A patient-centered textbook outcome measure effectively discriminates contemporary elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair quality.

BACKGROUND: 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 reintervention/reoperation, length of stay of ≤10 days, home discharge, and 1-year survival rates. 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 9657 OARs across 198 centers were analyzed (mean age, 69.5 ± 8.4 years; female, 26%; non-White, 12%). A TO was identified in 44% (n = 4293) of the overall cohort. The incidence of individual TO components included no in-hospital complication (61%), no in-hospital reintervention or reoperation (92%), length of stay of ≤10 days (78%), home discharge (76%), and 1-year survival (91%). Median annual center volume was 6 (interquartile range, 3-10) and a majority of centers did not meet the SVS volume suggested threshold (<10 OARs/year, n = 148 [74%]). However, most patients (6265 of 9657 [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 (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.26; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TOs 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. Although the likelihood of a TO seems 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A dedicated risk prediction model of 1-year mortality following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair involving the renal-mesenteric arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment goals of prophylactic endovascular aortic repair of complex aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries (complex endovascular aortic repair [cEVAR]) include achieving both technical success and long-term survival benefit. Mortality within the first year after cEVAR likely indicates treatment failure owing to associated costs and procedural complexity. Notably, no validated clinical decision aid tools exist that reliably predict mortality after cEVAR. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a preoperative prediction model of 1-year mortality after elective cEVAR. METHODS: All elective cEVARs including fenestrated, branched, and/or chimney procedures for aortic disease extent confined proximally to Ishimaru landing zones 6 to 9 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative were identified (January 2012 to August 2023). Patients (n = 4053) were randomly divided into training (n = 3039) and validation (n = 1014) datasets. A logistic regression model for 1-year mortality was created and internally validated by bootstrapping the AUC and calibration intercept and slope, and by using the model to predict 1-year mortality in the validation dataset. Independent predictors were assigned an integer score, based on model beta-coefficients, to generate a simplified scoring system to categorize patient risk. RESULTS: The overall crude 1-year mortality rate after elective cEVAR was 11.3% (n = 456/4053). Independent preoperative predictors of 1-year mortality included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal insufficiency (creatinine >1.8 mg/dL or dialysis dependence), hemoglobin <12 g/dL, decreasing body mass index, congestive heart failure, increasing age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥IV, current tobacco use, history of peripheral vascular intervention, and increasing extent of aortic disease. The 1-year mortality rate varied from 4% among the 23% of patients classified as low risk to 23% for the 24% classified as high risk. Performance of the model in validation was comparable with performance in the training data. The internally validated scoring system classified patients roughly into quartiles of risk (low, low/medium, medium/high and high), with 52% of patients categorized as medium/high to high risk, which had corresponding 1-year mortality rates of 11% and 23%, respectively. Aneurysm diameter was below Society for Vascular Surgery recommended treatment thresholds (<5.0 cm in females, <5.5 cm in males) in 17% of patients (n = 679/3961), 41% of whom were categorized as medium/high or high risk. This subgroup had significantly increased in-hospital complication rates (18% vs 12%; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (13% vs 5%; P < .0001) compared with patients in the low- or low/medium-risk groups with guideline-compliant aneurysm diameters (≥5.0 cm in females, ≥5.5 cm in males). CONCLUSIONS: This validated preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality after cEVAR incorporates physiological, functional, and anatomical variables. This novel and simplified scoring system can effectively discriminate mortality risk and, when applied prospectively, may facilitate improved preoperative decision-making, complex aneurysm care delivery, and resource allocation.

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.

Modern management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) remain one of the most clinically challenging and technically complex emergencies in contemporary vascular surgery practice. Over the past 30 years, a variety of changes surrounding the treatment of rAAA have evolved including improvements in diagnosis, development of coordinated referral networks to transfer patients more efficiently to higher volume centers, deliberate de-escalation of pre-hospital resuscitation, modification of patient and procedure selection, implementation of clinical pathways, as well as enhanced awareness of certain high-impact postoperative complications. Despite these advances, current postoperative outcomes remain sobering since morbidity and mortality rates ranging from 25%-50% persist among modern published series. Some of the most impactful variation in rAAA management has been fostered by the rapid proliferation of endovascular repair (EVAR) along with service alignment at selected centers to improve timely revascularization. Indeed, clinical care pathways and emergency response networks are now increasingly utilized which has led to improved outcomes contemporaneously. Moreover, evolution in pre- and post-operative physiologic resuscitation has also contributed to observed improvements in rAAA outcomes. Due to different developments in care provision over time, the purpose of this review is to describe the modern management of rAAA, while providing historical perspectives on patient, procedure and systems-based practice elements that have evolved care delivery paradigms in this complex group of patients.

