Clinical outcomes after bedside and interventional radiology paracentesis procedures

Jeffrey H. Barsuk*, Elaine R. Cohen, Joe Feinglass, William C. McGaghie, Diane B. Wayne

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Increasingly, paracentesis procedures are performed in interventional radiology (IR) rather than at the bedside. No guidelines exist to aid decision-making about the best location, and patient outcomes are unknown. Our aims were to develop a prediction model for which location (bedside vs IR) clinicians select for inpatient paracentesis procedures, and to compare clinical outcomes. Methods: We performed an observational medical records review of all paracentesis procedures performed on the hepatology service of an 894-bed urban tertiary care hospital from July 2008 through December 2011. We developed a prediction model to determine factors for IR referral. Clinical outcomes including blood product transfusions, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, hospital length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge were compared between patients who had bedside versus IR procedures. Results: Five hundred two patients who underwent a paracentesis were included in the analysis. Being female, higher body mass index, lower volume of ascites removed, and attending physician of record predicted the probability of IR referral. IR referrals were associated with 1.86 additional hospital days (P =.003). Platelet and fresh frozen plasma transfusions were more common in patients who underwent IR procedures (odds ratio [OR] 4.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-9.78 and OR 4.07; 95% CI, 2.03-8.18, respectively). Subsequent ICU transfers also were more common among patients who had IR procedures (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.13-4.31). All other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions: The decision to perform a paracentesis procedure at the bedside or in IR is largely discretionary. Paracentesis procedures performed at the bedside result in equal or better patient outcomes. Clinicians should receive the training needed to perform paracentesis procedures safely at the bedside. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and inform national practice patterns.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)349-356
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Medicine
Volume126
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2013

Fingerprint

Paracentesis
Interventional Radiology
Referral and Consultation
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Intensive Care Units
Inpatients
Length of Stay
Urban Hospitals
Gastroenterology
Tertiary Healthcare
Ascites
Tertiary Care Centers
Blood Transfusion
Medical Records
Hospital Emergency Service
Decision Making
Body Mass Index
Blood Platelets
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Clinical outcomes
  • Interventional radiology
  • Length of stay
  • Medical education
  • Paracentesis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{1cbf30f9b5584692b89dcd91e0d1a740,
title = "Clinical outcomes after bedside and interventional radiology paracentesis procedures",
abstract = "Background: Increasingly, paracentesis procedures are performed in interventional radiology (IR) rather than at the bedside. No guidelines exist to aid decision-making about the best location, and patient outcomes are unknown. Our aims were to develop a prediction model for which location (bedside vs IR) clinicians select for inpatient paracentesis procedures, and to compare clinical outcomes. Methods: We performed an observational medical records review of all paracentesis procedures performed on the hepatology service of an 894-bed urban tertiary care hospital from July 2008 through December 2011. We developed a prediction model to determine factors for IR referral. Clinical outcomes including blood product transfusions, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, hospital length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge were compared between patients who had bedside versus IR procedures. Results: Five hundred two patients who underwent a paracentesis were included in the analysis. Being female, higher body mass index, lower volume of ascites removed, and attending physician of record predicted the probability of IR referral. IR referrals were associated with 1.86 additional hospital days (P =.003). Platelet and fresh frozen plasma transfusions were more common in patients who underwent IR procedures (odds ratio [OR] 4.56; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 2.13-9.78 and OR 4.07; 95{\%} CI, 2.03-8.18, respectively). Subsequent ICU transfers also were more common among patients who had IR procedures (OR 2.21; 95{\%} CI, 1.13-4.31). All other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions: The decision to perform a paracentesis procedure at the bedside or in IR is largely discretionary. Paracentesis procedures performed at the bedside result in equal or better patient outcomes. Clinicians should receive the training needed to perform paracentesis procedures safely at the bedside. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and inform national practice patterns.",
keywords = "Clinical outcomes, Interventional radiology, Length of stay, Medical education, Paracentesis",
author = "Barsuk, {Jeffrey H.} and Cohen, {Elaine R.} and Joe Feinglass and McGaghie, {William C.} and Wayne, {Diane B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.09.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "349--356",
journal = "American Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0002-9343",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical outcomes after bedside and interventional radiology paracentesis procedures

AU - Barsuk, Jeffrey H.

