Multicenter Study on Physician-Modified Endografts for Thoracoabdominal and Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68-79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6-50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

Preoperative COVID-19 Vaccination is Associated with Decreased Perioperative Mortality after Major Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of corona virus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on perioperative outcomes after major vascular surgery. BACKGROUND DATA: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with decreased mortality in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. However, the effect of vaccination on perioperative mortality after major vascular surgery is unknown. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent major vascular surgery between December 2021 through August 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of index operation or prior to hospital discharge. Multivariable models were used to examine the association between vaccination status and the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 85,424 patients included, 19161 (22.4%) were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated patients were younger compared to vaccinated patients (mean age 68.44 +/- 10.37 y vs 72.11 +/- 9.20 y, P <0.001) and less likely to have comorbid conditions, including hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dialysis. After risk factor adjustment, vaccination was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.81, P <0.0001). Stratification by procedure type demonstrated that vaccinated patients had decreased odds of mortality after open AAA (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, P =0.03), EVAR (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.43-0.83, p 0.002), CAS (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P =0.004) and infra-inguinal lower extremity bypass (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P =0.03). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with reduced perioperative mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery. This association is most pronounced for patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair, carotid stenting and infrainguinal bypass.

The effect of Fiber Optic RealShape technology on the reduction of radiation during complex endovascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the advantages that fenestrated endovascular aortic repair has over open repair, it is accompanied by the consequence of radiation exposure, which can result in long-term complications for both the patient and surgical staff. Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology is a novel advancement that uses emitted light from a fiber optic wire and enables the surgeon to cannulate vessels in real time without live fluoroscopy. This technology has been implemented at select centers to study its effectiveness for cannulation of target vessels and its impact on procedural radiation. METHODS: We collected prospective data on physician-modified endograft (PMEG) cases before and after the introduction of FORS technology. FORS PMEGs were matched with up to three conventional fluoroscopy cases by number of target vessels, inclusion of a bifurcated device below, aneurysm extent, and patient body mass index. The procedural radiation parameters were compared between these cohorts. Within the FORS cohort, we analyzed the rate of successful target vessel cannulation for all cases done with this technology (including cases other than PMEGs), and we compared the radiation between the cannulations using only FORS with those that abandoned FORS for conventional fluoroscopy. RESULTS: Nineteen FORS PMEGs were able to be matched to 45 conventional fluoroscopy cases. Procedures that used FORS technology had significantly reduced total air kerma (527 mGy vs 964 mGy), dose area product (121 Gy∗cm2 vs 186 Gy∗cm2), fluoroscopy dose (72.1 Gy∗cm2 vs 132.5 Gy∗cm2), and fluoroscopy time (45 minutes vs 72 minutes). There was no difference in procedure length, total contrast, or digital subtraction angiography. Within FORS cases, 66% of cannulations were completed using only FORS. Cannulations using only FORS had significant reduction of navigation air kerma (5.0 mGy vs 26.5 mGy), dose area product (1.2 Gy∗cm2 vs 5.1 Gy∗cm2), and fluoroscopy time (0.6 minutes vs 2.3 minutes) compared with cannulations abandoning FORS for conventional fluoroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the advantages of FORS for total procedural radiation as well as during individual cannulation tasks. The implementation of FORS for target vessel catheterization has the potential to decrease the total degree of radiation exposure for the patient and surgical staff during complex endovascular aortic surgeries.