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.

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.

The role of big data, risk prediction, simulation, and centralization for emergency vascular problems: Lessons learned and future directions.

Vascular specialists remain in high demand in current practice and commonly oversee care delivery for a variety of clinical emergencies. Accordingly, the contemporary vascular surgeon must be facile with treating a spectrum of problems, including a complex, heterogeneous group of acute arteriovenous thromboembolic and bleeding diatheses. It has been documented previously that there are substantial current workforce limitations placing constraints on vascular surgical care provision. Moreover, with the aging at-risk population, there remains a considerable national urgency to improve timely diagnoses, specialty consultation, and appropriate transfer of patients to centers of excellence capable of providing a comprehensive compendium of emergency vascular services. Clinical decision aids, simulation training, and regionalization of nonelective vascular problems are all strategies that have been increasingly recognized to address these service gaps. Notably, clinical research in vascular surgery has traditionally focused on identification of patient- and procedure-related factors that influence outcomes by using resource-intensive causal inference methodology. By comparison, large data sets have only more recently been recognized to be a valuable tool that can provide heuristic algorithms to address more complex health care problems. Such data can be manipulated to generate clinical risk scores and decision aids, as well as robust outcome descriptions, which stand to inform stakeholders regarding best practice. The purpose of this review was to provide a robust overview of the lessons derived from the application of big data, risk prediction, and simulation in the management of vascular emergencies.

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.

Incidence, reintervention, and survival associated with type II endoleak at hospital discharge after elective endovascular aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The longitudinal clinical significance of type II endoleaks (T2ELs) remains controversial. Specifically, the real-world incidence, need for reintervention, and associated mortality referable to T2ELs remain unknown. Moreover, current professional society clinical practice guidelines recommend differing aneurysm sac growth thresholds to prompt intervention. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to better quantify the prevalence of early T2ELs after infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and determine its association with reintervention and survival. METHODS: All elective EVARs from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2020) were examined to identify patients with isolated T2ELs vs no endoleak (NONE) at discharge. Procedures with a type I or III endoleak were excluded. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients surviving beyond the first postoperative year with follow-up data available on endoleaks. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included perioperative mortality and reinterventions. Outcomes were assessed by multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for covariates. RESULTS: We identified 53,697 patients who underwent EVAR. The overall incidence of isolated T2ELs at discharge was 16%. In-hospital mortality was lower for those with isolated T2ELs vs NONE (0.8% vs 1.9%, odds ratio: 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-0.8, P < .0001). Unadjusted overall survival was marginally higher at 5 years for patients with T2ELs vs NONE (84% vs 82%); however, after risk adjustment, survival was similar (hazard ratio: 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.9-1.0). Among 44,345 patients with 1-year follow-up, 66% had data on endoleak status for assessment. Survival was similar regardless of endoleak status (NONE, at discharge only, at follow-up only, or at both time points). Among patients with documented T2ELs during follow-up, 6.1% and 2.5% had abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameter growth ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. Reinterventions occurred in 12%. Rupture (1%) and any open reintervention (4%) were rare among patients with 1-year follow-up. For patients with T2ELs, 5-year survival was similar between those with and without reintervention by 1 year (89% vs 91%, log-rank P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: T2ELs remain common after EVAR within the Vascular Quality Initiative and are not associated with long-term mortality. Reinterventions for T2ELs were not associated with improved overall survival among patients with T2ELs. Although additional data surrounding the appropriate role of reintervention for T2ELs remain necessary, it appears that the natural history of T2ELs is benign.

