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

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

Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and lower extremity bypass and is associated with worse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in more than one arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using the χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. RESULTS: Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 3 arterial beds; n = 25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up.

Investigator attitudes on equipoise and practice patterns in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant variability in practice patterns and equipoise regarding treatment approach for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We aimed to assess treatment preferences of Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) investigators prior to and following the trial. METHODS: An electronic 60-question survey was sent to 1180 BEST-CLI investigators in 2022, after trial conclusion and before announcement of results. Investigators' preferences were assessed across clinical scenarios for both open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies. Vascular surgeon (VS) surgical and ENDO preferences were compared with a 2010 survey administered to prospective investigators before trial funding. RESULTS: For the 2022 survey, the response rate was 20.2% and was comprised of VSs (76.3%), interventional cardiologists (11.4%) and interventional radiologists (11.6%). The majority (72.6%) were in academic practice and 39.1% were in practice for >20 years. During initial CLTI work-up, 65.8%, 42.6%, and 55.9% of respondents always or usually ordered an arterial duplex, computed tomography angiography, and vein mapping, respectively. The most common practice distribution between ENDO and OPEN procedures was 70/30. Postoperatively, a majority reported performing routine duplex surveillance of vein bypass (99%), prosthetic bypass (81.9%), and ENDO interventions (86%). A minority reported always or usually using the wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) criteria (25.8%), GLASS (8.3%), and a risk calculator (14.8%). More than one-half (52.9%) agreed that the statement "no bridges are burned with an ENDO-first approach" was false. Intervention choice was influenced by availability of the operating room or ENDO suite, personal schedule, and personal skill set in 30.1%, 18.0%, and 45.9% of respondents, respectively. Most respondents reported routinely using paclitaxel-coated balloons (88.1%) and stents (67.5%); however, 73.3% altered practice when safety concerns were raised. Among surgeons, 17.8%, 2.9%, and 10.3% reported performing >10 annual alternative autogenous vein bypasses, composite vein composite vein bypasses, and bypasses to pedal targets, respectively. Among all interventionalists, 8%, 24%, and 8% reported performing >10 annual radial access procedures, pedal or tibial access procedures, and pedal loop revascularizations. The majority (89.1%) of respondents felt that CLTI teams improved care; however, only 23.2% had a defined team. The effectiveness of the teamwork at institutions was characterized as highly effective in 42.5%. When comparing responses by VSs to the 2010 survey, there were no changes in preferred treatment based on Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II classification or conduit preference. In 2022, OPEN surgery was preferred more for a popliteal occlusion. For clinical scenarios, there were no differences except a decreased proportion of respondents who felt there was equipoise for major tissue loss for major tissue loss (43.8% vs 31.2%) and increased ENDO choice for minor tissue loss (17.6% vs 30.8%) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of practice patterns among vascular specialists treating CLTI. The majority of investigators in BEST-CLI had experience in both advanced OPEN and ENDO techniques and represent a real-world sample of technical expertise. Over the course of the decade of the BEST-CLI trial, there was overall similar equipoise among VSs.

"Evolution of Drug-Coated Devices for the Treatment of Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia".

For patients with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia (CLTI), endovascular approaches to revascularization are often employed as a component of multimodality care aimed at limb preservation. However, patients with CLTI are also prone to treatment failure, particularly following balloon angioplasty alone. Drug-coated devices utilizing Paclitaxel were developed to decrease restenosis but have been primarily studied in patients presenting with claudication. In recent years, data have emerged which describe the efficacy of drug-coated devices in the treatment of patients with CLTI. Concurrently, there has been major controversy surrounding the use of drug-coated devices in peripheral arterial disease. A historical narrative of the development and use of drug-coated devices for peripheral arterial disease is presented, along with discussion of major trials. Evidence argues that paclitaxel-based therapies for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) do not increase mortality risk compared to nondrug-coated devices. In CLTI patients, paclitaxel-based balloons and stents provide superior patency and freedom reintervention compared to nondrug-coated devices when treating femoropopliteal disease. However, the use of Paclitaxel-based therapies for below-the-knee (BTK) interventions has not been shown to provide clinically meaningful outcomes compared to nondrug-based therapies. Newer generation antiproliferative agents (Sirolimus, Everolimus) and delivery systems (bioabsorbable scaffolds) hold promise for BTK interventions with early data suggesting decreased rates of major amputation or major adverse limb events.

Characterization and management of type II and complex endoleaks after fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair.