The effect of controlled vs uncontrolled hypertension on outcomes of carotid revascularization procedures.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) has been implicated as a strong predictive factor for poorer outcomes in patients undergoing various vascular procedures. However, limited research is available that examines the effect of uncontrolled HTN (uHTN) on outcomes after carotid revascularization. We aimed to determine which carotid revascularization procedure yields the best outcome in this patient population. METHODS: We studied patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) from April 2020 to June 2022 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with cHTN and those with uHTN. Patients with cHTN were those with HTN treated with medication and a blood pressure of <130/80 mm Hg. Patients with uHTN had a blood pressure of ≥130/80 mm Hg. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative hypotension or HTN, reperfusion syndrome, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>1 day), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI. We used logistic regression models for the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34,653 CEA (uHTN, 11,347 [32.7%]), 8199 TFCAS (uHTN, 2307 [28.1%]), and 17,309 TCAR (uHTN, 4990 [28.8%]) patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in age between patients with cHTN and patients with uHTN for each carotid revascularization procedure. However, compared with patients with cHTN, patients with uHTN had significantly more comorbidities. uHTN was associated with an increased risk of combined in-hospital stroke/death/MI after CEA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.87; P < .001), TFCAS (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; P < .001), and TCAR (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73; P = .003) compared with cHTN. Additionally, uHTN was associated with a prolonged LOS after all carotid revascularization methods. For the subanalysis of patients with uHTN, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.39-2.37; P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.25-6.19; P < .001), reperfusion syndrome (aOR, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.57-10.93; P < .001), and extended LOS (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.32; P < .001) compared with CEA. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of TCAR compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study show that patients with uHTN are at a higher risk of stroke and death postoperatively compared with patients with cHTN, highlighting the importance of treating HTN before undergoing elective carotid revascularization. Additionally, in patients with uHTN, TFCAS yields the worst outcomes, whereas CEA and TCAR proved to be safer interventions. Patients with uTHN with symptomatic carotid disease treated with CEA or TCAR have better outcomes compared with those treated with TFCAS.

Systemic immunosuppression does not affect revascularization outcomes in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) have additional comorbidities requiring systemic immunosuppression. Few studies have analyzed whether these medications may inhibit graft integration and effectiveness, or conversely, whether they may prevent inflammation and/or restenosis. Therefore, our study aim was to examine the effect of systemic immunosuppression vs no immunosuppression on outcomes after any first-time lower extremity revascularization for CLTI. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time infrainguinal bypass graft (BPG) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting (PTA/S) for CLTI at our institution between 2005 and 2014. Patients were stratified by procedure type and immunosuppression status, defined as ≥6 weeks of any systemic immunosuppression therapy ongoing at the time of intervention. Immunosuppression vs nonimmunosuppression were the primary comparison groups in our analyses. Primary outcomes included perioperative complications, reintervention, primary patency, and limb salvage, with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models used for univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1312 patients, 667 (51%) underwent BPG and 651 (49%) underwent PTA/S, of whom 65 (10%) and 95 (15%) were on systemic immunosuppression therapy, respectively. Whether assessing BPG or PTA/S patients, there were no differences noted in perioperative outcomes, including perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, hematoma, or surgical site infection (P > .05). For BPG patients, Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank testing demonstrated no significant difference in three-year reintervention (37% vs 33% [control]; P = .75), major amputation (27% vs 15%; P = .64), or primary patency (72% vs 66%; P = .35) rates. Multivariate analysis via Cox regression confirmed these findings (immunosuppression hazard ratio [HR] for reintervention, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.60; P = .85; for major amputation, HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.70-2.96; P = .32; and for primary patency. HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.38; P = .88). For PTA/S patients, univariate analysis revealed similar rates of reintervention (37% vs 39% [control]; P = .57) and primary patency (59% vs 63%; P = .21); however, immunosuppressed patients had higher rates of major amputation (23% vs 12%; P = .01). After using Cox regression to adjust for baseline demographics, as well as operative and anatomic characteristics, immunosuppression was not associated with any differences in reintervention (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.49-1.16; P = .20), major amputation (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.81-2.62; P = .20), or primary patency (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59-1.19; P = .32). Sensitivity analyses for the differences in makeup of immunosuppression regimens (steroids vs other classes) did not alter the interpretation of any findings in either BPG or PTA/S cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that patients with chronic systemic immunosuppression, as compared with those who are not immunosuppressed, does not have a significant effect on late outcomes after lower extremity revascularization, as measured by primary patency, reintervention, or major amputation.

Carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are considered a high-risk population, and the optimal approach to the treatment of carotid disease remains unclear. Thus, we compared outcomes following carotid revascularization for patients with CKD by operative approach of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was analyzed for patients undergoing carotid revascularizations (CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with normal renal function (estimated glomular filtration rate >90 mL/min/1.72 m2) were excluded. Asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis were assessed separately. Preoperative demographics, operative details, and outcomes of 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite variable of stroke/death were compared. Multivariable analysis adjusted for differences in groups, including CKD stage. RESULTS: A total of 90,343 patients with CKD underwent revascularization (CEA, n = 66,870; TCAR, n = 13,459; and TFCAS, n = 10,014; asymptomatic, 63%; symptomatic, 37%). Composite 30-day mortality/stroke rates were: asymptomatic: CEA, 1.4%; TCAR, 1.2%; TFCAS, 1.8%; and symptomatic: CEA, 2.7%; TCAR, 2.3%; TFCAS, 3.7%. In adjusted analysis, TCAR had lower 30-day mortality compared with CEA (asymptomatic: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7; symptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), and no difference in stroke, MI, or the composite outcome of stroke/death in both symptom cohorts. TCAR had lower risk of other cardiac complications compared with CEA in asymptomatic patients (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) and had similar risk in symptomatic patients. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR patients had lower 30-day mortality (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.95; symptomatic: aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4), stroke (symptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97), and stroke/death (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97; symptomatic: aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), but no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. Patients treated with TFCAS had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and stroke risk (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.7) in symptomatic patients compared with CEA. There were no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD, TCAR and CEA showed rates of stroke/death less than 2% for asymptomatic patients and less than 3% for symptomatic patients. Given the increased risk of major morbidity and mortality, TFCAS should not be performed in patients with CKD who are otherwise anatomic candidates for TCAR or CEA.

Earned outcomes correlate with reliability-adjusted surgical mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and predict future performance.