Market competition influences practice patterns in management of patients with intermittent claudication in the vascular quality initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines recommend best medical therapy (BMT) as first-line therapy before offering revascularization to patients with intermittent claudication (IC). Notably, atherectomy and tibial-level interventions are generally discouraged for management of IC; however, high regional market competition may incentivize physicians to treat patients outside the scope of guideline-directed therapy. Therefore, we sought to determine the association between regional market competition and endovascular treatment of patients with IC. METHODS: We examined patients with IC undergoing index endovascular peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2022. We assigned the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index as a measure of regional market competition and stratified centers into very high competition (VHC), high competition, moderate competition, and low competition cohorts. We defined BMT as preoperative documentation of being on antiplatelet medication, statin, nonsmoking status, and a recorded ankle-brachial index. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of market competition with patient and procedural characteristics. A sensitivity analysis was performed in patients with isolated femoropopliteal disease matched by the TransAtlantic InterSociety classification of disease severity. RESULTS: There were 24,669 PVIs that met the inclusion criteria. Patients with IC undergoing PVI were more likely to be on BMT when treated in higher market competition centers (odds ratio [OR], 1.07 per increase in competition quartile; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.11; P < .0001). The probability of undergoing aortoiliac interventions decreased with increasing competition (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .0001), but there were higher odds of receiving tibial (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.30-1.50; P < .0001) and multilevel interventions in VHC vs low competition centers (femoral + tibial OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .001). Stenting decreased as competition increased (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.92; P < .0001), whereas exposure to atherectomy increased with higher market competition (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.19; P < .0001). When assessing patients undergoing single-artery femoropopliteal intervention for TransAtlantic InterSociety A or B lesions to account for disease severity, the odds of undergoing either balloon angioplasty (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.625-0.840; P < .0001) or stenting only (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.727-0.966; P < .0001) were lower in VHC centers. Similarly, the likelihood of receiving atherectomy remained significantly higher in VHC centers (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.36-1.84; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: High market competition was associated with more procedures among patients with claudication that are not consistent with guideline-directed therapy per the SVS clinical practice guidelines, including atherectomy and tibial-level interventions. This analysis demonstrates the susceptibility of care delivery to regional market competition and signifies a novel and undefined driver of PVI variation among patients with claudication.

The Association Between Body Mass Index and Death Following Elective Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of body mass index (BMI) on post-operative outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains poorly defined. The association between BMI and death following elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open aneurysm repair (OAR) of AAA in a large national quality registry is investigated. METHODS: All elective AAA repairs within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI; 2010 to September 2021) were reviewed (EVAR, n = 53 426; OAR, n = 9 479). All analyses were conducted separately for EVAR and OAR patients. The primary end points were 30 day mortality and five year survival rates. Study cohorts were divided into World Health Organisation BMI categories (C1 < 18.5, C2 18.5 ≤ BMI < 25, C3 25 ≤ BMI < 30, C4, 30 ≤ BMI < 35, C5 35 ≤ BMI < 40, C6 ≥ 40). BMI was examined as both a categorical and continuous variable. Logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for risk adjustment. RESULTS: Among EVAR patients, BMI distribution was C1, 1 216 (2%); C2, 14 687 (28%); C3, 20 516 (38%); C4, 11 352 (21%); C5, 3 947 (7%); C6, 1 708 (3%). Class 1, 2, and 6 BMI patients experienced an increased 30 day mortality rate (C1 2.6%; C2 1.3%; C6 1.4% vs. C3 - 5 0.7%; p < .001) and C1 and C2 had correspondingly inferior long term survival (five years: C1 69 ± 3%; C2 79 ± 1% vs. C3 - 6 86 - 88 ± 2%; log rank p < .001). These survival disparities persisted after risk adjustment for multiple confounders. In the OAR cohort, BMI distribution was C1, 280 (3%); C2, 2 862 (30%); C3, 3 587 (38%); C4, 1 940 (21%); C5, 581 (6%); C6, 229 (2%). Crude 30 day mortality rates were increased for both the lowest and highest BMI patients (C1 12%, C6 7% vs. C2 - 5 3 - 4%; p < .001); these differences also persisted in long term survival (five years: C1 71 ± 6%, C6 82 ± 6% vs. C2 - 6 85 - 88 ± 3%; log rank p < .001). In risk adjusted analysis, both low and high BMI OAR patients had an increased 30 day and long term mortality rate. CONCLUSION: Within the VQI, both the extreme low (< 18.5) and high (≥ 40) BMI groups experienced an increased 30 day mortality rate after both elective EVAR and OAR. By comparison, while the lowest BMI cohort was significantly associated with decreased long term survival after both procedures, the highest BMI group only experienced reduced long term survival after OAR. Based upon this large real world registry analysis of elective AAA repairs, differential metabolic signatures exist within extreme BMI categories, which may inform peri-operative risk stratification and clinical decision making.