INTRODUCTION: Endoleaks are more common after fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) than infrarenal EVAR secondary to the length of aortic coverage and number of component junctions. Although reports have focused on type I and III endoleaks, less is known regarding type II endoleaks after F/B-EVAR. We hypothesized that type II endoleaks would be common and often complex (associated with additional endoleak types), given the potential for multiple inflow and outflow sources. We sought to describe the incidence and complexity of type II endoleaks after F/B-EVAR. METHODS: F/B-EVAR data prospectively collected at a single institution in an investigational device exemption clinical trial (G130210) were retrospectively analyzed (2014-2021). Endoleaks were characterized by type, time to detection, and management. Primary endoleaks were defined as those present on completion imaging or at first postoperative imaging, and secondary were those on subsequent imaging. Recurrent endoleaks were those that developed after a successfully resolved endoleak. Reinterventions were considered for type I or III endoleaks or any endoleak associated with sac growth >5 mm. Technical success defined as the absence of flow in the aneurysm sac at procedure conclusion and methods of intervention were captured. RESULTS: Among 335 consecutive F/B-EVARs (mean ± standard deviation follow-up: 2.5 ± 1.5 years), 125 patients (37%) experienced 166 endoleaks (81 primary, 72 secondary, and 13 recurrent). Of these 125 patients, 50 (40% of patients) underwent 71 interventions for 60 endoleaks. Type II endoleaks were the most frequent (n = 100, 60%), with 20 identified during the index procedure, 12 (60%) of which resolved before 30-day follow-up. Of the 100 type II endoleaks, 20 (20%; 12 primary, 5 secondary, and 3 recurrent) were associated with sac growth; 15 (75%) of those with associated sac growth underwent intervention. At intervention, 6 (40%) were reclassified as complex, with a concomitant type I or type III endoleak. Initial technical success for endoleak treatment was 96% (68 of 71). There were 13 recurrences, all of which were associated with complex endoleaks. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the patients who underwent F/B-EVAR experienced an endoleak. The majority were classified as type II, with nearly a fifth associated with sac expansion. Interventions for a type II endoleak frequently led to reclassification as complex, with a concomitant type I or III endoleak not appreciated on computed tomography angiography and/or duplex. Further study is needed to determine if the primary treatment goal for complex aneurysm repair is sac stability or sac regression, as this would inform both the importance of properly classifying endoleaks noninvasively and the intervention threshold for managing type II endoleaks.

Medical center reimbursement for vascular procedures has increased over time while professional reimbursement has declined.

OBJECTIVE: The United States healthcare system uses different methods for assigning medical center reimbursement (MCR) and professional reimbursement (PR) for clinical services. We hypothesized that PR has not increased proportionately to MCR for the same vascular services. METHODS: MCR and PR were compared for commonly performed inpatient and outpatient vascular procedures between 2012 and 2021. MCR was calculated using the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and outpatient prospective payment system. MCR is based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition and criteria for comorbidities and the occurrence of complications; thus, changes in MCR were reported as a range based on the degree of comorbidities and complications using the Diagnosis Related Group. PR was calculated using the Medicare physician fee schedule, which assigns a numerical work relative value unit to each surgical service, with final compensation determined by an annually adjusted conversion factor to yield a final dollar amount. The expected reimbursement based on the observed inflation during the study period using the consumer price index was calculated and compared to the actual reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, MCR for inpatient procedures increased 20% to 26% for carotid endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoral endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoropopliteal bypass with vein, 14% to 19% for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 15% for aortobifemoral bypass. During the same period, PR increased 3.3% for carotid endarterectomy but decreased for femoral endarterectomy (-5.0%), femoropopliteal bypass (-4.6%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (-4.2%), and aortobifemoral bypass (-5.0%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 10% to 17% reduction but MCR outpaced inflation by 3.7% to 10%. For outpatient procedures, MCR increased 117% for tibial angioplasty, 24% for superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting, 62% for tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion, and 24% for iliac stenting but decreased 0.43% for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation and 7.6% for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). PR increased 0.91% for SFA stenting but decreased for tibial angioplasty (-17%), AVF creation (-6.4%), TDC insertion (-7.1%), iliac stenting (-3.8%), and RFA (-22%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 13% to 32% reduction. In contrast, MCR outpaced inflation 7.5% to 88% for tibial angioplasty, SFA stenting, TDC insertion, and iliac stenting but experienced a reduction for AVF (-13%) and RFA (-19%). CONCLUSIONS: MCR for commonly performed vascular procedures has increased and outpaced inflation. In contrast, PR for these same services has decreased across all procedure types. This decrease in PR was exacerbated when adjusted for inflation. This inequity in the reimbursement methods between MCR and PR poses a threat to the viability of the physician workforce. Either changes to the reimbursement methods or a reallocation of reimbursement to physicians are imperative to sustain physician practices.

The impact of completion and follow-up endoleaks on survival, reintervention, and rupture.