OBJECTIVE: Cumulative, probability-based metrics are regularly used to measure quality in professional sports, but these methods have not been applied to health care delivery. These techniques have the potential to be particularly useful in describing surgical quality, where case volume is variable and outcomes tend to be dominated by statistical "noise." The established statistical technique used to adjust for differences in case volume is reliability-adjustment, which emphasizes statistical "signal" but has several limitations. We sought to validate a novel measure of surgical quality based on earned outcomes methods (deaths above average [DAA]) against reliability-adjusted mortality rates, using abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes to illustrate the measure's performance. METHODS: Earned outcomes methods were used to calculate the outcome of interest for each patient: DAA. Hospital-level DAA was calculated for non-ruptured open AAA repair and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2016 to 2019. DAA for each center is the sum of observed - predicted risk of death for each patient; predicted risk of death was calculated using established multivariable logistic regression modeling. Correlations of DAA with reliability-adjusted mortality rates and procedure volume were determined. Because an accurate quality metric should correlate with future results, outcomes from 2016 to 2017 were used to categorize hospital quality based on: (1) risk-adjusted mortality; (2) risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality; and (3) DAA. The best performing quality metric was determined by comparing the ability of these categories to predict 2018 to 2019 risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 3734 patients underwent open repair (106 hospitals), and 20,680 patients underwent EVAR (183 hospitals). DAA was closely correlated with reliability-adjusted mortality rates for open repair (r = 0.94; P < .001) and EVAR (r = 0.99; P < .001). DAA also correlated with hospital case volume for open repair (r = -.54; P < .001), but not EVAR (r = 0.07; P = .3). In 2016 to 2017, most hospitals had 0% mortality (55% open repair, 57% EVAR), making it impossible to evaluate these hospitals using traditional risk-adjusted mortality rates alone. Further, zero mortality hospitals in 2016 to 2017 did not demonstrate improved outcomes in 2018 to 2019 for open repair (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .5) or EVAR (0.8% vs 1.0%; P = .2) compared with all other hospitals. In contrast to traditional risk-adjustment, 2016 to 2017 DAA evenly divided centers into quality quartiles that predicted 2018 to 2019 performance with increased mortality rate associated with each decrement in quality quartile (Q1, 3.2%; Q2, 4.0%; Q3, 5.1%; Q4, 6.0%). There was a significantly higher risk of mortality at worst quartile open repair hospitals compared with best quartile hospitals (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.76; P = .03). Using 2016 to 2019 DAA to define quality, highest quality quartile open repair hospitals had lower median DAA compared with lowest quality quartile hospitals (-1.18 DAA vs +1.32 DAA; P < .001), correlating with lower median reliability-adjusted mortality rates (3.6% vs 5.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for differences in hospital volume is essential when measuring hospital-level outcomes. Earned outcomes accurately categorize hospital quality and correlate with reliability-adjustment but are easier to calculate and interpret. From 2016 to 2019, highest quality open AAA repair hospitals prevented >40 perioperative deaths compared with the average hospital, and >80 perioperative deaths compared with lowest quality hospitals.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Association of stroke or death with severity of carotid lesion calcification in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for heavily calcified lesions is controversial due to concern for stent failure and increased perioperative stroke risk. However, the degree to which calcification affects outcomes is poorly understood, particularly in transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). With the precipitous increase in TCAR use and its expansion to standard surgical-risk patients, we aimed to determine the impact of lesion calcification on CAS outcomes to ensure its safe and appropriate use. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent first-time transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and TCAR between 2016 and 2021. Patients were stratified into groups based on degree of lesion calcification: no calcification, 1% to 50% calcification, 51% to 99% calcification, and 100% circumferential calcification or intraluminal protrusion. Outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year composite stroke/death, as well as individual stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between degree of calcification and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 21,860 patients undergoing CAS, 28% patients had no calcification, 34% had 1% to 50% calcification, 35% had 51% to 99% calcification, and 3% had 100% circumferential calcification/protrusion. Patients with 51% to 99% and circumferential calcification/protrusion had higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.6; P = .034; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .004, respectively) compared with those with no calcification. Circumferential calcification was also associated with increased risk for in-hospital myocardial infarction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .003). In tfCAS patients, only circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher in-hospital stroke/death odds (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P = .013), whereas for TCAR patients, 51% to 99% calcification was associated with increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .025). At 1 year, circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher odds of ipsilateral stroke/death (12.4% vs 6.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CAS, there is an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death for lesions with >50% calcification or circumferential/protruding plaques. Increasing severity of carotid lesion calcification is a significant risk factor for stroke/death in patients undergoing CAS, regardless of approach.

Presentation and patterns of reinterventions after revascularization in patients with premature peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: Premature peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (age ≤50 years) has been shown to negatively impact the outcomes of lower extremity revascularization (LER). Patients with premature PAD have an increased risk of major amputation compared with older patients. The primary goal of this study is to compare the frequency of reinterventions after LER in patients with premature PAD to their older counterparts with common age of presentation (ie, 60-80 years). METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing LER for PAD in a single center was performed. Clinical, procedural, and socioeconomic characteristics were compared between patients with premature PAD and the older group. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were captured and compared including mortality, major amputation, reintervention rate and frequency, as well as major adverse limb events. RESULTS: There were 1274 patients who underwent LER (4.3% premature, 61.8% age 60-80). Patients with premature PAD were more likely to be females of racial minorities. Notably, the mean Distressed Communities Index score was significantly higher in the premature PAD group compared with the older patients. Patients with premature PAD were significantly more likely to have end-stage renal disease but less likely to have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease compared with older patients. There was no significant difference in perioperative complications. After a mean follow-up of 5 years, patients with premature PAD were significantly more likely to undergo more frequent reinterventions compared with older patients. Kaplan-Meier curves showed similar overall survival and major adverse limb event-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with premature PAD are likely to undergo more frequent reinterventions after initial LER and have similar 5-year survival curves compared with patients at least 20 years older. Demographic and socioeconomic differences impacting patients with premature PAD, even in this relatively underpowered institutional experience, are striking and warrant further investigation.

