA, Bounameaux H (1992) Outpatient percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for peripheral arterial disease. Eur J Med 1:13–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. The British Society of Interventional Radiology (2008) Third BIAS report (2008). Dendrite Clinical Systems, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  27. The Royal College of Radiologists (2010) Standards for the intravascular contrast agent administration to adult patients, BFCR (10) 4, 2nd edn. The Royal College of Radiologists, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Young N, Chi KK, Ajaka J, McKay L, O’Neill D, Wong KP (2002) Complications with outpatient angiography and interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 25:123–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ounali S. Jaffer
    • 1
  • Dean Y. Huang
    • 1
  • Paul S. Sidhu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyKing’s College London, King’s College HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations