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.

A registry-based study of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis of the femoral-popliteal artery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of a prospective, single-arm, registry-based study assessing the safety and performance of a paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) or popliteal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) in a United States population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, multi-center, single-arm, post-market registry of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB for the treatment of ISR lesions in the SFA or popliteal artery at 43 sites within the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Registry from December 2016 to January 2020. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included technical success, target vessel revascularization, major limb amputation, and all-cause mortality. Results are presented as survival probabilities based on Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS: Patients (N = 300) were 58% male, with a mean age of 68 ± 10 years. Diabetes was present in 56%, 80% presented with claudication, and 20% with rest pain. Lesions included ISR of the SFA in 68%, SFA-popliteal in 26%, and popliteal arteries in 7%. The mean lesion length was 17.8 ± 11.8 cm. Lesions were categorized as occlusions in 43% (mean occluded length, 16 ± 10 cm). TASC type was A (17%), B (29%), C (38%), and D (15%). Technical success was 99%. Re-stenting was performed in 5% and thrombolysis in 0.6% of patients. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from target lesion revascularization were 90%, 72%, and 62% at 12, 24, and 36 months. Freedom from target vessel revascularization was 88%, 68%, and 59% and freedom from major target limb amputation was 99.6%, 98.9%, and 98.9%, respectively, at 12, 24, and 36 months. Survival was 95%, 89%, and 85% at 12, 24, and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: This post-market registry-based study shows promising results in treating femoral-popliteal ISR with paclitaxel DCB in comparison to the results of plain balloon angioplasty reported in the literature. These results demonstrate the ability of the SVS VQI to conduct post-market evaluation of peripheral devices in partnership with industry and federal regulators.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

Impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair timing on outcomes after uncomplicated type B aortic dissection in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative postapproval project for dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) after the onset of uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) postapproval study (VQI PAS) data for the impact of TEVAR timing for uTBAD on early and late outcomes, including mortality, procedural complications, and long-term reintervention. METHODS: The VQI PAS used for this analysis includes a total of 606 patients. Patients with uTBAD (defined as those without rupture or malperfusion) exclusive of cases categorized as emergent (N = 206) were divided into groups defined by the Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons reporting guidelines based on the timing of treatment after the onset of dissection: within 24 hours (N = 8), 1 to 14 days (N = 121), and 15 to 90 days (N = 77). Univariate and multivariable analysis were used to determine differences between timing groups for postoperative mortality, in-hospital complications, and reintervention. RESULTS: Demographics and comorbid conditions were very similar across the 3 TEVAR timing groups. Notable differences included a higher prevalence of baseline elevated creatinine (>1.8 mg/dL)/chronic end-stage renal disease and designation as "urgent" in the <24-hour group, as well as a higher rate of preoperative ß-blocker therapy in the 1- to 14-day group. Postoperative stroke, congestive heart failure, and renal ischemia were more common in the <24-hour group without an increase in mortality. Unadjusted 30-day mortality across groups was lowest in the early TEVAR group (0%, 3.3%, and 5.2%; P = .68), as was 1-year mortality (0%, 8.3%, and 18.2%; P = .06), although not statistically different at any time point. Reintervention out to 3 years was not different between the groups. Multivariable analysis demonstrated the need for a postoperative therapeutic lumbar drain to be the only a predictive risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio = 7.595, 95% confidence interval: 1.730-33.337, P = .007). When further subdivided into patients treated 1 to 7 days or 8 to 14 days after dissection, findings were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with uTBAD treated within 24 hours were unusual (N = 8), too small for valid statistical comparison, and likely represent a high-risk subgroup, which is manifested in a higher risk of complications. Although there was a trend toward improved survival in the acute (1- to 14-day) phase, outcomes did not differ compared with the subacute (15- to 90-day) phase with relation to early mortality, postoperative complications, or 1-year survival. These data suggest that the proper selection of patients for early TEVAR can result in equivalent survival and early outcomes.

