A Patient-Centered Textbook Outcome Measure Effectively Discriminates Contemporary Elective Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Quality.

INTRODUCTION: There is persistent controversy surrounding the merit of surgical volume benchmarks being used solely as a sufficient proxy for assessing the quality of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Importantly, operative volume quotas may fail to reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive depiction of surgical outcomes most relevant to patients. Accordingly, we herein propose a patient-centered "textbook outcome" (TO) for AAA repair that is analogous to other large magnitude extirpative operations performed in other surgical specialties, and test its feasibility to discriminate hospital performance using Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) volume guidelines. METHODS: All elective open infrarenal AAA repairs (OAR) in the SVS-Vascular Quality Initiative were examined (2009-2022). The primary end-point was a TO, defined as a composite of no in-hospital complication or re-intervention/re-operation, length of stay ≤ 10-days, home discharge and 1-year survival. The discriminatory ability of the TO measure was assessed by comparing centers that did or did not meet the SVS annual OAR volume threshold recommendation (high-volume ≥ 10 OARs/year; low-volume <10 OARs/year). Logistic regression and multivariable models adjusted for patient and procedure-related differences. RESULTS: A total of 9,657 OARs across 198 centers were analyzed (mean age-69.5±8.4, female-26%, non-white-12%). A TO was identified in 44% (N = 4,293) of the overall cohort. The incidence of individual TO components included: no in-hospital complication (61%), no in-hospital re-intervention/re-operation (92%), LOS ≤ 10-days (78%), home discharge (76%), and 1-year survival (91%). Median annual center volume was 6 [IQR 3, 10] and a majority of centers did not meet the SVS volume suggested threshold (<10 OARs/year: N = 148 [74%]). However, most patients (N = 6,265 of 9,657 [65%]) underwent OAR in high-volume hospitals. When comparing high and low-volume centers, a TO was more likely to occur in high-volume institutions: ≥10 OARs/year, 46% vs. <10 OARs/year, 42%; P=.0006. The association of a protective effect for higher center volume remained after risk adjustment: OR 1.1, 95%CI 1.05-1.26; P=.003. CONCLUSIONS: Textbook outcomes for elective OAR reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive patient centered proxy to measure care delivery consistent with other surgical specialties. Surprisingly, a TO was achieved in < 50% of elective AAA cases nationally. Though the likelihood of a TO appears to correlate with SVS center volume recommendations, it more importantly reflects elements which may be prioritized by patients and thus offers insights into further improving real-world AAA care.

Infrapopliteal Endovascular Interventions for Claudication Are Associated with Poor Long-Term Outcomes in Medicare-Matched Registry Patients.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data supporting or opposing the use of infrapopliteal peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) for the treatment of claudication. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the association of infrapopliteal PVI with long-term outcomes compared with isolated femoropopliteal PVI for the treatment of claudication. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients in the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication from January 2004-December 2019 using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 14,261 patients (39.9% female; 85.6% age ≥65 years, 87.7% non-Hispanic white) who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication, 16.6% (N=2,369) received an infrapopliteal PVI. The median follow-up after index PVI was 3.7 years (IQR 2.1-6.1). Compared to patients who underwent isolated femoropopliteal PVI, patients receiving any infrapopliteal PVI had a higher 3-year cumulative incidence of conversion to CLTI (33.3% vs. 23.8%; P<0.001); repeat PVI (41.0% vs. 38.2%; P<0.01); and amputation (8.1% vs. 2.8%; P<0.001). After risk-adjustment, patients undergoing infrapopliteal PVI had a higher risk of conversion to CLTI (aHR 1.39, 95% CI, 1.25-1.53); repeat PVI (aHR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.01-1.19); and amputation (aHR 2.18, 95% CI, 1.77-2.67). Findings were consistent after adjusting for competing risk of death; in a 1:1 propensity-matched analysis; and in subgroup analyses stratified by TASC disease, diabetes, and end-stage kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Infrapopliteal PVI is associated with worse long-term outcomes than femoropopliteal PVI for claudication. These risks should be discussed with patients.