A national census for the off-label treatment of complex aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Despite regulatory challenges, device availability, and rapidly expanding techniques, off-label endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (cAAs) has expanded in the past decade. Given the lack of United States Food and Drug Administration-approved endovascular technology to treat cAAs, we performed a national census to better understand volume and current practice patterns in the United States. METHODS: Targeted sampling identified vascular surgeons with experience in off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. An electronic survey was distributed with institutional review board approval from the University of Rochester to 261 individuals with a response rate of 38% (n = 98). RESULTS: A total of 93 respondents (95%) reported off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. Mean age was 45.7 ± 8.3 years, and 84% were male. Most respondents (59%) were within the first 10 years of practice, and 69% trained at institutions with a high-volume of off-label endovascular procedures for complex aortic aneurysms with or without a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (PS-IDE). Twelve respondents from 11 institutions reported institutional PS-IDEs for physician-modified endografts (PMEGs), in-situ laser fenestration (ISLF), or parallel grafting technique (PGT), including sites with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. Eighty-nine unique institutions reported elective off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 20.2 ± 16.5 cases/year and ∼1757 total cases/year nationally. Eighty reported urgent/emergent off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 5.7 ± 5.4 cases/year and ∼499 total cases/year nationally. There was no correlation between high-volume endovascular institutions (>15 cases/year) and institutions with high volumes of open surgical repair for cAAs (>15 cases/year; odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.5; P = .34). Elective techniques included PMEG (70%), ISLF (30%), hybrid PMEG/ISLF (18%), and PGT (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 63% of respondents. Techniques for emergent endovascular treatment of complex aortic disease included PMEG (52%), ISLF (40%), PGT (20%), and hybrid-PMEG/ISLF (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 41% of respondents. Thirty-nine percent of respondents always or frequently offer referrals to institutions with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. The most common barrier for referral to PS-IDE centers included geographic distance (48%), longitudinal relationship with patient (45%), and costs associated with travel (33%). Only 61% of respondents participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative for complex endovascular aneurysm repair, and only 57% maintain a prospective institutional database. Eighty-six percent reported interest in a national collaborative database for off-label endovascular repair of cAA. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of off-label endovascular repair of cAAs are likely underrepresented in the literature based on this national census. PMEG was the most common technique for elective and emergent procedures. Under-reported off-label endovascular repair of cAA outcomes data appears to be limited by non-standardized PS-IDE reporting to the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the lack of Vascular Quality Initiative participation and prospective institutional data collection. Most participants are interested in a national collaborative database for endovascular repair of cAAs.

Learning curve of transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. Because approximately 30% of perioperative strokes/deaths post-CAS occur after discharge, appropriate thresholds for in-hospital event rates have been suggested to be <4% for symptomatic and <2% for asymptomatic patients. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data. METHODS: We identified VQI patients who underwent tfCAS between 2005 and 2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day mortality, in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (stroke/TIA), and access site complications. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines. Our results were then validated using a generalized estimating equations model to account for the variability between physicians. RESULTS: We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2%-1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8%-1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6%-2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0%-1.1%), and access site complications (4.1%-1.1%) as physician experience increased (all P values < .05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1%-1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6%-1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7%-0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8%-1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all P values <.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates after tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. Nevertheless, a substantially high rate of in-hospital stroke/death was found in physicians' first 25 procedures. With the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased postoperative complications.

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs. METHODS: We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs. RESULTS: We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is. METHODS: We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends. RESULTS: A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