The Vascular Quality Initiative assessment of the Bard Lifestent for the treatment of popliteal artery occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: The Bard LifeStent self-expanding stent is approved for the treatment of occlusive disease involving the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery. We conducted a post-market trial of treatment of the popliteal artery above and below the knee (P1, P2, and P3 segments) within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Peripheral Vascular Intervention registry. METHODS: A single-arm, prospective trial was conducted at 29 VQI sites in the United States, enrolling 74 patients from November 2016 to May 2019. The primary safety outcome was freedom from major adverse events including device-/procedure-related mortality and major amputation at 1 year. The primary efficacy outcomes were freedom from target vessel revascularization and freedom from target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included lesion success; procedural success; primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency; and sustained clinical (improvement in Rutherford class) and hemodynamic success (increase in ankle brachial index >0.10). Outcomes were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Arteriogram of patients undergoing target lesion revascularization were assessed for stent fracture by a core laboratory. RESULTS: The mean age was 71 years, with 63.5% male and 55% with diabetes. The indication was claudication 28% and chronic limb-threatening ischemia in 72%. The superficial femoral artery-popliteal artery was stented in 38% and the popliteal artery alone in 62%. The majority of stents were placed in the P1 + P2 (39%) or P1 + P2 + P3 (37%) segments of the popliteal artery. The composite primary endpoint of freedom from major adverse events was 82% and 74% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Freedom from mortality was 100% and 97%, and freedom from major amputation was 100% and 90% at 1 and 12 months, with all deaths and major amputations occurring in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. freedom from target lesion revascularization was 86%, and freedom from target vessel revascularization was 84% at 12 months. At discharge, lesion treatment success was 99%, and procedural success was 82%. Primary patency was 80% and 72%, primary-assisted patency was 80% and 72%, and secondary patency was 89% and 82% at 12 and 24 months. Sustained clinical success was 98% and 95%, and sustained hemodynamic success was 100% and 79% at 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center, registry-based, single-arm prospective study the Bard LifeStent self-expanding stent demonstrated favorable performance in the challenging anatomy of the P2 and P3 popliteal segment. Post-market studies for label expansion of peripheral vascular intervention devices can be successfully conducted within the Society for Vascular Surgery VQI registry.

TransCarotid Revascularization With Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TCAR with flow reversal to the gold standard CEA using data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TCAR is a novel minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients that is associated with significantly lower stroke rates compared with carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach. METHODS: Patients in the United States and Canada who underwent TCAR and CEA for carotid artery stenosis (2016-2019) were included. Propensity scores were calculated based on baseline clinical variables and used to match patients in the 2 treatment groups (n = 6384 each). The primary endpoint was the combined outcome of perioperative stroke and/or death. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between TCAR and CEA in terms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR, 1.6% vs CEA, 1.6%, RR (95% CI): 1.01 (0.77-1.33), P = 0.945], stroke [1.4% vs 1.4%, RR (95% CI): 1.02 (0.76-1.37), P = 0.881], or death [0.4% vs 0.3%, RR (95% CI): 1.14 (0.64-2.02), P = 0.662]. Compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction [0.5% vs 0.9%, RR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.35-0.83), P = 0.005], cranial nerve injury [0.4% vs 2.7%, RR (95% CI): 0.14 (0.08-0.23), P < 0.001], and post-procedural hypertension [13% vs 18.8%, RR (95% CI): 0.69 (0.63-0.76), P < 0.001]. They were also less likely to stay in the hospital for more than 1 day [26.4% vs 30.1%, RR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.82-0.94), P < 0.001]. No significant interaction was observed between procedure and symptomatic status in predicting postoperative outcomes. At 1 year, the incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death was similar between the 2 groups [HR (95% CI): 1.09 (0.87-1.36), P = 0.44]. CONCLUSIONS: This propensity-score matched analysis demonstrated significant reduction in the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury after TCAR compared to CEA, with no differences in the rates of stroke/death.