The Sustained Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vascular Surgical Care Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated postponement of vascular surgery procedures nationally. Whether procedure volumes have since recovered remains undefined. Therefore, our objective was to quantify changes in procedure volumes and determine whether surgical volume has returned to its pre-pandemic baseline. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study between 2018 and 2023 utilizing the US Fee-for-Service Medicare 5% National Sample as part of the VA Disrupted Care National Project. We studied patients who underwent one of three procedures: abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair for intact aneurysms, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and major lower extremity amputation (LEA). The case volume of each quarter of 2020-2023 was compared to its corresponding pre-pandemic quarter in 2019. We then performed a sub-analysis of these trends by sex, age, and race. RESULTS: We identified 21,031 procedures: 4,411 AAA repair, 8,361 CEA, and 8,259 LEA. The average percent change during the baseline pre-pandemic period from 2018 to 2019 was -4.3% for AAA repair, -8.5% for CEA, and -2.6% for LEA. Compared to Q2 of 2019, Q2 of 2020 demonstrated that AAA repair procedures decreased by 47%, CEA by 40%, and LEA by 14%. While procedures initially rebounded in Q3 of 2020, volumes did not return to their pre-pandemic baseline, demonstrating a persistent volume reduction (-16% AAA, -22% CEA, and -11% LEA). Thereafter, procedure counts again declined in Q1 of 2022 (-25% AAA, -34% CEA, and -25% LEA). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a perception that vascular surgical care was singularly disrupted at the outset of the pandemic, there has been a sustained reduction in vascular surgical volume since 2019. Not only have procedure volumes not returned to pre-pandemic baseline, but it also appears that there has been a cumulative incremental impact on overall procedure volume. The impact of these findings on long term population health remain uncertain and necessitate a better understanding of post-pandemic care delivery.

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has had a dynamic impact on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) care, often supplanting open AAA repair (OAR). Accordingly, US AAA management is often highlighted by disparities in patient selection and guideline compliance. The purpose of this analysis was to define secular trends in AAA care. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all EVARs and OARs (2011-2021). End points included procedure utilization, change in mortality, patient risk profile, Society for Vascular Surgery-endorsed diameter compliance, off-label EVAR use, cross-clamp location, blood loss, in-hospital complications, and post-EVAR surveillance missingness. Linear regression was used without risk adjustment for all end points except for mortality and complications, for which logistic regression with risk adjustment was used. RESULTS: In all, 66 609 EVARs (elective, 85% [n=55 805] and nonelective, 15% [n=9976]) and 13 818 OARs (elective, 70% [n=9706] and nonelective, 30% [n=4081]) were analyzed. Elective EVAR:OAR ratios were increased (0.2 per year [95% CI, 0.01-0.32]), while nonelective ratios were unchanged. Elective diameter threshold noncompliance decreased for OAR (24%→17%; P=0.01) but not EVAR (mean, 37%). Low-risk patients increasingly underwent elective repairs (EVAR, +0.4%per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]; OAR, +0.6 points per year [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Off-label EVAR frequency was unchanged (mean, 39%) but intraoperative complications decreased (0.5% per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). OAR complexity increased reflecting greater suprarenal cross-clamp rates (0.4% per year [95% CI, 0.1-0.8]) and blood loss (33 mL/y [95% CI, 19-47]). In-hospital complications decreased for elective (0.7% per year [95% CI, 0.4-0.9]) and nonelective EVAR (1.7% per year [95% CI, 1.1-2.3]) but not OAR (mean, 42%). A 30-day mortality was unchanged for both elective OAR (mean, 4%) and EVAR (mean, 1%). Among nonelective OARs, an increase in both 30-day (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.1-1.5]) and 1-year mortality (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.3-1.6]) was observed. Postoperative EVAR surveillance acquisition decreased (67%→49%), while 1-year mortality among patients without imaging was 4-fold greater (9.2% versus imaging, 2.0%; odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 3.8-4.3]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in EVAR and a corresponding reduction in OAR across the United States, despite established concerns surrounding guideline adherence, reintervention, follow-up, and cost. Although EVAR morbidity has declined, OAR complication rates remain unchanged and unexpectedly high. Opportunities remain for improving AAA care delivery, patient and procedure selection, guideline compliance, and surveillance.

