A Contemporary Evaluation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services High-risk Indicators for Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Compare stroke/death outcomes across carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) high-risk criterion. BACKGROUND: Existing literature has revealed inconsistencies with CMS risk guidelines. With recent approval for TCAR and TFCAS in standard-risk patients, an updated analysis of guidelines is needed. METHODS: Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) (2016-2023) on CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR patients were used. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital stroke/death rates across procedures for high-risk criteria: contralateral occlusion (CLO), prior CEA, CAS, radiation, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD (on home O 2 ), unstable angina, recent MI (<6 mo), and age (≥75 years-old). RESULTS: A total of 199,050 patients were analyzed, of whom 122,737 (62%) patients underwent CEA, 50,095 (25%) TCAR, and 26,218 (13%) TFCAS. TCAR had lower odds of stroke/death compared with CEA in patients with CLO [aOR=0.73 (95% CI: 0.55-0.98], P =0.035] and radiation [aOR=0.44 (95% CI: 0.23-0.82), P =0.010]. Contrary to CMS criteria, CEA patients did not have higher stroke/death in patients with prior CEA, CAS, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD, unstable angina, recent MI, or age (≥75) compared with TCAR and TFCAS. CONCLUSIONS: While CMS high-risk criteria have traditionally been recognized as contraindications for CEA, our study reveals inconsistencies-with CEA performing similarly to TCAR and significantly better than TFCAS in patients with prior CEA, moderate to severe CHF, recent MI, or age (≥75). As a result, the definition of high-risk criteria may warrant reconsideration.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers are Associated with Improved Amputation Free Survival in Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, investigators found that ramipril was associated with improved survival as well as decreased MI and stroke rates in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Nonetheless, their effect on chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI)-specific outcomes is unclear. We aim to assess the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on amputation-free survival in CLTI patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in a Medicare-linked database. METHODS: Patients undergoing PVI in the VQI-VISION database were included. Primary outcome included amputation-free survival. Kaplan Meier survival and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to assess one-year outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 34,284 patients were included, and 46.3% of whom were discharged on ACEIs/ARBs. Patients discharged on ACEIs/ARBs were more likely to be smokers, diabetics, and hypertensive. They were also more likely to present with rest pain. The overall one-year survival for patients on ACEIs/ARBs vs those who are not was (79.1% vs 69.4%, P<0.001). Freedom from amputation was 87.8% for patients on ACEIs/ARBs vs 84.2% for those who were not (P<0.001). Amputation-free survival was 70.5% vs 59.5% for ACEIs/ARBs vs no ACEIs/ARBs (P<0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, ACEIs/ARBs use was associated with lower one-year mortality (HR: 0.77, 95%CI (0.7-0.8), P<0.001), amputation (HR: 0.89, 95%CI (0.8-0.9), P<0.001), and amputation or death (HR: 0.79, 95%CI (0.76-0.8), P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ACEIs/ARBs were independently associated with lower amputation, improved survival, and amputation-free survival at one year in CLTI patients undergoing PVI. The fact that more than half the patients were not discharged on these medications presents an area for potential quality improvement.

Postoperative outcomes in patients with anemia undergoing carotid revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anemia is associated with worse postoperative morbidity and mortality after major vascular procedures. Limited research has examined the optimal method of carotid revascularization in patients with anemia. Therefore, we aim to compare the postoperative outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among patients with anemia. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of patients with anemia undergoing CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2016 and 2023. We defined anemia as a preoperative hemoglobin level of <13 g/dL in men and <12 g/dL in women. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Logistic regression models were used for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Our study included 40,383 CEA (59.3%), 9159 TFCAS (13.5%), and 18,555 TCAR (27.3%) cases in patients with anemia. TCAR patients were older and had more medical comorbidities than CEA and TFCAS patients. TCAR was associated with a decreased 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.59; P < .001), in-hospital MACE (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.75; P < .001) compared with TFCAS. Additionally, TCAR was associated with a 20% decrease in the risk of 30-day mortality (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98; P = .03) and a similar risk of in-hospital MACE (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .07) compared with CEA. Furthermore, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (aOR, 2; 95% CI, 1.5-2.68; P < .001) and in-hospital MACE (aOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2; P < .001) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional national retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, TFCAS was associated with a high risk of 30-day mortality and in-hospital MACE compared with CEA and TCAR in patients with anemia. TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with CEA. These findings suggest TCAR as the optimal minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in patients with anemia.