Retrograde type A dissection in the Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for dissection postapproval project.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde dissection (RD) can be a serious complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), with retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) particularly life-threatening. Prior studies have suggested that treatment timing, anatomic characteristics, device selection, and procedural conduct of TEVAR performed for type B aortic dissection could mitigate the occurrence of RD. The Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR for Dissection Registry is an ongoing project meant to satisfy Food and Drug Administration requirements for postmarket approval surveillance of the Gore conformable TAG thoracic endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), Medtronic Valiant thoracic stent graft (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif), and Cook Medical dissection devices (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) and provides a unique source of evaluation for RTAD in a prospectively collected real-world registry. METHODS: A total of 588 consecutive patients at 49 institutions had undergone TEVAR for acute (<30 days; n = 336) and chronic (≥30 days; n = 252) type B aortic dissection were included. The occurrence of RD as reported by the participating centers and de-identified source documents were reviewed and confirmed independently by two of us (A.W.B. and G.W.). The demographics, procedural and device data, and anatomic considerations were evaluated, and the devices were grouped in a de-identified manner as Gore, Medtronic, and other. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 889 days (median, 658 days), and 408 patients had completed follow-up data available for >1 year. A total of 19 patients with RD (3.2%) were identified, 9 of whom had been treated for acute and 10 for chronic dissection, a 2.7% and 4.0% incidence, respectively (P = .48, acute vs chronic). Of the 19 RD cases, 15 were RTAD, 6 after treatment of acute and 9 after treatment of chronic dissection, a 1.8% and 3.6% incidence, respectively (P = .19, acute vs chronic). Five cases of RD had occurred intraoperatively (four of which were RTAD). The median time to RD and RTAD was 62 and 69 days, respectively (range, 0 to 1600 days). Of the 15 patients with RTAD, 12 had undergone surgical repair and 2 had not undergone repair; the treatment of one was unknown. The overall mortality was 33.3% (5 of 15). The factors associated with RTAD included more extensive dissection (mean, 5.6 zones without RTAD vs 8.5 zones with RTAD; P = .001), female sex (28.3% female without RTAD vs 53.3% with RTAD; P = .04), and non-White race (62.7% White without RTAD vs 33.3% White with RTAD; P = .05). Mean oversizing was not significantly different for those without RTAD compared with that for those with RTAD (14.0% vs 14.2%; P = .92). The device type was anonymized in this project; however, we found no significant differences between the Gore, Medtronic, and all other devices. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of RD in the present real-world postapproval project was consistent with that from previously reported studies, including highly controlled pivotal studies. Device type was not predictive of RD, and the newly identified risk factors for RTAD include more extensive dissection and a trend toward a greater risk for female sex and non-White race.

Practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoperative completion imaging (completion carotid duplex ultrasound or angiography) to confirm the technical adequacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study was to describe vascular surgeons' practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after CEA and to study the association between completion imaging and postoperative stroke/death and high-grade restenosis (>70%). METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA without concomitant procedures in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018 were included. Surgeons' practice patterns were defined on the basis of the distribution of completion imaging use among annual CEA cases per surgeon. Multivariable and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the association between different practice patterns of completion imaging and perioperative and 1-year outcomes after CEA. RESULTS: Of 98,055 CEA cases, 26,716 (27.3%) were performed with completion imaging. Compared with cases in which completion imaging was not performed, completion imaging was associated with increased rates of immediate re-exploration (3.5% vs 0.9%; odds ratio [OR], 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74-5.38; P < .001), overall return to the operating room (RTOR; 1.6% vs 1.2%; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P < .01), and longer operative time (median [interquartile range], 105 minutes [82-132] vs 119 minutes [92-148]; P < .001). Of 1920 surgeons in our cohort, 45% never performed completion imaging, whereas 26% rarely performed completion imaging (for ≤20% of annual CEA cases), 9.5% performed it selectively (21%-79% of annual CEAs), and 19.6% used completion imaging routinely (≥80% of annual CEAs). Rarely performing completion imaging had higher rates of immediate re-exploration (6.5% vs 0.9%; OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 5.7-9.2; P < .001), in-hospital stroke (4.0% vs 1.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6; P < .001), RTOR for bleeding (1.9% vs 0.9%; aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-2.9; P < .001), and neurologic events (1.5% vs 0.4%; aOR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001) compared with not performing completion imaging. It was also associated with increased stroke/death and repeated revascularization at 30 days and significant restenosis at 1 year. On the other hand, performance of selective and routine completion imaging was associated with increased immediate re-exploration (selective: aOR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.9-5.5; P < .001]; routine: aOR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.5-5.6; P < .001]) without any increase in in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year adverse outcomes compared with cases performed without completion imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of selective or routine completion imaging during CEA is safe and is not associated with increased adverse events compared with not using intraoperative completion imaging. However, rarely performing completion imaging is associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative stroke/death and RTOR, possibly because of unnecessary re-exploration for minor defects. The operator's experience and establishing a criterion for fixing residual defects are important to avoid unnecessary re-exploration.