Most preoperative stress tests fail to comply with practice guideline indications and do not reduce cardiac events.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in stress test utilization before major vascular surgery and adherence to practice guidelines is unclear. We defined rates of stress test compliance at our institution and led a quality improvement initiative to improve compliance with American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. METHODS: We implemented a stress testing order set in the electronic medical record at one tertiary hospital. We reviewed all patients who underwent elective, major vascular surgery in the 6 months before (Jan 1, 2022 - Jul 1, 2022) and 6 months after (Aug 1, 2022 - Jan 31, 2023) implementation. We studied stress test guideline compliance, changes in medical or surgical management, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Before order set implementation, 37/122 patients (30%) underwent stress testing within the past year (29 specifically ordered preoperatively) with 66% (19/29) guideline compliance. After order set implementation, 50/173 patients (29%) underwent stress testing within the past year (41 specifically ordered preoperatively) with 80% (33/41) guideline compliance. In the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, stress testing led to a cardiovascular medication change or preoperative coronary revascularization in 24% (7/29) and 27% (11/41) of patients, and a staged surgery or less invasive anesthetic strategy in 14% (4/29) and 4.9% (2/41) of patients, respectively. All unindicated stress tests were surgeon-ordered and none led to a change in management. There was no change in MACE after order set implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic medical record-based guidance of perioperative stress testing led to a slight decrease in overall stress testing and an increase in guideline-compliant testing. Our study highlights a need for improved preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment prior to major vascular surgery, which may eliminate unnecessary testing and more effectively guide perioperative decision-making.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion in Medicare beneficiaries with peripheral artery disease.

Background: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion (ME) increased Medicaid eligibility for adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty level. In this study, we examined the impact of ME on mortality and amputation in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: The 100% MedPAR and Part-B Carrier files from 2011 to 2018 were queried to identify all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with PAD using International Classification of Diseases codes. Our primary exposure was whether a state had adopted the ME on January 1, 2014. Our primary outcomes were the change in all-cause 1-year mortality and leg amputation. We used a state-level difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to compare the rates of the primary outcomes among patients who were in states (including the District of Columbia) who adopted ME (n = 25) versus those who were in states that did not (n = 26). We performed a subanalysis stratifying by sex, race, region, and dual-eligibility status. Results: Over the 8-year period, we studied 37,743,929 patients. The average unadjusted 1-year mortality decreased from 2011 to 2018 in both non-ME (9.5% to 8.7%, p < 0.001) and ME (9.1% to 8.3%, p < 0.001) states. The average unadjusted 1-year amputation rate did not improve in either the non-ME (0.86% to 0.87%, p = 0.17) or ME (0.69% to 0.69%, p = 0.65) states. Across the entire cohort, the DID model revealed that ME did not lead to a significant change in mortality (p = 0.15) or amputation (p = 0.34). Conclusion: Medicaid Expansion was not associated with reduced mortality or leg amputation in Medicare beneficiaries with PAD.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Changes in global mortality from aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Globally, there has been a marked increase in aortic aneurysm-related deaths between 1990 and 2019. We sought to understand the underlying etiologies for this mortality trend by examining secular changes in both demographics and the prevalence of risk factors, and how these changes may vary across sociodemographic index (SDI) regions. METHODS: We queried the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) for aortic aneurysm deaths from 1990 to 2019 overall and by age group. We identified the percentage of aortic aneurysm deaths attributable to each risk factor identified by GBD modeling (smoking, hypertension, lead exposure, and high sodium diet) and their respective changes over time. We then analyzed aneurysm mortality by SDI region. RESULTS: The number of aortic aneurysm-related deaths have increased from 94,968 in 1990 to 172,427 in 2019, signifying an 81.6% increase, which greatly exceeds the 18.2% increase in all-cause mortality observed over the same time interval. Examination of age-specific mortality demonstrated that the number of aortic aneurysm deaths markedly correlated with advancing age. However, when considering rate of death rather than mortality count, overall age-standardized death rates decreased 18% from 2.72 per 100,000 in 1990 to 2.21 per 100,000 in 2019. Analysis of the specific risk factors associated with aneurysm death revealed that the percentage of deaths attributable to smoking decreased from 45.6% in 1990 to 34.6% in 2019, and deaths attributable to hypertension decreased from 38.7% to 34.7%. Globally, hypertension surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor. The reported rate of death was consistently greater as SDI increased, and this effect was most pronounced among low-middle and middle SDI regions (173.2% and 170.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an overall increase in the number of aneurysm deaths, there was a decrease in the age-standardized death rate, demonstrating that the observed increased number of aortic aneurysm deaths between 1990 and 2019 was primarily driven by an overall increase in the age of the global population. Fortunately, it appears that the increase in overall aneurysm-related deaths has been modulated by improved risk factor modification, in particular smoking. Given the rise in aneurysm-related deaths, global expansion of vascular specialty capabilities is warranted and will serve to amplify improvements in population-based aneurysm health achieved with risk factor control.

