Cost-utility Analysis of the Outpatient Versus Conventional Hospitalization in Treatment of Occlusive Arterial Disease

Cost-utility Analysis of the Outpatient Hospitalization Versus Conventional Hospitalization in Endovascular Treatment of Occlusive Arterial Disease

The purpose of this study is to assess the efficiency of outpatient surgery compared to conventional hospitalization in endovascular treatment of occlusive arterial disease. A cost-utility analysis will be conducted from a societal perspective. Patients referred for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) will be randomized in two arms and a 3 months follow-up will be performed.

Rationale for ambulatory hospitalization is based on increased demand of hospital care, hospital budgets constraints and patients who ask for a prompt recovery. Consequently, physicians should find ways to optimize the resources' allocation, without compromising quality, safety and efficiency of patient care. Several studies and routine practice have shown that ambulatory hospitalization was safe but we are still lacking evidence to demonstrate the cost-utility of this kind of management.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients limping
• Patients with PAD requiring endovascular management
• Patients with stabilized level 1 to 3 ASA (classification of the American Society of Anesthesiology)
• Ability to walking
• Endovascular indicated and compatible with an introducer 5F to 7F
• Agreeing to participate in the study and having signed an informed consent.
• Agreeing to lend itself to a post-operative monitoring a duration of 30 days
• Social Insured

Exclusion Criteria:

• No possibility of an outpatient management
• Previous participation in the AMBUVASC study
• Refusal of patient to participate in the study
• Patient with hemostasis disorders
• Acute Ischemia
• Using a more 7F introducer
• Radial or brachial puncture
• Antegrade femoral puncture
• Contraindication to endovascular treatment
• Less than one month life expectancy
• Participation in another clinical trial