Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era. METHODS: Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates. RESULTS: A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

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

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

Endovascular Salvage of Type Ia and Ib Endoleaks Using a Physician-Modified Fenestrated/Branched Endograft and an Iliac Branch Device Via Unilateral Transfemoral Arterial Access.

PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of a unilateral transfemoral access endovascular salvage technique for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms with concurrent type Ia and Ib endoleaks following previous endovascular repair. CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old female with multiple comorbidities presented with an extent IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm complicated by type Ia and Ib endoleaks and chronically occluded left iliac endoprosthesis after prior endovascular repair. Given the patient's medical complexities, open explant repair was deemed high risk. The case was successfully managed using a physician-modified fenestrated/branched endograft (PM-F/BEVAR) and an iliac branch device (IBD) deployed through a single percutaneous transfemoral access. CONCLUSION: The presented case demonstrates the safety and efficacy of PM-F/BEVAR with concomitant IBD deployment via unilateral transfemoral access. This innovative approach allows endovascular salvage in cases with restricted iliofemoral access and avoids the complexities associated with upper extremity or aortic arch manipulation. While acknowledging the technical challenges, this technique offers a viable alternative for salvaging failed endovascular repairs, emphasizing the importance of real-time modifications in achieving successful outcomes. Further studies and long-term follow-up are warranted to validate the broader applicability and durability of this approach in the management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms with multiple endoleaks. CLINICAL IMPACT: Although not the conventional approach, unilateral transfemoral access can be utilized to implant either a physician-modified fenestrated aortic endograft or an iliac branch device. Such an approach avoids complicating issues related to upper extremity access. This innovative technique may be necessary when there is a failed prior EVAR in the setting of significant contralateral iliofemoral occlusive disease. Doing both procedures in the same setting to resolve a type Ia and Ib endoleak is feasible as demonstrated in this case report. Expanding the endovascular armamentarium to address EVAR failure will be increasingly useful in the future, especially given the morbidity profile of EVAR explantation.

One-hundred Consecutive Physician-Modified Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using the Terumo TREO Stent Graft.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been widely applied for the treatment of pararenal (PAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). If custom-made devices or off-the-shelf devices are not available, physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) are an alternative device option. Several different endograft platforms have been used for PMEG; however, minimal data exists on utilizing the Terumo TREO abdominal stent graft system in this setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our single-center experience treating PAA and TAAA, with a physician-modified FEVAR, using the Terumo TREO platform. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients with PAA and TAAA treated at a single center, with a FEVAR, utilizing a PMEG device between March 2021 and September 2023 was queried for those having a Terumo TREO device implanted. The demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were analyzed. The rates of technical success, type I or III endoleak, branch vessel status, reintervention, and 2-year survival were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 153 patients who underwent FEVAR with a PMEG device during the study period, 100 had repair using a Terumo TREO stent graft. The mean age of the cohort was 73.7 ± 7.0 years with the majority suffering from hypertension (n = 94, 94%), coronary artery disease (n = 51, 51%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 40, 40%). Thirty-four patients (34%) had a prior failed EVAR device in place. The mean aneurysm size was 66.0 ± 13.7 mm, with 58 (50%) patients classified as PAA and 30 (30%) patients as an extent IV TAAA. Six (6%) patients presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8 ± 0.6. The overall technical success was 99%, procedure time was 218 ± 116 min, contrast volume was 82 ± 21 mL, and cumulative air kerma was 3,054 ± 1,560 mGy. Postoperative complications were present in 20 patients (20%), and 2 patients (2%) died within 30 days. Rates of type I or III endoleak, branch vessel stenosis or occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 7%, respectively. The two-year overall survival was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of PAA and the extent IV TAAA using a physician-modified fenestrated Terumo TREO endograft is safe and effective. This large, early experience using the Terumo TREO platform supports preferential use of this device in this setting due to the device design and low likelihood of type I or III endoleak.

Cutdown is Associated with Higher 30-day Unplanned Readmissions and Wound Complications than Percutaneous Access for EVAR.

BACKGROUND: A 2023 Cochrane review showed no difference in bleeding/wound infection complications, short-term mortality and aneurysm exclusion between the percutaneous and cut-down approach for femoral access in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In contrast, single-center studies have shown bilateral cutdown resulting in higher readmission rates due to higher rates of groin wound infections. Whether 30-day readmission rates vary by type of access during EVAR procedures is unknown. The goal of this study was to ascertain which femoral access approach for EVAR is associated with the lowest risk of 30-day readmission. METHODS: The Targeted Vascular Module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing EVAR for aortic disease from 2012-2021. All ruptures and other emergency cases were excluded. Cohorts were divided into bilateral cutdown, unilateral cutdown, failed percutaneous attempt converted to open and successful percutaneous access. The primary 30-day outcomes were unplanned readmission and wound complications. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test, Chi-Square test and the Student's t-test. Multivariable analysis was performed using logistic regression. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, 14,002 patients met study criteria. Most (7,395 [53%]) underwent completely percutaneous access, 5,616 (40%) underwent bilateral cutdown, 849 (6%) underwent unilateral cutdown, and 146 (1%) had a failed percutaneous access which was converted to open. Unplanned readmissions by access strategy included 7.6% for bilateral cutdown, 7.3% for unilateral cutdown, 7.8% for attempted percutaneous converted to cutdown, and 5.7% for completely percutaneous access (P < 0.001, Figure 1). After multivariable analysis, unplanned readmissions compared to percutaneous access yielded: percutaneous converted to cutdown adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.38, 95% CI [0.76-2.53], P = 0.29; unilateral cutdown AOR: 1.18, 95% CI [0.92-1.51], P = 0.20; bilateral cutdown AOR: 1.26, 95% CI [1.09-1.43], P = 0.001. Bilateral cutdown was also associated with higher wound complications compared to percutaneous access (AOR: 4.41, CI [2.86-6.79], P < 0.001), as was unilateral cutdown (AOR: 3.04, CI [1.46-6.32], P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing cutdown for EVAR are at higher risk for 30-day readmission compared to completely percutaneous access. If patient anatomy allows for percutaneous EVAR, this access option should be prioritized.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Improved perioperative mortality after secondary aortoenteric fistula repair and lessons learned from a 20-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Secondary aortoenteric fistulas (SAEFs) are rare but represent one of the most challenging and devastating problems for vascular surgeons. Several issues surrounding SAEF treatment remain unresolved, including optimal surgical reconstruction and conduit choice. We performed an audit of our experience with SAEFs and highlight aspects of care that have affected outcomes over time with the intent to identify factors associated with best outcomes. METHODS: We performed a single center, retrospective review of all consecutive SAEF repairs (1999-2019), defined as presence of a false communication between an enteric structure and pre-existing aortic graft. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included incidence of complications and overall survival. Time-dependent outcome comparison was performed. Cox proportional hazards modeling and life-table analysis estimated risk and freedom from endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients (63% male; n = 36) presented with SAEF (median age, 69 years; interquartile range [IQR], 61-74 years). Median follow-up time was 10 months (interquartile range, 3-21 months. The most common presenting symptoms were gastrointestinal bleeding (60%; n = 34) and abdominal pain (56%; n= 3 2). For the overall cohort, 30% (n = 17) underwent extra-anatomic bypass with aortic ligation, 30% (n = 17) rifampin-soaked Dacron graft, 26% (n = 15) femoral vein (eg, neoaortoiliac system), and 14% (n = 8) cryopreserved aortic allograft. The enteric communication involved the duodenum in 85% (n = 48), and a double-layer hand-sewn primary repair was most commonly employed (61%; n = 35). Thirty-day mortality was 35% (n = 20) with no significant difference between 90 days (39%; n = 22) and 180 days (42%; n = 24). Morbidity was 70% (n = 40), with gastrointestinal (30%; n = 17; leak [9%]), pulmonary (25%; n = 14), and renal (21%) complications being most common. Incidence of reoperation for any vascular and/or gastrointestinal-related complication was 56% (n = 32). One-year and 3-year survival was 54% ± 6% and 48% ± 8%, respectively. Over time, 30- and 90-day mortality improved (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.5; P = .002) despite no change in patient factors, operative strategy, conduit choice, or morbidity rate. Prehospital history of gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.9; P = .06); however, reconstruction strategy (in-situ vs extra-anatomic bypass), postoperative gastrointestinal and/or vascular complication, omental flap use, and preoperative endovascular aneurysm repair history were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we observed improved short-term mortality despite no significant change in patient presentation or postoperative complications. This highlights increasing institutional experience in selecting the optimal surgical strategy and improved ability to rescue patients experiencing adverse postoperative events. An individualized approach to reconstruction and conduit choice can lead to best outcomes after SAEF management when patients are treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center.

Metabolomic Profiling for Diagnosis and Prognostication in Surgery: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: This review assimilates and critically evaluates available literature regarding the use of metabolomic profiling in surgical decision-making. BACKGROUND: Metabolomic profiling is performed by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy or mass spectrometry of biofluids and tissues to quantify biomarkers (ie, sugars, amino acids, and lipids), producing diagnostic and prognostic information that has been applied among patients with cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, and solid organ transplants. METHODS: PubMed was searched from 1995 to 2019 to identify studies investigating metabolomic profiling of surgical patients. Articles were included and assimilated into relevant categories per PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results were summarized with descriptive analytical methods. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included, most of which were retrospective studies with small sample sizes using various combinations of analytic techniques and types of biofluids and tissues. Results suggest that metabolomic profiling has the potential to effectively screen for surgical diseases, suggest diagnoses, and predict outcomes such as postoperative complications and disease recurrence. Major barriers to clinical adoption include a lack of high-level evidence from prospective studies, heterogeneity in study design regarding tissue and biofluid procurement and analytical methods, and the absence of large, multicenter metabolome databases to facilitate systematic investigation of the efficacy, reproducibility, and generalizability of metabolomic profiling diagnoses and prognoses. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolomic profiling research would benefit from standardization of study design and analytic approaches. As technologies improve and knowledge garnered from research accumulates, metabolomic profiling has the potential to provide personalized diagnostic and prognostic information to support surgical decision-making from preoperative to postdischarge phases of care.

Contemporary management and outcomes of complex vascular surgical groin wound infections.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgical groin wound infection (VS-GWI) has multiple causes and frequently is manifested as a limb- or life-threatening problem, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. For patients undergoing operative extirpation, in situ repair, extra-anatomic bypass, or ligation can be used; however, limited data exist describing comparative results of the different operative choices or conduit subtypes. Therefore, we sought to describe our experience with management of VS-GWI and to detail outcomes of the different strategies. METHODS: Patients (2003-2017) undergoing surgical treatment of VS-GWI (Szilagyi grade III) secondary to primary infectious arteritis or infected pseudoaneurysm after percutaneous intervention as well as previous prosthetic graft placement were reviewed. The primary end point was major adverse limb events (MALEs; major amputation, graft occlusion, or unplanned reintervention). Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, wound healing, amputation-free survival (AFS), and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine relative risk of end points; Kaplan-Meier methodology was employed to estimate freedom from outcomes. RESULTS: There were 149 patients (age, 65 ± 11 years; body mass index, 27 ± 6 kg/m2; 70% male; 32% diabetes) identified, of whom 120 (81%) had unilateral and 29 (19%) had bilateral VS-GWI. Indications included infected prosthetic bypass (88% [n = 131]; infrainguinal, 107; suprainguinal, 24) and primary infectious femoral artery complications (12% [n = 18]). A majority underwent single-stage operations (87% [n = 129]). In situ reconstruction occurred in 87% (n = 129); 9% (n = 13) underwent ligation, and 6% (n = 7) received extra-anatomic revascularization. Autogenous conduit was used most commonly (68% [n = 101/149]; 88% single stage), of which 81% (n = 80) were femoral vein. The remaining patients received cadaveric (15% [n = 23]; 87% single stage) or prosthetic (8% [n=12]; 67% single stage) grafts. Adjunctive myocutaneous flap was used in 37% (n = 54). Length of stay was 19 ± 15 days and 30-day mortality was 7% (n = 10), with no difference between conduit repair types. All femoral wounds healed (mean follow-up, 17 ± 11 months); however, 33% (n = 49) underwent reoperation (unplanned graft reintervention, 33%; graft occlusion, 16%; wound débridement, 15%; major amputation, 11%). Reinfection occurred in 17% (n = 27), with no difference between groups. MALE rate was 22% (n = 33; most were arterial reinterventions, 19%), with no difference in single-stage vs multistage, in situ vs extra-anatomic, or autogenous vs nonautogenous conduit strategies Predictors of MALE included younger age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6 per decade; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.5; P = .02) and lower body mass index (<25 kg/m2; HR, 1.6 per BMI category; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5; P = .02). Overall, 1- and 3-year freedom from MALE, AFS, and survival were as follows: MALE, 74% ± 5% and 63% ± 6%; AFS, 68% ± 4% and 58% ± 5%; survival, 78% ± 3% and 70% ± 4%. Autogenous conduit use was associated with better survival (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; 1-year: 83% ± 4% vs nonautogenous, 78% ± 4%; 3-year: 68% ± 8% vs 53% ± 9%; log-rank, P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: An individualized approach to operative strategy and conduit choice leads to comparable outcomes in this challenging group of patients. VS-GWI can be safely managed with in situ, autogenous reconstruction in a majority of patients with acceptable mortality, excellent wound healing rates, and improved overall survival. However, a significant proportion of patients experience reinfection and MALEs, the preponderance of which are arterial reintervention, mandating need for close follow-up and graft surveillance.

Association between surgeon case volume and years of practice experience with open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair has led to a consequential decline in the use of open aneurysm repair (OAR). This evolution has had significant ramifications on vascular surgery training paradigms and contemporary practice patterns among established surgeons. Despite being the subject of previous analyses, the surgical volume-outcome relationship has remained a focus of controversy. At present, little is known about the complex interaction of case volume and surgeon experience with patient selection, procedural characteristics, and postoperative complications of OAR. The purpose of the present analysis was to examine the association between surgeon annual case volume and years of practice experience with OAR. METHODS: All infrarenal OARs (n = 11,900; elective, 70%; nonelective, 30%) included in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2019 were examined. Surgeon experience was defined as years in practice after training. The experience level at repair was categorized chronologically (≤5 years, n = 1667; 6-10 years, n = 1887; 11-15 years, n = 1806; ≥16 years, n = 6540). The annual case volume was determined by the number of OARs performed by the surgeon annually (median, five cases). Logistic regression was used to perform risk adjustment of the outcomes across surgeon experience and volume (five or fewer vs more than five cases annually) strata for in-hospital major complications and 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Practice experience had no association with unadjusted mortality (30-day death: elective, P = .2; nonelective, P = .3; 1-year death: elective, P = .2; nonelective, P = .2). However, more experienced surgeons had fewer complications after elective OAR (25% with ≥16 years vs 29% with ≤5 years; P = .004). A significant linear correlation was identified between increasing surgeon experience and performance of a greater proportion of elective OAR (P-trend < .0001). Risk adjustment (area under the curve, 0.776) revealed that low-volume (five or fewer cases annually) surgeons had inferior outcomes compared with high-volume surgeons across the experience strata for all presentations. In addition, high-volume, early career surgeons (≤5 years' experience) had outcomes similar to those of older, low-volume surgeons (P > .1 for all pairwise comparisons). Early career surgeons (≤5 years) had operated on a greater proportion of elective patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥4 (35% vs 30% [≥16 years' experience]; P = .0003) and larger abdominal aortic aneurysm diameters (mean, 62 vs 59 mm [≥16 years' experience]; P < .0001) compared with all other experience categories. Similarly, the use of a suprarenal cross-clamp occurred more frequently (26% vs 22% [≥16 years' experience]; P = .0009) but the total procedure time, estimated blood loss, and renal and/or visceral ischemia times were all greater for less experienced surgeons (P-trend < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Annual case volume appeared to be more significantly associated with OAR outcomes compared with the cumulative years of practice experience. To ensure optimal OAR outcomes, mentorship strategies for "on-boarding" early career, as well as established, low-volume, aortic aneurysm repair surgeons should be considered. These findings have potential implications for widespread initiatives surrounding regulatory oversight and credentialing paradigms.

Surgical Treatment of True Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Superior mesenteric artery aneurysms (SMAAs) are a rare clinical problem that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The optimal surgical approach for both mycotic and degenerative SMAAs remains poorly defined. The study was designed to review our institutional experience and develop a treatment algorithm. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review was performed to document presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical repair of SMAAs from 2003 to 2020. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality, and secondary end-points included complications, patency, freedom from reinfection, freedom from reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (mean age: 46 ± 16 yrs; 50% male; mean diameter 2.4 ± 2.0 cm) underwent treatment of mycotic (50%) or degenerative (50%) SMAAs. Abdominal pain (66%) was the most common presenting symptom, and the diagnosis was confirmed with CT arteriography. Endocarditis secondary to intravenous drug abuse was responsible for most (88%) of the mycotic SMAAs, with a majority (66%) having positive cultures and Streptococcus being the most common organism. The majority (61%) of patients underwent urgent or emergent repair with aneurysmectomy and interposition saphenous vein bypass being the most common treatment of mycotic SMAAs while aneurysmectomy and prosthetic bypass were used most frequently for degenerative aneurysms. The operative mortality rate was 6% with a major complication rate of 17% (n = 3 patients: respiratory failure/reintubation-1, pulmonary embolism-1, necrotizing pancreatitis/graft disruption and death-1). The single death occurred in a patient with a degenerative aneurysm that developed postoperative pancreatitis and multiple organ dysfunction. The mean clinical follow-up time was 25 ± 48 (95% CI 1-48) months. The estimated primary patency, freedom from reinfection, and freedom from reintervention were 93 ± 7 %, 94 ± 5%, and 94 ± 5%, respectively, at 1 year. The overall mean survival was 55 ± 51 (95% CI 30-80) months with an estimated survival at 3 years of 77 ± 10%. CONCLUSIONS: SMAAs associated with both degenerative and mycotic etiologies can be treated using a variety of surgical approaches with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Mycotic SMAAs should likely be repaired, regardless of size, while the indications for asymptomatic, degenerative aneurysms remain to be defined by further natural history studies.