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.

Factors Associated with Nonhome Discharge After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify preoperative factors associated with non-home discharge (NHD) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). NHD has implications for patient care, readmission, and long-term mortality; nevertheless, existing literature lacks information regarding factors associated with NHD for patients undergoing EVAR. In contrast, our study assesses preoperative factors associated with NHD for this population by utilizing national data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: We identified adult patients who underwent elective EVAR in the VQI (2003-2022) and excluded those who were not living at home preoperatively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify preoperative factors associated with NHD. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox-regression analyses were used to assess the impact of NHD on 5-year survival as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: 61,792 patients were included, of which 3,155 (5.1%) had NHD. NHD patients were more likely to be older (79 [73-18] years vs. 73[67-79] years), female (33.7% vs. 18.2%; P<.001), non-white (16.0% vs. 11.7%; P<.001) and have more comorbidities. NHD patients had higher rates of postoperative complications (acute kidney injury: 11.9% vs. 2.0%; P<.001, myocardial infarction: 3.8% vs. 0.5%; P<.001, and in-hospital reintervention: 4.7% vs. 0.5%; P=.033). Multivariable analysis revealed many preoperative characteristics were associated with higher odds of NHD: most notably, age (per additional decade: OR=2.15, 95% CI:2.03-2.28; P<.001), female sex (OR=1.79, 95% CI:1.63-1.95; P<.001) and aneurysm diameter >65mm (OR=2.18, 95% CI:1.98-2.39; P<.001), along with potentially modifiable factors including: anemia, COPD, CHF, weight, and diabetes. In contrast, aspirin, statin, and ACE-inhibitor/ARB usage were associated with lower odds of NHD. NHD was associated with higher hazards of 5-year mortality, even after adjusting for confounders (40% vs. 14%, aHR=2.13, 95% CI:1.86-2.44; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors were associated with higher odds of NHD following elective EVAR, including non-modifiable factors such as female sex and larger aortic diameter, and potentially modifiable factors such as anemia, COPD, CHF, BMI, and diabetes. Special attention should be given to populations with non-modifiable factors, and efforts at optimizing medical conditions with higher NHD likelihood seems appropriate to improve patient outcomes and quality of life after EVAR.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Outcomes of Thoracic and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients with Renal Insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and complex endovascular aneurysm repair (cEVAR) are effective and minimally invasive treatment options for preventing rupture and decreasing mortality of aortic aneurysms. Patients with renal insufficiency are prone to worse postoperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality due to the atherosclerosis burden as well as increased levels of angiotensin II. Nonetheless, knowledge about the outcomes of aortic stent graft therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis is scarce. This study aimed to examine outcomes after TEVAR and cEVAR in patients on CKD and dialysis. METHODS: Utilizing data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent TEVAR or cEVRA from 2010 to 2018. Patients were divided into patients with no CKD or dialysis, CKD patients, and dialysis patients. Outcomes were in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, aneurysmal rupture, and reintervention. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis and 1-year outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier Survival and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 4,867 patients were included in the study, 2,694 had no CKD or dialysis, 2,047 had CKD, and 126 were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were significantly younger, and more likely to be non-White and of Hispanic/Latino origin. They were also more likely to have medical comorbidities. CKD patients had higher odds of in-hospital MI (odds ratio [OR]: 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.43-2.86), P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (OR: 1.56, 95% CI (1.18-2.07), P < 0.001) compared to patients with no CKD or dialysis. Dialysis patients had higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR: 3.31, 95% CI (1.73-6.35), P < 0.001). At 1 year, dialysis was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.48, 95% CI (2.39-5.07), P < 0.001) and reintervention (HR: 1.72, 95% CI (1.001-2.94), P < 0.049). CKD was associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR: 1.45, 95% CI (1.21-1.75), P < 0.001) compared to patients with no CKD or dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TEVAR or cEVAR, there was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital stroke, SCI, and 1-year aneurysmal rupture among dialysis and CKD patients compared to patients with no CKD or dialysis. However, CKD patients had twice the risk of in-hospital MI. Dialysis patients had a higher risk of 1-year reintervention. Both dialysis and CKD patients had a higher risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality.

