AJPM Focus (Sep 2022)

Peripheral Artery Disease Screening in the Community and 1-Year Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, and Adverse Limb Events

  • Kim G. Smolderen, PhD,
  • Omid Ameli, MD, DrPH,
  • Christine E. Chaisson, MPH,
  • Kevin Heath, MD, MHL,
  • Carlos Mena-Hurtado, MD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 1, no. 1
p. 100016

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: This study aimed to examine all-cause mortality, 1- and 2-year major cardiovascular events, and major adverse limb events in individuals aged ≥65 years who received an in-home health visit with peripheral artery disease screening. In addition, we compared 1-year healthcare utilization before and after peripheral artery disease screening for those who screened positive. Setting/Participants: Medicare Advantage beneficiaries aged ≥65 years participating in the Optum HouseCalls program in the U.S. between April 1, 2017 and February 1, 2019 were included. Intervention: The intervention consisted of a peripheral artery disease screening program using a plethysmography system. Main outcome measures: One-year all-cause mortality as a landmark analysis, 1- and 2-year major cardiovascular events, and major adverse limb events after screening were compared by peripheral artery disease screen status using claims data. We compared cardiovascular medications and revascularization procedures between the year before and after the peripheral artery disease screening event for those with peripheral artery disease. Results: Of 192,500 beneficiaries, 27.7% screened positive. One-year all-cause mortality rates for those who screened positive for peripheral artery disease versus those who screened negative were higher (1.51% vs 0.89%; p<0.001; adjusted hazard ratio=1.21; 95% CI=1.08, 1.36) as well as 1-year major cardiovascular events (5.54% vs 3.60%; adjusted hazard ratio= 1.22; 95% CI=1.15, 1.30) and major adverse limb events (0.23% vs 0.04%; adjusted hazard ratio=3.15; 95% CI=2.10, 4.73). Similar risks were observed for 2-year results. Before and after peripheral artery disease screening, medications remained stable for those who screened positive (e.g., statin therapy=54.2% vs 56.6%); rates of peripheral vascular interventions remained stable (0.0% vs 0.1%). Conclusions: A national peripheral artery disease screening effort is feasible. Detecting previously undiagnosed peripheral artery disease is a way to risk stratify a population that would benefit from further cardiovascular risk management.

Keywords