Surgeon experience association with patient selection and outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Growing calls for guidelines advocating minimum annual case volumes for surgeon credentialing remain controversial. Although most attention to date has focused on the impact of obligatory case volume, less attention has been devoted to the more complex association between surgeon years of independent practice experience and procedure outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the association of surgeon experience with case selection and real-world outcomes after OAR. METHODS: All Society for Vascular Surgery-Vascular Quality Initiative infrarenal and juxtarenal OARs (n = 11,900; 71% elective; 29% nonelective) from 2003 to 2019 were examined. Surgeon experience was defined by years in practice after training completion. Experience level at time of repair was categorized (≤5 years, n = 1048; 6-10 years, n = 1309; 11-15 years, n = 1244; and ≥16 years, n = 4772) and intergroup univariate comparisons were made. Logistic regression identified independent predictors of complications, 30-day death, and 1-year mortality. Models were constructed with or without surgeon experience strata to determine association with outcomes. RESULTS: Increasing surgeon experience was associated with performing greater proportions of elective procedures, whereas less experienced surgeons had disproportionate exposure to nonelective operations (elective, 73% ≥16 years vs 62% ≤5 years [P < .0001]; nonelective, ≤5 years, 38% vs 27%, ≥16-years [P < .0001]). Among surgeons who perform five or fewer cases per year, the risk of any aggregate major complication after elective OAR decreased significantly as experience increased (P = .0004), although no differences were detected in nonelective cases or among higher volume surgeons. Similarly, the risk of in-hospital death decreased with increasing experience (P = .004), but only among low-volume surgeons performing elective procedures. Comorbidities were similar across all experience strata for both elective and nonelective presentations; however, more experienced surgeons operated on higher proportions of nonelective patients with coronary disease (P = .04). Early career surgeons more frequently operated on patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists IV designation, larger abdominal aortic aneurysm diameters and used suprarenal/celiac cross-clamps more frequently than later career surgeons. The 1-year survival after elective and nonelective OAR was not impacted by surgeon experience (Ptrend > .15 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing surgeon years of practice experience correlated significantly with a reduced risk of developing multiple postoperative complications, including postoperative death in the elective setting. Surgeons within their first 5 years of practice are exposed to greater proportions of nonelective cases but seem to have similar outcomes after these repairs compared with surgeons with more experience. Notably, surgeons in their first 5 years of practice operate on more complex elective patients as underscored by higher aggregate comorbidity scores, larger aneurysm diameters, and need for suprarenal aortic cross-clamping. These data have important implications on training paradigms, faculty recruitment, and the organization of mentorship when on boarding new surgeons.

Association of hospital volume with patient selection, risk of complications, and mortality from failure to rescue after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The association of higher hospital volume with lower mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (OAAA) repair is well known; however, the underlying mechanism for improved outcomes is poorly understood. Better patient selection, lower risk of complications, and improved ability to rescue patients after adverse events are assumed mechanisms, but few data exist to validate this hypothesis. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association of hospital volume with patient selection, incidence of complications, and failure to rescue (FTR) after adverse events resulting from OAAA repair. METHODS: The Vizient (Irving, Tex) database (>95% of all academic hospitals) was reviewed for OAAA repairs (elective, n = 2827; nonelective, n = 1622) performed from 2012 to 2014. Presentation type (elective vs nonelective) was considered in all analyses. Elixhauser comorbidity index and van Walraven weighted scores were assigned to patients and volume-outcome relationships explored. By use of logistic regression, risk-adjusted complications (including preventable complications; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators [PSIs]) and FTR rates were determined. Predicted risk scores were assigned to delineate hospital volume association with these outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, no relationship between hospital volume and composite patient comorbidity severity score was identified (Elixhauser comorbidity index and van Walraven weighted scores: Pearson [ρ, 0.02], P = .2; [ρ, -0.01], P = .4; Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ, 0.02], P = .4; [ρ, -0.02], P = .2). The lack of correlation persisted in considering elective vs nonelective status. However, for elective cases, differences in specific comorbidities were noted because high-volume hospitals were more likely to repair patients with a history of peripheral vascular disease (P = .01), diabetes (P = .07), obesity (P = .004), and alcohol abuse (P = .05). Lower volume hospitals more frequently repaired patients with hypothyroidism (P = .05), fluid and electrolyte disorders (P = .007), and chronic blood loss anemia (P = .05). No specific individual comorbidity differences were detected for nonelective cases. In examining hospital volume effects on the likelihood for development of any complication (45%), PSIs (12%), and FTR (9%), a significant risk reduction was noted in high-volume institutions. Specifically, a nonlinear relationship between hospital volume and risk of any complication (P = .0004), PSI (P = .0004), and FTR (P =. 0003) was present. In exploring the risk of specific complications or PSI events, greater hospital volume was strongly correlated to a lower likelihood of multiple adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although high-volume institutions performing OAAA repair do not necessarily operate on patients with more comorbidities, there are important differences in the patients selected compared with lower volume hospitals. The risk for development of multiple specific postoperative complications as well as for preventable adverse events preceding FTR is significantly lower in high-volume centers. These findings provide benchmarks for multiple selected quality indicators and further support national initiatives to incentivize regionalization of OAAA care.