Size thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms warrant reconsideration.

BACKGROUND: The historical size threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is widely accepted to be 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, contemporary AAA rupture risks may be lower than historical benchmarks, which has implications for when AAAs should be repaired. Our objective was to use contemporary AAA rupture rates to inform optimal size thresholds for AAA repair. METHODS: We used a Markov chain analysis to estimate life expectancy for patients with AAA. The primary outcome was AAA-related mortality. We estimated survival using Social Security Administration life tables and published contemporary AAA rupture estimates. For those undergoing repair, we modified survival estimates using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative and Medicare on complications, late rupture, and open conversion. We used this model to estimate the AAA repair size threshold that minimizes AAA-related mortality for 60-year-old average-health men and women. We performed a sensitivity analysis of poor-health patients and 70- and 80-year-old base cases. RESULTS: The annual risk of all-cause mortality under surveillance for a 60-year-old woman presenting with a 5.0 cm AAA using repair thresholds of 5.5 cm, 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, and 7.0 cm was 1.7%, 2.3%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding risk for a man was 2.3%, 2.9%, 3.3%, and 3.4% for the same repair thresholds, respectively. For a 60-year-old average-health woman, an AAA repair size of 6.1 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 5.7 cm to 7.1 cm. For a 60-year-old average-health man, an AAA repair size of 6.9 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 6.0 cm to 7.4 cm. Women in poor health, at various age strata, had optimal AAA repair size thresholds that were >6.5 cm, whereas men in poor health, at all ages, had optimal repair size thresholds that were >8.0 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal threshold for AAA repair is more nuanced than a discrete size. Specifically, there appears to be a range of AAA sizes for which repair is reasonable to minmized AAA-related mortality. Notably, they all are greater than current guideline recommendations. These findings would suggest that contemporary AAA size thresholds for repair should be reconsidered.

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease. RESULTS: Four publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

Excess mortality in US Veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e. excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths) and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively. RESULTS: Of 5 905 747 patients, the median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103 164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasizing the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

Adoption and Diffusion of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in Contemporary Practice.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the FDA approved transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) for high-risk patients with carotid stenosis. This was granted in the absence of level 1 evidence to support TCAR. We aimed to document trends in TCAR utilization, its diffusion over time, and the clinical phenotypes of patients undergoing TCAR, CEA, and TF-CAS. METHODS: We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent TCAR. We calculated the number of TCARs performed and the percent of TCAR utilization versus CEA/TF-CAS. Using data from before TCAR was widespread, we calculated propensity scores for patients to receive CEA. We applied this model to patients undergoing carotid revascularization from 2016 to 2022 and grouped patients by the procedure they ultimately underwent, examining overlap in score distribution to measure patient similarity. We measured the trend of in-hospital stroke/death after TCAR. RESULTS: We studied 31 447 patients who underwent TCAR from January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2022. The number of centers performing TCAR increased from 29 to 606. In 2021, TCAR represented 22.5% of carotid revascularizations at centers offering all 3 procedures. The percentage of patients that underwent TCAR who met approved high-risk criteria decreased from 88.5% to 80.9% (P<0.001). Those with a prior ipsilateral carotid procedure decreased from 20.6% in 2016 to 12.0% in 2021 (P<0.001). Patients undergoing TCAR after stroke increased from 19.7% to 30.7% (P<0.001). Propensity-score overlap was 55.4% for TCAR/CEA, and 58.6% for TCAR/TF-CAS, demonstrating that TCAR patients have a clinical phenotype mixed between those who undergo CEA and TF-CAS. The average in-hospital stroke/death risk after TCAR was 2.3% in 2016 and 1.7% in 2022 (P trend: 0.954). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR now represents nearly 1-in-4 procedures at centers offering it. TCAR was increasingly performed among standard-risk patients and as a first-line procedural option after stroke. The absence of level 1 evidence underscores the importance of high-quality registry-based analyses to document TCAR's real-world outcomes and durability.