AU - Cohen, Elaine R.

AU - Feinglass, Joe

AU - McGaghie, William C.

AU - Wayne, Diane B.

PY - 2013/4/1

Y1 - 2013/4/1

N2 - Background: Increasingly, paracentesis procedures are performed in interventional radiology (IR) rather than at the bedside. No guidelines exist to aid decision-making about the best location, and patient outcomes are unknown. Our aims were to develop a prediction model for which location (bedside vs IR) clinicians select for inpatient paracentesis procedures, and to compare clinical outcomes. Methods: We performed an observational medical records review of all paracentesis procedures performed on the hepatology service of an 894-bed urban tertiary care hospital from July 2008 through December 2011. We developed a prediction model to determine factors for IR referral. Clinical outcomes including blood product transfusions, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, hospital length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge were compared between patients who had bedside versus IR procedures. Results: Five hundred two patients who underwent a paracentesis were included in the analysis. Being female, higher body mass index, lower volume of ascites removed, and attending physician of record predicted the probability of IR referral. IR referrals were associated with 1.86 additional hospital days (P =.003). Platelet and fresh frozen plasma transfusions were more common in patients who underwent IR procedures (odds ratio [OR] 4.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-9.78 and OR 4.07; 95% CI, 2.03-8.18, respectively). Subsequent ICU transfers also were more common among patients who had IR procedures (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.13-4.31). All other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions: The decision to perform a paracentesis procedure at the bedside or in IR is largely discretionary. Paracentesis procedures performed at the bedside result in equal or better patient outcomes. Clinicians should receive the training needed to perform paracentesis procedures safely at the bedside. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and inform national practice patterns.

AB - Background: Increasingly, paracentesis procedures are performed in interventional radiology (IR) rather than at the bedside. No guidelines exist to aid decision-making about the best location, and patient outcomes are unknown. Our aims were to develop a prediction model for which location (bedside vs IR) clinicians select for inpatient paracentesis procedures, and to compare clinical outcomes. Methods: We performed an observational medical records review of all paracentesis procedures performed on the hepatology service of an 894-bed urban tertiary care hospital from July 2008 through December 2011. We developed a prediction model to determine factors for IR referral. Clinical outcomes including blood product transfusions, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, hospital length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge were compared between patients who had bedside versus IR procedures. Results: Five hundred two patients who underwent a paracentesis were included in the analysis. Being female, higher body mass index, lower volume of ascites removed, and attending physician of record predicted the probability of IR referral. IR referrals were associated with 1.86 additional hospital days (P =.003). Platelet and fresh frozen plasma transfusions were more common in patients who underwent IR procedures (odds ratio [OR] 4.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-9.78 and OR 4.07; 95% CI, 2.03-8.18, respectively). Subsequent ICU transfers also were more common among patients who had IR procedures (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.13-4.31). All other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions: The decision to perform a paracentesis procedure at the bedside or in IR is largely discretionary. Paracentesis procedures performed at the bedside result in equal or better patient outcomes. Clinicians should receive the training needed to perform paracentesis procedures safely at the bedside. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and inform national practice patterns.

KW - Clinical outcomes

KW - Interventional radiology

KW - Length of stay

KW - Medical education

KW - Paracentesis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875219237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875219237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.09.016

DO - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.09.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 23398950

AN - SCOPUS:84875219237

VL - 126

SP - 349

EP - 356

JO - American Journal of Medicine

JF - American Journal of Medicine

SN - 0002-9343

IS - 4

ER -