Comparative outcomes of open, hybrid, and fenestrated branched endovascular repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Open repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) is associated with substantial morbidity. Alternative strategies, such as hybrid operations combining proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair with either staged open distal TAAA repair or visceral debranching (hybrid), as well as fenestrated/branched endografts (FEVAR), have been increasingly reported; however, benefits of these approaches compared with direct open surgery remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of these three different strategies in the management of extent II/III TAAA. METHODS: All extent II/III TAAA repairs (2002-2018) for nonmycotic, degenerative aneurysm or chronic dissection at a single institution were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), complications, unplanned re-operation, 90-day readmission, and out-of-hospital survival. To mitigate impact of covariate imbalance and selection bias, intergroup comparisons were made using inverse probability weighted-propensity analysis. Cox regression was used to estimate survival while cumulative incidence was used to determine reoperation risk. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients (FEVAR, 92; hybrid, 40; open, 66) underwent repair. In unadjusted analysis, compared with hybrid/open patients, FEVAR patients were significantly older with more cardiovascular risk factors, but less likely to have a connective tissue disorder or dissection-related indication. Unadjusted 30-day mortality and complication rates were: 30-day mortality, FEVAR 4%, hybrid 13%, open 12% (P = .01); and complications, FEVAR 36%, hybrid 33%, open 50% (P = .11). Permanent SCI was not different among groups (FEVAR 3%, hybrid 3%, open 6%; P = .64). In adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality risk was greater for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.2; P = .01) with no difference for hybrid vs open/FEVAR. There was significantly lower risk of any SCI for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.96; P = .04); however, no difference in risk of permanent SCI was detected among the three groups. There was no difference in complications or unplanned reoperation, but open patients had the greatest risk of unplanned 90-day readmission. There was a time-varying effect on survival probability, with open repair having a significant survival disadvantage in the first 1 to 6 months after the procedure compared with hybrid/FEVAR patients (Cox model P = .03), but no difference in survival at 1 and 5 years (1- and 5-year survival: FEVAR, 86 ± 3%, 55 ± 8%; hybrid, 86 ± 5%, 60 ± 11%; open 69 ± 7%, 59 ± 8%; Cox-model P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: Extent II/III TAAA repair, regardless of operative strategy, is associated with significant morbidity risk. FEVAR is associated with the lowest 30-day mortality risk compared with hybrid and open repair when estimates are adjusted for preoperative risk factors. These data support greater adoption of FEVAR as first-line therapy to treat complex TAAA disease in anatomically suitable patients who present electively.

Endograft and external cinch to control hemorrhage in acute type A aortic dissection.

Acute DeBakey I or II aortic dissection (AD) is a surgical emergency with significant mortality if not repaired immediately. We present the case of a 49-year-old man with acute type I AD, who initially underwent zone 2 arch replacement for a primary arch tear. A calcified ductus arteriosus was noted during arch reconstruction. He exhibited exsanguinating hemorrhage from the proximal descending thoracic aorta upon an initial attempt to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass. Hemostasis was achieved with retrograde transfemoral thoracic endovascular aortic repair and transmediastinal external cinch around the descending aorta to obliterate false lumen flow.

Strategies and outcomes for aortic endograft explantation.