Vascular Quality Initiative risk score for 30-day stroke or death following transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) using a flow-reversal neuroprotection system has gained popularity for the endovascular treatment of carotid artery atherosclerotic disease owing to its lower risk of stroke or death compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting. However, specific risk factors associated with stroke or death complications after TCAR have yet to be defined. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR for the treatment of asymptomatic or symptomatic atherosclerotic carotid disease were identified between September 2016 and September 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. Our primary outcome was 30-day stroke or death. We created a risk model for 30-day stroke or death using multivariable fractional polynomials and internally validated the model using bootstrapping. RESULTS: During the study period 7633 patients underwent TCAR, of which 4089 (53.6%) were treated for symptomatic and 3544 (46.4%) for asymptomatic disease. The average age of patients undergoing TCAR was 73.3 ± 9.1 years and 63.7% were male. Stroke or death events within 30 days of the index operation occurred in 153 patients (2.0%). Factors independently associated with a higher odds of 30-day stroke or death included the severity of presenting stroke symptoms (cortical transient ischemic attack, odds ratio [OR], 2.17 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21-3.90; P = .009]; stroke, OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.25-4.85; P < .001), advancing age (OR, 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .003), and history of unstable angina or myocardial infarction within the past 6 months (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.29-3.77; P = .004), moderate or severe congestive heart failure (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.31-4.55; P = .005), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (on medications, OR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.06-2.43; P = .024]; on home oxygen, OR, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.44-4.41; P = .001]), and prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.25; P = .016), whereas preoperative P2Y12 use was associated with a lower odds of 30-day stroke or death (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85; P = .005). A 30-point risk prediction model created based on these criteria produced a C statistic of 0.72 and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit of 0.97. Internal validation demonstrated good discrimination with a bias corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70 with a calibration slope of 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: This Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR risk score calculator can be used to estimate the risk of stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. Because TCAR is commonly used to treat patients with high surgical risk for carotid endarterectomy, this risk score will help to guide treatment decisions in patients being considered for TCAR.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices objective performance goals for superficial femoral and popliteal artery peripheral vascular interventions.

BACKGROUND: The Superficial Femoral Artery-Popliteal EvidencE Development Study Group developed contemporary objective performance goals (OPGs) for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) for superficial femoral artery (SFA)-popliteal artery disease using the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry from January 2010 to October 2016 was used to develop OPGs based on SFA-popliteal procedures (n = 21,377) for intermittent claudication and critical limb ischemia (CLI). OPGs included 1-year rates for target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation, and 1 and 4-year survival rates. OPGs were calculated for the SFA and popliteal arteries and stratified by four treatments: angioplasty alone (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA]), self-expanding stenting, atherectomy, and any treatment type. Outcomes were illustrated by unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Cohorts included PTA (n = 7505), stenting (n = 9217), atherectomy (n = 2510) and any treatment (n = 21,377). The mean age was 69 years, 58% were male, 79% were White, and 52% had CLI. The freedom from TLR OPGs at 1 year in the SFA were 80.3% (PTA), 83.2% (stenting), 83.9% (atherectomy), and 81.9% (any treatments). The freedom from TLR OPGs at 1 year in the popliteal were 81.3% (PTA), 81.3% (stenting), 80.2% (atherectomy), and 81.1% (any treatments). The freedom from major amputation OPGs at 1 year after SFA PVI were 93.4% (PTA), 95.7% (stenting), 95.1% (atherectomy), and 94.8% (any treatments). The freedom from major amputation OPG at 1 year after popliteal PVI were 90.5% (PTA), 93.7% (stenting), 91.8% (atherectomy), and 91.8%, (any treatments). The 4-year survival OPGs after SFA PVI were 76% (PTA), 80% (stenting), 82% (atherectomy), and 79% (any treatments), and for the popliteal artery were 72% (PTA), 77% (stenting), 82% (atherectomy), and 75% (any treatment). On a multivariable analysis, which included patient-level, leg-level, and lesion-level covariates, CLI was the single independent factor associated with increased TLR, amputation, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The Superficial Femoral Artery-Popliteal EvidencE Development OPGs define a new, contemporary benchmark for SFA-popliteal interventions using a large subset of real-world evidence to inform more efficient peripheral device clinical trial designs to support regulatory and clinical decision-making. It is appropriate to discuss proposals intended for regulatory approval with the US Food and Drug Administration to refine the OPG to match the specific trial population. The OPGs may be updated using coordinated registry networks to assess long-term real-world device performance.

Editor's Choice - Optimal Threshold for the Volume-Outcome Relationship After Open AAA Repair in the Endovascular Era: Analysis of the International Consortium of Vascular Registries.