Readmission After Lower Extremity Bypass Following Discharge to a Rehabilitation or Nursing Facility.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital readmission after lower extremity arterial bypass (LEB) is common. Patients are often discharged to a facility after LEB as a bridge to home. Our objective was to define the association between discharge to a facility and readmission after LEB. METHODS: We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent LEB from 2017 to 2022. The primary exposure was discharge location. The primary outcome was 30-d hospital readmission. RESULTS: We included 6076 patients across 147 centers. The overall 30-d readmission rate was 18%. Readmission occurred among 15% of patients discharged home, 22% of patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility, and 25% of patients discharged to a nursing home. After controlling for patient and procedural factors, there was no significant association between discharge location and 30-d readmission (rehabilitation versus home odds ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.29; nursing facility versus home odds ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.47). Female sex, end-stage renal disease, diabetes, heart failure, pulmonary disease, smoking, preoperative functional impairment, tibial bypass target, critical limb threatening or acute ischemia, and postoperative complications including surgical site infection, change in renal function and graft thrombosis were associated with an increased likelihood of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged home after LEB experienced a similar likelihood of readmission as those discharged to a facility. While discharge to a facility may aid in care transitions, it did not appear to lead to reduced 30-d readmissions. The recommended discharge location should be predicated on patient care needs and not as a perceived mechanism to reduce readmissions.

Sex differences in outcomes among adults undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Although the differences in short-term outcomes between male and female patients in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have been well studied, it remains unclear if these sex disparities extend to other long-term adverse outcomes after AAA repair, such as reintervention and late rupture. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 13,007 patients who underwent either endovascular (EVAR) or open AAA repair (OAR) between 2003 and 2015 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative registries. Eligible patients were linked to fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify late outcomes of rupture and aneurysm-specific reintervention. RESULTS: The mean age of our cohort was 76 ± 6.7 years, 22% were female, 94% were White, and 77% underwent EVAR. The 10-year rupture incidence was slightly higher for women at 4.8 per 1000 person-years, vs 3.9 for men, but this difference was not statistically significant after risk adjustment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.73). Likewise, we found no sex difference in reintervention rates (5.1 vs 4.8 in women per 1000 person-years) even after risk adjustment (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.09). Regression models suggest effect modification by repair type for reintervention, where women who underwent index EVAR had a higher risk of reintervention than men (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.93-1.26), whereas women who underwent OAR were at a lower risk of reintervention than men (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.58-1.08); however, neither effect reached statistical significance within each subgroup. In addition, we found that the risk of reintervention for women vs men varied by clinical presentation, where women were less likely to undergo reintervention after an elective or symptomatic AAA repair but were more likely to undergo reintervention after a repair for AAA rupture (HR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.05-2.75). CONCLUSIONS: Male and female patients who underwent AAA repair had similar rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture in the 10 years after their procedure. However, our findings suggest that repair type and clinical presentation may affect the role of sex in clinical outcomes and warrant further exploration in these subgroups.

The financial burden associated with endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms using physician-modified fenestrated-branched endografts.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Endovascular thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysm repair is more complex and requires more devices than infrarenal aneurysm repair. It is unclear if current reimbursement covers the cost of delivering this more advanced form of vascular care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics of fenestrated-branched (FB-EVAR) physician-modified endograft (PMEG) repairs. METHODS: We obtained technical and professional cost and revenue data for four consecutive fiscal years (July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2021) at our quaternary referral institution. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent PMEG FB-EVAR in a uniform fashion by a single surgeon for thoracoabdominal/pararenal aortic aneurysms. Patients in industry-sponsored clinical trials or receiving Cook Zenith Fenestrated grafts were excluded. Financial data were analyzed for the index operation. Technical costs were divided into direct costs that included devices and billable supplies and indirect costs including overhead. RESULTS: 62 patients (79% male, mean age: 74 years, 66% thoracoabdominal aneurysms) met inclusion criteria. The mean aneurysm size was 6.0 cm, the mean total operating time was 219 minutes, and the median hospital length of stay was 2 days. PMEGs were created with a mean number of 3.7 fenestrations, using a mean of 8.6 implantable devices per case. The average technical cost per case was $71,198, and the average technical reimbursement was $57,642, providing a net negative technical margin of $13,556 per case. Of this cohort, 31 patients (50%) were insured by Medicare remunerated under diagnosis-related group code 268/269. Their respective average technical reimbursement was $41,293, with a mean negative margin of $22,989 per case, with similar findings for professional costs. The primary driver of technical cost was implantable devices, accounting for 77% of total technical cost per case over the study period. The total operating margin, including technical and professional cost and revenue, for the cohort during the study period was negative $1,560,422. CONCLUSIONS: PMEG FB-EVAR for pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms produces a substantially negative operating margin for the index operation driven largely by device costs. Device cost alone already exceeds total technical revenue and presents an opportunity for cost reduction. In addition, increased reimbursement for FB-EVAR, especially among Medicare beneficiaries, will be important to facilitate patient access to such innovative technology.