BACKGROUND: Failure of endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) requiring open conversion remains a major challenge. We analyzed indications for repair, operative strategies, and outcomes with a focus on iliac artery degeneration after endograft removal. METHODS: A prospective, institutional database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent explantation of a failed EVAR device. Demographics, reason for failure, operative details including extent of endograft removal, and complications/survival were examined. Postexplantation computed tomography imaging was evaluated for iliac artery degeneration. RESULTS: There were 32 patients who underwent explantation from 2002 to 2017. Six patients were treated emergently for rupture. The majority were elderly (average age, 76 ± 8.5 years), white (100%) men (91%) who had their EVAR graft inserted 45.5 months (range, 0.3-86 months) before open conversion, usually at an outside institution (75%). Explanted endografts included nine AneuRx (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn), nine Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), four Endurant (Medtronic), three Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), three Powerlink/AFX (Endologix, Irvine, Calif), one Aorfix (Lombard Medical, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom), one Talent (Medtronic), and two unknown. Failure was due to endoleak in 91% (type I, 38%; type II, 28%; type III, 13%; type V, 13%), infection in 6%, and occlusion/kinking in 3%. A previous attempt at endovascular salvage of EVAR occurred in 12 (37.5%) patients. Operative approach was transabdominal in 69% and retroperitoneal in 31%. Initial aortic clamp position was supraceliac in 31%, suprarenal in 31%, and infrarenal in 38%. Most patients had complete removal of their endograft (n = 19 [59%]), with 22 (69%) having at least the iliac limbs removed. Grafts with suprarenal fixation were more likely to have the upper main body left in situ (67% vs 17%; P = .029). The 30-day mortality was 6.3% (3.8% elective, 16.7% ruptured), and 31% had a major complication. Of the 23 patients who had follow-up imaging, there was a trend for more iliac degeneration (>5 mm in growth) in those who had the iliac limbs removed (29.4% vs 0%; P = .184). Three patients with iliac limb removal required subsequent iliac endovascular intervention (two for rupture). Patients who presented with a rupture had a decreased 5-year overall survival (33%) compared with those who were converted electively (59%). CONCLUSIONS: Both complete and partial endograft explantation, although morbid procedures, can be performed safely. Postoperative imaging surveillance is important, especially if the endograft has been removed from the iliac arteries, as degeneration can occur.

Impact of secondary interventions on mortality after fenestrated branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) is increasingly used to manage pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic disease (TAAA). Device-related reintervention after F/BEVAR is common, but little is known about its impact on postoperative mortality. The purpose of this analysis was to describe secondary intervention (SI) after F/BEVAR and determine the impact of these procedures on patient survival. METHODS: A single-center review was done on all consecutive F/BEVARs performed from 2010 to 2016. Primary end points were incidence of secondary aortic, branch, and/or access vessel‒related SI, and survival. SI was categorized as minor endovascular (branch restenting, access vessel treatment, or percutaneous coil embolization), major endovascular (new aortic graft placement), or open (bleeding, access vessel, and/or aortic). Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SI and survival. Multivariable analysis was used to identify predictors of SI. RESULTS: A total of 308 F/BEVAR procedures were performed (75% physician-modified, 18% custom, 7% Zfen), with 1022 vessels revascularized (celiac, 228; superior mesenteric artery [SMA], 263; renal, 525). There were 117 (39%) extent I-III TAAA, 132 (44%) extent IV TAAA/4-vessel pararenal, and 54 (18%) <4-vessel pararenal repairs performed. Any type of SI occurred in 24% (74) of patients during the mean follow-up of 20 ± 21 months. The majority of reinterventions were endovascular (minor, 53% [n = 39]; major, 32% [n = 24]), whereas 12% (n = 9) were open and 3% (n = 2) hybrid. Primary indication for SI included: 22 (29%) with branch-related endoleaks (1C or III); 15 (22%) with proximal or distal aortic degeneration; 8 (12%) with branch vessel thrombosis/stenosis; 10 (11%) with aortic device type III endoleak/loss of overlap; 4 (6%) with postoperative mesenteric or renal bleeding events; 5 (5%) with type II endoleak; 3 (5%) with access vessel complication; and 2 (3%) with graft infection. Most SIs were elective (65%; n = 48) with the remainder occurring emergently (24%; n = 18) or for symptoms/urgently (11%; n = 8). Compared with endovascular remediation, open SI was more likely to be emergent (89%, 8 of 9; P = .001). Freedom from SI was 80 ± 3% and 64 ± 4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. One- and 5-year survival with or without SI was: 1 year, 88 ± 4% vs 81 ± 3%; 5 years, 76 ± 5% vs 59 ± 4% (log rank test, P = .06). There was no survival difference based on type of SI (log rank test, P = .3). Extent I-III TAAA (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.98-3.3; P = .06) and history of cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.97-2.6; P = .07) were predictive of SI. CONCLUSIONS: SIs after F/BEVAR most frequently involve branch vessel or aortic device remediation procedures; however, they do not negatively impact out-of-hospital survival. These results further highlight the crucial role of imaging surveillance after F/BEVAR to maintain durability. Discussions with patients, periprocedural planning, and the next generation of device design must focus on issues surrounding the risk of device-related SI events.