OBJECTIVE: As open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OAR) rates decline in the endovascular era, the endorsement of minimum volume thresholds for OAR is increasingly controversial, as this may affect credentialing and training. The purpose of this analysis was to identify an optimal centre volume threshold that is associated with the most significant mortality reduction after OAR, and to determine how this reflects contemporary practice. METHODS: This was an observational study of OARs performed in 11 countries (2010 - 2016) within the International Consortium of Vascular Registry database (n = 178 302). The primary endpoint was post-operative in hospital mortality. Two different methodologies (area under the receiving operating curve optimisation and Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure) were used to determine the optimal centre volume threshold associated with the most significant mortality improvement. RESULTS: In total, 154 912 (86.9%) intact and 23 390 (13.1%) ruptured AAAs were analysed. The majority (63.1%; n = 112 557) underwent endovascular repair (EVAR) (OAR 36.9%; n = 65 745). A significant inverse relationship between increasing centre volume and lower peri-operative mortality after intact and ruptured OAR was evident (p < .001) but not with EVAR. An annual centre volume of between 13 and 16 procedures per year was associated with the most significant mortality reduction after intact OAR (adjusted predicted mortality < 13 procedures/year 4.6% [95% confidence interval 4.0% - 5.2%] vs. ≥ 13 procedures/year 3.1% [95% CI 2.8% - 3.5%]). With the increasing adoption of EVAR, the mean number of OARs per centre (intact + ruptured) decreased significantly (2010 - 2013 = 35.7; 2014 - 2016 = 29.8; p < .001). Only 23% of centres (n = 240/1 065) met the ≥ 13 procedures/year volume threshold, with significant variation between nations (Germany 11%; Denmark 100%). CONCLUSION: An annual centre volume of 13 - 16 OARs per year is the optimal threshold associated with the greatest mortality risk reduction after treatment of intact AAA. However, in the current endovascular era, achieving this threshold requires significant re-organisation of OAR practice delivery in many countries, and would affect provision of non-elective aortic services. Low volume centres continuing to offer OAR should aim to achieve mortality results equivalent to the high volume institution benchmark, using validated data from quality registries to track outcomes.

In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers. METHODS: We compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death. RESULTS: A total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.

Protamine use in transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with lower risk of bleeding complications without higher risk of thromboembolic events.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have found that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is associated with lower risk of stroke or death compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting but higher risk of bleeding complications, presumably associated with the need for an incision. Heparin anticoagulation is universally used during TCAR, so protamine use may reduce bleeding complications. However, the safety and effectiveness of protamine use in TCAR are unknown. We therefore evaluated the impact of protamine use on perioperative outcomes after TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project from September 2016 to April 2019. We assessed in-hospital outcomes using propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who did and did not receive protamine. The primary efficacy end point was access site bleeding complications, and the primary safety end point was in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary end points included the individual end points of stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure exacerbation, and hemodynamic instability. RESULTS: Of the 5144 patients undergoing TCAR, all patients received heparin and 4072 (79%) patients received protamine. We identified 944 matched pairs of patients who did and did not receive protamine. Protamine use was associated with a significantly lower risk of bleeding complications (2.8% vs 8.3%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.52; P < .001), including bleeding that resulted in interventional treatment (1.0% vs 3.6%; RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.54; P < .001) and in blood transfusion (1.2% vs 3.9%; RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.58; P <.001). There were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital stroke or death for patients who received protamine and those who did not (1.6% vs 2.2%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.37-1.39; P = .32); however, there was a trend toward lower risk of stroke for patients who received protamine (1.1% vs 2.0%; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.13; P = .09). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of transient ischemic attack (0.4% vs 1.1%; RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.13-1.28; P = .11), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.8%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.15-1.66; P = .25), heart failure exacerbation (0.4% vs 0.3%; RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.30-5.96; P = .71), or postoperative hypotensive hemodynamic instability (16% vs 15%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35; P = .50) with protamine use. CONCLUSIONS: Protamine can be safely used in TCAR to reduce the risk of perioperative bleeding complications without increasing the risk of thrombotic events.