Long-Term Patency Between Brachiocephalic and Brachiobasilic Fistulas: A Single Institution Review.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis access is a fundamental procedure performed by vascular surgeons. Commonly, upper extremity access is utilized via a brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) or brachiocephalic fistula (BCF). BCF is preferred due to ease compared to BBF without documented improved function. Few studies compare patency outcomes between BBF and BCF over time. Our goal was to evaluate the difference in outcomes between BBF and BCF. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients with BCF or BBF between 2019 and 2022. Patients were split by procedure: BCF and BBF. Data collected included demographics, vein size, tunneled catheter, and previous access. Primary outcomes included primary patency (PP), primary assisted patency (PAP) and secondary patency (SP). Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, access abandonment, interventions and mortality. Linear regression, Kaplan-Meier, and log-rank test were performed. RESULTS: Our study had 184 patients, 109 (59%) with BCF and 75 (41%) with BBF. There were no differences in demographics except for body mass index and vein size (BBF: 4 vs. BCF: 3.6 mm, P = 0.020). There was no difference in PP at 1 year (41% vs. 47%, P = 0.547) or SP at 2 years (73% vs. 84%, P = 0.058) in BBF versus BCF. However, PAP was significantly greater in BCF (80% vs. 67%, P = 0.030) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes revealed no difference in wound complications (1% vs. 0%, P = 0.408), access abandonment (35% vs. 28%, P = 0.260), or number of interventions (1 vs. 1, P = 0.712) in BBF versus BCF. Mortality was significantly greater in the BBF patients (19% vs. 6%, P = 0.005). On adjusted analysis, BBF had 43 min longer operative time (P < 0.001) and 22 cc greater blood loss (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center review comparing BBF and BCF, no difference was seen between BBF and BCF in terms of PP or SP. Even with larger vein size, BBF did not confer a benefit in long term patency or access abandonment. Additionally, BBF did not confer decreased procedures to maintain patency and BBF had greater operative length and blood loss, as well as mortality. We believe this study demonstrates that for patients who must use an upper extremity location, when the cephalic vein is satisfactory, using the cephalic vein is preferred as it does not negatively impact long-term patency.

Maximizing Patient Satisfaction in Facial Feminizing Rhinoplasty.

Background: Although facial feminizing rhinoplasty can reduce gender dysphoria, there is limited evidence on approaches to maximize transgender patient satisfaction. In a retrospective cohort of transfeminine patients who underwent feminizing rhinoplasty, we compare pre- and postoperative nasal metrics and postoperative satisfaction. Methods: Records were retrospectively reviewed to identify transfeminine patients who had feminizing rhinoplasty and cisgender females who had aesthetic rhinoplasty at least 8 weeks post-rhinoplasty. Transgender patients were contacted to rate their aesthetic and functional rhinoplasty satisfaction. Patients with 75% or greater of the total survey score were "very satisfied," those between 50% and 75% were "satisfied," and those below 50% were "less satisfied." The Vectra 3D imaging software was utilized to measure each patient's pre- and post-rhinoplasty dorsal lengths; tip projection ratios; and nasolabial, nasofrontal, and nasofacial angles. Relative percent changes for each patient between pre- and post-rhinoplasty measurements were compared between transgender and cisgender females using descriptive statistics. Results: Twenty-five transgender patients met the inclusion criteria; 19 answered the survey with 12 very satisfied, 7 satisfied, and 0 less satisfied patients. The median age of surveyed patients was 35, and 42.1% identified as Hispanic. Between very satisfied and satisfied patients, median relative percent changes in dorsal length (-1.2% vs 5.7%, P = .043), tip projection ratio (2.4% vs 8.1%, P = .038), and nasolabial angle (-2.5% vs 9.7%, P = .026) significantly differed; median relative changes in nasofrontal angles (4.2% vs -0.6%, P = .071) and nasofacial angles (-0.7% vs -3.6%, P = .703) were insignificantly different. Satisfied transgender patients and cisgender patients (n = 5) had significant differences in median relative changes in dorsal length (5.7% vs 0.7%, P = .047), tip projection ratio (8.1% vs -3.5%, P = .033), and nasolabial angles (9.7% vs -5.4%, P = .042). Very satisfied transgender and cisgender females had no significant differences in relative metric changes. Conclusions: Very satisfied transgender patients had decreases in dorsal length, smaller increases in tip projection ratio, and decreases in the nasolabial angle compared with satisfied patients. These data can help focus feminizing rhinoplasty approaches to maximize satisfaction. Further, very satisfied transgender patients had similar changes as cisgender females, reaffirming the utility of applying cisgender female rhinoplasty considerations to feminizing rhinoplasty.