Management of patch infections after carotid endarterectomy and utility of femoral vein interposition bypass graft.

OBJECTIVE: Patch infection after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a rare but devastating complication. A variety of different treatment options are reported; however, there is currently no consensus on how to manage this highly morbid problem. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with management of infectious patch complications after CEA and to highlight utility of femoral vein interposition bypass grafting. METHODS: All CEA patch infection operations at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative history, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were recorded. Bypass patency was verified with duplex ultrasound imaging (1 month, 6 months, annually). The primary end point was 30-day stroke or death; secondary end points included cranial nerve injury, reintervention, reinfection, and survival. Life tables were used to estimate end points. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 70 ± 9 years; male, 76%) were identified. The index CEA occurred at a median of 15 months (interquartile range, 1-55 months) preoperatively (39% <2 months after the index procedure). A variety of patch materials were implicated (Dacron, n = 9; unknown/undocumented, n = 8; bovine pericardium, n = 5; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, n = 3; unidentified nonbiologic prosthetic, n = 3; saphenous vein, n = 1). Carotid reintervention antecedent to the infected patch presentation occurred in 41% (incision and drainage, n = 10; carotid stent, n = 2; vein patch, n = 1). The most common infecting organisms were Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species (52%; n = 15). The most frequent presentation (46%; n = 13) was pericarotid abscess or phlegmon (pulsatile neck mass or pseudoaneurysm, 28% [n = 8]; carotid-cutaneous fistula, 28% [n = 8]). Reconstruction strategy included femoral vein interposition bypass in 24 patients (83%; nonreversed configuration, 16/24 [67%]), saphenous vein patch in 4 patients (14%), and femoral vein patch in 1 patient (3%). Median postoperative length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 4-8 days). Twelve patients (41%) experienced a complication, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 7% (death, n = 1; stroke, n = 1). The single postoperative death occurred in a patient with history of congestive heart failure who developed a pulseless electrical activity arrest on postoperative day 11 that resulted in multiorgan system failure. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 28% (n = 8; cranial nerves X [3], VII [2], XII [2], and IX [1]), all of which resolved by last follow-up. In follow-up (mean clinical follow-up, 17 ± 14 months; mean survival time, 108 months [95% confidence interval, 81-135 months]), two (7%) complained of limb edema with femoral cutaneous nerve palsy that resolved by 3 months. One interposition bypass occluded at 3 months (asymptomatic); the remaining grafts remained patent with no restenosis, reinfection, or reintervention events. The 1- and 5-year survival was 87% ± 6% and 82% ± 8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CEA patch infection can be successfully managed with femoral vein interposition bypass with acceptable postoperative outcomes. Excellent patency can be anticipated with good long-term survival. This strategy can be considered especially in cases with carotid size mismatch or if there is limited availability of alternative biologic conduits.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors. RESULTS: TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI. CONCLUSIONS: SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.

Estimated annual health care expenditures in individuals with peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical impact of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is well characterized and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Health care-related expenditures among individuals with PAD, particularly for patients, are not well described. METHODS: Health care-related expenditure data from the 2011 to 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were analyzed for individuals with a diagnosis of PAD compared with U.S. adults 40 years of age and older. Weighted average annual expenditures were estimated using a multivariable generalized linear model. Subanalyses were also performed for out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures by insurance type. RESULTS: Adjusted for age, gender, and race, individuals with a diagnosis of PAD (weighted n = 640,098) had significantly higher average annual health care-related expenditures compared with the U.S. adult population as a whole (weighted n = 148,387,362). Average annual expenditures per individual for patients with PAD were $11,553 (95% confidence interval [CI], $8137-$14,968) compared with only $4219 (95% CI, $4064-$4375; P < .001) for those without. Expenditures were driven by increased prescription medication expenditures as well as by expenditures for inpatient care, outpatient hospital-based care, and outpatient office-based care. Individuals with PAD had significantly higher OOP prescription medication expenditures ($386 [95% CI, $258-$515] vs $192 [95% CI, $183-$202]; P = .003), which varied by insurance type, ranging from $179 (95% CI, $70-$288) for those with Medicare to $1196 (95% CI, $106-$2244) for those without insurance, although this difference did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a diagnosis of PAD have higher health care-related expenditures and OOP expenses compared with other US adults. These expenditures compound lost wages, care by family members, and lost opportunity costs, increasing the burden carried by patients with PAD.