Failure on a Vascular Surgery Board-American Board of Surgery Examination does not predict cardiovascular outcomes in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Vascular Surgery Board of the American Board of Surgery (VSB-ABS) Qualifying and Certifying examinations are meant to assess qualifications to independently practice vascular surgery, but it is unclear whether examination performance correlates with clinical outcomes. We assessed this relationship using clinical outcomes data for VSB-ABS diplomates from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS-VQI). METHODS: VSB-ABS examination performance for vascular surgeons participating in the SVS-VQI registry was characterized according to pass/fail status. Surgical experience was measured by number of years since completion of training. Examination performance and experience were compared with a composite clinical outcome (in-patient major adverse cardiac events or postoperative death [MACE+POD]) after arterial reconstructions (carotid stenting or endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair, open peripheral surgical bypasses) registered in the SVS-VQI. Multivariate mixed effects regression was performed adjusting for sex and surgery type, as well as clustering by surgeon and by hospital. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2017, complete data were available for 776 vascular surgeons who performed 124,171 arterial reconstructions (carotid n = 56,650; aortic n = 34,764; peripheral n = 32,757) registered in the SVS-VQI. Patient characteristics associated with higher odds of MACE+POD were female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.12; P = .006) and advancing age (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04; P < .001). Of the 776 surgeons, 149 (17%) had failed at least one VSB-ABS examination (group F). The unadjusted primary composite outcome of MACE+POD was marginally higher after operations performed by surgeons who never failed an examination (group P; 7% vs 6%; P = .03). This difference seems to be driven by higher rates of postoperative congestive heart failure in the aortic and lower extremity bypass cohorts as well as more postoperative myocardial infarctions after lower extremity bypass by group P surgeons. Following multivariable analyses, examination pass status was not associated with MACE+POD (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.50; P = .517). However, increasing surgical experience correlated with significantly lower odds of MACE+POD (2% lower odds/year of experience since training [OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: VSB-ABS examination performance by SVS-VQI surgeons does not correlate with registry-reported mortality or cardiovascular complications. Increasing surgical experience is strongly associated with lower odds of cardiovascular morbidity and death.

Editor's Choice - Protamine Reduces Serious Bleeding Complications Associated with Carotid Endarterectomy in Asymptomatic Patients without Increasing the Risk of Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, or Death in a Large National Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy persists regarding the use of protamine during carotid endarterectomy (CEA), despite real world evidence to support its use. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of protamine reversal of heparin anticoagulation on the outcome of CEA in the USA. METHODS: A prospective national registry (Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) of 72 787 patients undergoing elective asymptomatic CEA by 1879 surgeons from 316 centres in the USA and Canada from 2012 to 2018 was reviewed. Protamine use varied by both surgeon (20% rare use [< 10%], 30% variable use [11%-79%], 50% routine use [> 80% cases]) and geographical region (44% vs. 96%). Temporal trends in protamine use were also determined. End points included post-operative re-operation for bleeding, as well as potential protamine related thrombotic complications, including stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI). Predictors of end points were determined by multivariable logistic regression. Propensity matching was additionally used to control for differences between groups. RESULTS: Of the 72 787 patients who underwent CEA, 69% received protamine, while 31% did not. Protamine use increased over time from 60% (2012) to 73% (2018). In total, 378 patients (0.7%) in the protamine treated group underwent re-operation for bleeding vs. 342 patients (1.4%) in the untreated cohort (p < .001). Protamine use did not affect the rate of MI (0.7% vs. 0.8%; p = .023), stroke (1.1% vs. 1.0%; p = .20), or in hospital death (0.2% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.70) between treated and untreated patients, respectively. On multivariable analysis, protamine use was independently associated with reduced risk of re-operation for bleeding (odds ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.55; p < .001). Independent of protamine exposure, the consequences of a return to the operating room (RTOR) for bleeding were statistically significant, with a sevenfold increase in MI (RTOR 4.9% vs. no RTOR 0.7%; p < .001), an eightfold increase in stroke (RTOR 7.2% vs. no RTOR 0.9%; p < .001), and a 13 fold increase in death (RTOR 2.4% vs. no RTOR 0.2%; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Protamine reduces serious bleeding complications at the time of CEA without increasing the risk of MI, stroke, or death, in this large North American analysis. Based on this and previous regional work regarding protamine use in CEA, it is believed that there is now sufficient evidence to support its routine use, and it should be considered as a benchmark for quality during CEA.