One-year aneurysm-sac dynamics are associated with reinterventions and rupture following infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: One-year aneurysm sac changes have previously been found to be associated with mortality and may have the potential to guide personalized follow-up following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In this study, we examined the association of these early sac changes with long-term reintervention and rupture. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We included patients with an imaging study at 1 year postoperatively. Aneurysm sac behavior was defined as per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines: stable sac (<5 mm change), sac regression (≥5 mm), and sac expansion (≥5 mm). Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and rupture within 8 years, which were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondarily, we utilized polynomial spline interpolation to demonstrate the continuous relationship of diameter change to 8-year hazard of reintervention, rupture, or mortality as a composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 31,185 EVAR patients, 16,102 (52%) had an imaging study at 1 year and were included in this study. At 1 year, 44% of sacs remained stable, 49% regressed, and 6.2% displayed expansion. Following risk adjustment, compared with a stable sac at 1 year, sac regression was associated with lower 8-year mortality (49% vs 53%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99; P = .036), reintervention rate (8.9% vs 15%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68; P < .001), and rupture rate (2.0% vs 4.0%; HR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.29-0.69; P < .001). Conversely, compared with a stable sac, sac expansion was associated with higher 8-year mortality (64% vs 53%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51; P < .001) and reintervention rate (27% vs 15%; HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.57-2.51; P < .001), but similar risk of rupture (7.2% vs 4.0%; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.88-2.96; P = .12). Polynomial spline interpolation demonstrated that, compared with no diameter change at 1 year, increased sac regression was associated with an incrementally lower risk of late outcomes, whereas increased sac expansion was associated with an incrementally higher risk of late outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following EVAR, compared with a stable sac at 1-year imaging, sac regression and expansion are associated with a lower and higher risk respectively of long-term mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures. Moreover, the amount of regression or expansion seems to be incrementally associated with these late outcomes, too. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve 1-year sac regression, and whether it is safe to extend follow-up intervals for patients with regressing sacs.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

The rise of endovascular repair for abdominal, thoracoabdominal, and thoracic aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Given changes in intervention guidelines and the growing popularity of endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms, we examined the trends in admissions and repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs), and thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs). METHODS: We identified all patients admitted with ruptured aortic aneurysms and intact aortic aneurysms repaired in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2019. We then examined the use of open, endovascular, and complex endovascular repair (OAR, EVAR, and cEVAR) for each aortic aneurysm location (AAA, TAAA, and TAA), alongside their resulting in-hospital mortality, over time. cEVAR included branched, fenestrated, and physician-modified endografts. RESULTS: 715,570 patients were identified with AAA (87% intact repairs and 13% rupture admissions). Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions decreased significantly between 2004 and 2019 (intact 41,060-34,215, P < .01; ruptured 7175-4625, P = .02). Of all AAA repairs performed in a given year, the use of EVAR increased (2004-2019: intact 45%-66%, P < .01; ruptured 10%-55%, P < .01) as well as cEVAR (2010-2019: intact 0%-23%, P < .01; ruptured 0%-14%, P < .01). Mortality after EVAR of intact AAAs decreased significantly by 29% (2004-2019, 0.73%-0.52%, P < .01), whereas mortality after OAR increased significantly by 16% (2004-2019, 4.4%-5.1%, P < .01). In the study, 27,443 patients were identified with TAAA (80% intact and 20% ruptured). In the same period, intact TAAA repairs trended upward (2004-2019, 1435-1640, P = .055), and cEVAR became the most common approach (2004-2019, 3.8%-72%, P = .055). A total of 141,651 patients were identified with ascending, arch, or descending TAAs (90% intact and 10% ruptured). Intact TAA repairs increased significantly (2004-2019, 4380-10,855, P < .01). From 2017 to 2019, the mortality after OAR of descending TAAs increased and mortality after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair decreased (2017-2019, OAR 1.6%-3.1%; thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair 5.2%-3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions significantly decreased between 2004 and 2019. The use of endovascular techniques for the repair of all aortic aneurysm locations, both intact and ruptured, increased over the past two decades. Most recently in 2019, 89% of intact AAA repairs, infrarenal through suprarenal, were endovascular (EVAR or cEVAR, respectively). cEVAR alone increased to 23% of intact AAA repairs in 2019, from 0% a decade earlier. In this period of innovation, with many new options to repair aortic aneurysms while maintaining arterial branches, endovascular repair is now used for the majority of all intact aortic aneurysm repairs. Long-term data are needed to evaluate the durability of these procedures.