Increased Preoperative Stress Test Utilization is Not Associated With Reduced Adverse Cardiac Events in Current US Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency of preoperative stress testing and its association with perioperative cardiac events. BACKGROUND: There is persistent variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States. It remains unclear whether more testing is associated with reduced perioperative cardiac events. METHODS: We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base to study patients who underwent 1 of 8 elective major surgical procedures (general, vascular, or oncologic) from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles by frequency of stress test use. We computed a modified revised cardiac risk index (mRCRI) score for included patients. Outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), and cost, which we compared across quintiles of stress test use. RESULTS: We identified 185,612 patients from 133 centers. The mean age was 61.7 (±14.2) years, 47.5% were female, and 79.4% were White. Stress testing was performed in 9.2% of patients undergoing surgery, and varied from 1.7% at lowest quintile centers, to 22.5% at highest quintile centers, despite similar mRCRI comorbidity scores (mRCRI>1: 15.0% vs 15.8%; P =0.068). In-hospital MACE was less frequent among lowest versus highest quintile centers (8.2% vs 9.4%; P <0.001) despite a 13-fold difference in stress test use. Event rates were similar for MI (0.5% vs 0.5%; P =0.737). Mean added cost for stress testing per 1000 patients who underwent surgery was $26,996 at lowest quintile centers versus $357,300 at highest quintile centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States despite similar patient risk profiles. Increased testing was not associated with reduced perioperative MACE or MI. These data suggest that more selective stress testing may be an opportunity for cost savings through a reduction of unnecessary tests.

Absolute and relative excess mortality across demographic and clinical subgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study from a nationwide healthcare system of US Veterans.

Background: Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality. Methods: We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e., excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths), and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall, and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively. Results: Of 5,905,747 patients, median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103,164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46). Conclusions: Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasising the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

Excess Mortality Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health System Compared With the Overall US Population During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a substantial increase in the rate of death in the United States. It is unclear whether those who had access to comprehensive medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system had different death rates compared with the overall US population. Objective: To quantify and compare the increase in death rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic between individuals who received comprehensive medical care through the VA health care system and those in the general US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared 10.9 million enrollees in the VA, including 6.8 million active users of VA health care (those with a visit in the last 2 years), with the general population of the US, with deaths occurring from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. Statistical analysis was conducted from May 17, 2021, to March 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in rates of death from any cause during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with previous years. Changes in all-cause death rates by quarter were stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and region, based on individual-level data. Multilevel regression models were fit in a bayesian setting. Standardized rates were used for comparison between populations. Results: There were 10.9 million enrollees in the VA health care system and 6.8 million active users. The demographic characteristics of the VA populations were predominantly male (>85% in the VA health care system vs 49% in the general US population), older (mean [SD], 61.0 [18.2] years in the VA health care system vs 39.0 [23.1] years in the US population), and had a larger proportion of patients who were White (73% in the VA health care system vs 61% in the US population) or Black (17% in the VA health care system vs 13% in the US population). Increases in death rates were apparent across all of the adult age groups (≥25 years) in both the VA populations and the general US population. Across all of 2020, the relative increase in death rates compared with expected values was similar for VA enrollees (risk ratio [RR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.29]), VA active users (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), and the general US population (RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.17-1.22]). Because the prepandemic standardized mortality rates were higher in the VA populations prior to the pandemic, the absolute rates of excess mortality were higher in the VA populations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a comparison of excess deaths between populations suggests that active users of the VA health system had similar relative increases in mortality compared with the general US population during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.