Thirty-day outcomes from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B dissection project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for dissection project is to assess the effectiveness of TEVAR for type B dissection by evaluation in a prospective quality improvement registry. Here we describe the project cohort and 30-day outcomes of TEVAR for both acute dissection (AD) and chronic dissection (CD) patients and focus specifically on outcomes of uncomplicated AD patients based on timing of treatment. METHODS: Summary statistics were performed comparing patients with AD (<30 days) and patients with CD. Both groups were further divided into those with complicated (ie, malperfusion or rupture) or uncomplicated presentation. Further subdivision of the uncomplicated AD patients into treatment at ≤48 hours, >48 hours to <7 days, ≥7 days to ≤14 days, and >14 days to <30 days was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 30-day survival and freedom from reintervention. RESULTS: Data for 397 patients (204 AD patients and 193 CD patients) were collected from 40 institutions. Overall, AD patients were younger than CD patients (58.8 vs 62.2 years; P = .003). Technical success, including coverage of the primary entry tear, was 98.0% for AD patients and 99.0% for CD patients, with a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality in AD patients (AD, 9.3%; CD, 5.2%; P = .126). Any degree of procedure-related spinal cord ischemia occurred in 4.4% of AD patients vs 2.1% of CD patients (P = .261), with a deficit at discharge in 3.4% of AD patients vs 0.5% of CD patients (P = .068). Disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of AD patients vs 1.6% of CD patients (P = .725); retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1.1% of AD patients vs 2.6% of CD patients (P = .412). There was a trend toward a lower freedom from reintervention in AD patients (90.7% vs 94.8%; P = .13). In uncomplicated AD patients, rapid aortic expansion was more common in the treatment groups of ≥7 days to ≤14 days and >14 days to <30 days compared with those treated within 7 days of dissection (P = .042). The uncomplicated AD cohorts based on timing of treatment were otherwise similar in demographics and presentation, with no significant differences in 30-day mortality or serious complications, such as spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or retrograde type A dissection. The 30-day reintervention rate for uncomplicated AD patients was 5.8%, with no apparent differences in reintervention rates according to timing of treatment of initial TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, AD patients demonstrated a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality and lower freedom from reintervention compared with CD patients. Mortality at 30 days after TEVAR for uncomplicated AD was 5.8%, and there were no clear patterns in mortality or reintervention based on timing of treatment. Further study and evaluation at longer follow-up are needed to determine the impact of timing of intervention in uncomplicated AD patients.

Transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence from the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) multicenter trial in high-risk patients undergoing transcarotid artery stenting with dynamic flow reversal reported the lowest stroke rate compared with any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, clinical trials have selection criteria that exclude many patients from enrollment and are highly selective of operators performing the procedures, which limit generalizability. The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) as reported in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI TCAR Surveillance Project (TSP) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TCAR in real-world practice. Data from the initial 646 patients enrolled in the TSP from March 2016 to December 2017 were analyzed and compared with those of patients who underwent TFCAS between 2005 and 2017. Patients with tandem, traumatic, or dissection lesions were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression and 1:1 coarsened exact matching were used to analyze neurologic adverse events (stroke and transient ischemic attacks [TIAs]) and in-hospital mortality. Patients in the two procedures were matched on age, ethnicity, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention, chronic kidney disease, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, symptomatic status, restenosis, anatomic and medical risk, and urgency of the procedure. RESULTS: Compared with patients undergoing TFCAS (n = 10,136), those undergoing TCAR (n = 638) were significantly older, had more cardiac comorbidities, were more likely to be asymptomatic, and were less likely to have a recurrent stenosis. The rates of in-hospital TIA/stroke as well as of TIA/stroke/death were significantly higher in TFCAS compared with TCAR (3.3% vs 1.9% [P = .04] and 3.8% vs 2.2% [P = .04], respectively). In both procedures, symptomatic patients had higher rates of TIA/stroke/death compared with asymptomatic patients (TCAR, 3.7% vs 1.4% [P = .06]; TFCAS, 5.3% vs 2.7% [P < .001]). After multivariable adjustment, there was a trend of increased stroke or death rates in TFCAS compared with TCAR, but it was not statistically significant (2.5% vs 1.7%; P = .25; odds ratio, 1.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.62). However, TFCAS was associated with twice the odds of in-hospital adverse neurologic events and TIA/stroke/death compared with TCAR (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.08; P = .03), independent of symptom status. Coarsened exact matching showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients undergoing TFCAS, patients undergoing TCAR had significantly more medical comorbidities but similar stroke/death rates and half the risk of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death. These results persisted despite rigorous adjustment and matching of potential confounders. This initial evaluation of the VQI TSP demonstrates the ability to rapidly monitor new devices and procedures using the VQI. Although it is preliminary, this is the first study to demonstrate the benefit of TCAR compared with TFCAS in real-world practice. These results need to be confirmed by a clinical trial.

Validation of a preoperative prediction model for mortality within 1 year after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of intact aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Most would agree that at least 1-year survival is necessary after intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair to appropriately justify the cost and risk of the procedure. No validated clinical decision instruments exist to predict survival after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) beyond the perioperative period. The purpose of this analysis was to create a preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality after EVAR for intact AAA in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: All intact EVARs in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2011 to 2015 were randomly divided into training (n = 17,836) and validation (n = 2500) data sets, and 31 preoperative candidate predictors were identified. A logistic regression model for 1-year mortality was created, and bootstrapped stepwise variable elimination was used to reduce this model to a best subset of predictors. Penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to correct for potential overfitting. The final model was internally validated by bootstrapping the area under the curve (AUC) and the calibration slope and intercept, and its performance when applied to the training and validation data sets was compared. RESULTS: After elective and nonelective (symptomatic, intact) EVAR, 1-year mortality was 5.5% (n = 900/16,411) and 11.4% (n = 162/1425), respectively. The mean probability of 1-year mortality was 6.0% (n = 1062) in the training set and 5.7% (n = 143) in the validation cohort (P = .12). Significant preoperative predictors of 1-year mortality included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, age, preoperative renal insufficiency (creatinine concentration ≥1.8 mg/dL or on hemodialysis), ejection fraction <50%, transfer status, body mass index <24 kg/m2, preoperative beta-blocker exposure, larger AAA diameter, and lower admission hemoglobin level. Preoperative statin use was found to be protective. The bias-corrected AUC was 0.759 (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit P value of 0.36; calibration intercept, -0.003; slope, 0.999). When applied to the validation data set, the model had AUC of 0.724 (95% confidence interval, 0.676-0.768; calibration intercept, 0.0009; slope, 0.970), which was in excellent agreement with the original data set bias-corrected AUC. Notably, ∼27.5% (n = 4902) had four or more risk factors with a predicted 1-year post-EVAR mortality risk of 10% to 22% despite that 33.2% of these patients had AAA diameters below recommended treatment guideline minimum thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: This validated preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality identifies patients less likely to benefit from EVAR. Appropriateness of intact AAA EVAR care delivery can be improved by use of this clinical decision aid to determine which high-risk patients have lower probability of mortality within the first postoperative year relative to their predicted annualized rupture risk.

Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.

Importance: Several trials have observed higher rates of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy. Transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal was recently introduced for carotid stenting. This technique was developed to decrease stroke risk seen with the transfemoral approach; however, its outcomes, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, are not well characterized. Objective: To compare outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data from the Vascular Quality Initiative Transcarotid Artery Surveillance Project and Carotid Stent Registry of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the United States and Canada undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting for carotid artery stenosis, from September 2016 to April 2019. The final date for follow-up was May 29, 2019. Exposures: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included a composite end point of in-hospital stroke or death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction, as well as ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year. In-hospital stroke was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral, cortical or vertebrobasilar, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Death was all-cause mortality. Results: During the study period, 5251 patients underwent transcarotid artery revascularization and 6640 patients underwent transfemoral carotid artery stenting. After matching, 3286 pairs of patients who underwent transcarotid artery revascularization or transfemoral carotid artery stenting were identified (transcarotid approach: mean [SD] age, 71.7 [9.8] years; 35.7% women; transfemoral approach: mean [SD] age, 71.6 [9.3] years; 35.1% women). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 3.1%; absolute difference, -1.52% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.75%]; relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.72]; P < .001), stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; absolute difference, -1.10% [95% CI, -1.79% to -0.41%]; RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.79]; P = .001), and death (0.4% vs 1.0%; absolute difference, -0.55% [95% CI, -0.98% to -0.11%]; RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82]; P = .008). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction between the 2 cohorts (0.2% for transcarotid vs 0.3% for the transfemoral approach; absolute difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.37% to 0.19%]; RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84]; P = .47). At 1 year using Kaplan-Meier life-table estimation, the transcarotid approach was associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (5.1% vs 9.6%; hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66]; P < .001). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with higher risk of access site complication resulting in interventional treatment (1.3% vs 0.8%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, -0.01% to 1.04%]; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61]; P = .04), whereas transfemoral carotid artery stenting was associated with more radiation (median fluoroscopy time, 5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 3 to 7] vs 16 minutes [IQR, 11 to 23]; P < .001) and more contrast (median contrast used, 30 mL [IQR, 20 to 45] vs 80 mL [IQR, 55 to 122]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing treatment for carotid stenosis, transcarotid artery revascularization, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, was significantly associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.

External validation of a 5-year survival prediction model after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test). RESULTS: The VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70% endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59% endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76% vs 68%; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75% vs 77%; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit). CONCLUSIONS: Across different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.