OBJECTIVE: Endoleaks may be seen at case completion of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and the presence of an endoleak may impact outcomes. However, the clinical implications of various endoleaks seen during follow-up is not well-described. Therefore, we studied the impact of endoleaks at completion and at follow-up on mid-term outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent EVAR from 2003 to 2016 within the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare database and identified patients with endoleak at procedure completion and during follow-up, excluding those presenting with rupture. We stratified cohorts by presence of completion and follow-up endoleak subtypes. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, and secondary outcomes included 5-year freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to analyze differences in time-to-event endpoints. RESULTS: Of 21,745 patients with completion endoleak data, 5085 (23%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, those with type I endoleaks had lower 5-year survival (69% vs 75%; P < .001), type II endoleaks had higher survival (79%; P < .001), and types III, IV, and indeterminate were not statistically different (73%, 73%, and 75%, respectively). Freedom from reintervention for types I and III endoleaks were significantly lower than no endoleak cohort (I: 76%; P < .001; III: 72%; P < .001 vs 83%), but freedom from rupture was higher for those with type II and III endoleak (95% and 97% vs 94%; P < .001). Of 14,479 patients with detailed follow-up endoleak data, 2290 (16%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, types I and III had significantly lower 5-year survival (I: 80%; P = .002; III: 66%; P < .001 vs 84%), but there were no differences for types II (82%) and indeterminate (77%). Those with any type of follow-up endoleak had lower 5-year freedom from reintervention (I: 70%; P < .001; II: 76%; P = .006; III: 36%; P < .001; indeterminate: 60%; P = .007 vs 84%), and lower freedom from rupture (I: 92%; P < .001; II: 91%; P = .16; III: 88%; P = .01; indeterminate: 90%; P = .11 vs 94%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients with no endoleak, those with type I completion endoleaks have lower 5-year survival and freedom from reintervention. Patients with types I and III follow-up endoleaks also have lower survival, and any endoleak at follow-up is associated with lower freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. These data highlight the importance of careful patient selection and close postoperative follow-up after EVAR, as the presence of endoleaks, specifically type I and III, over time portends worse outcomes.

The association between diabetes mellitus and its management with outcomes following endovascular repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature is conflicted regarding the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms. In this study, we aimed to examine the association between DM and outcomes after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent TEVAR for TAA of the descending thoracic aorta in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2022. We created two cohorts, DM and nonDM, based on the patient's preoperative DM status, and secondarily substratified patients with DM by management strategy: dietary management, noninsulin medications, and insulin therapy cohorts. Outcomes included perioperative and 5-year mortality, in-hospital complications, indications for repair, and 1-year sac dynamics, which were analyzed with multivariable cox regression, multivariable logistic regression, and χ2 tests, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 2637 patients, of which 473 (18%) had DM preoperatively. Among patients with DM, 25% were diet controlled, 54% noninsulin medications, and 21% insulin therapy. Within patients who underwent TEVAR for TAA, the proportions of ruptured presentation were higher in the dietary-managed (11.1%) and insulin-managed (14.3%) cohorts relative to noninsulin therapy (6.6%) and those without DM (6.9%). After multivariable regression analysis, we found that DM was associated with similar perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.81) and 5-year mortality compared with patients without DM (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.48). Furthermore, all in-hospital complications were comparable between patients with DM and patients without DM. Compared with patients without DM, dietary management of DM was significantly associated with higher adjusted perioperative mortality (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.03-4.19) and higher 5-year mortality (hazad ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.03-2.20), although this was not the case for other DM subgroups. All cohorts displayed similar 1-year sac dynamics, with sac regression occurring in 47% of patients without DM vs 46% of patients with DM (P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively, patients with DM who underwent TEVAR had a higher proportion of ruptured presentation when treated with diet or insulin medications than when treated with noninsulin medications. After TEVAR for descending TAA, DM was associated with a similar risk of perioperative and 5-year mortality as nonDM. In contrast, dietary therapy for DM was associated with significantly higher perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of metachronous thoracic aortic aneurysms following prior infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of metachronous thoracic aortic aneurysms (M-TAAs) following previous infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been associated with higher spinal cord ischemia (SCI) risk compared with TEVAR of primary thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs). However, data on the impact of the type of prior infrarenal aortic repair on outcomes are scarce. In this study, we examined perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality following TEVAR M-TAA compared with primary TEVAR of TAA. METHODS: We identified all Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) patients who underwent TEVAR of TAA in the descending thoracic aorta from 2013 to 2022. Only patients undergoing primary TEVAR or TEVAR following infrarenal open (OAR) or endovascular (EVAR) repair were included. We performed univariate analyses to identify differences in baseline and procedural characteristics, and multivariable analyses for perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality using logistic and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: We included 1493 patients who underwent primary TEVAR (81%) or TEVAR following prior OAR (9.0%) or prior EVAR (9.7%). Compared with primary TEVAR, patients undergoing TEVAR M-TAA were older, more commonly male, white, and had higher rates of hypertension, smoking, and renal dysfunction. Patients with M-TAA were more likely to be asymptomatic and have larger diameters at presentation but were exposed to greater contrast volume and procedural times relative to primary TEVAR patients. Following risk-adjustment, compared with primary TEVAR, TEVAR after prior EVAR was associated with higher perioperative mortality (9.7% vs 3.9%; odds ratio [OR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-12; P < .001) and 5-year mortality (40% vs 24%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.1; P = .001). Specifically, among octogenarians (n = 375; 25%), the perioperative and 5-year mortality differences were even more pronounced (perioperative mortality: 17% vs 8.4%; OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 2.2-21; P = .001; 5-year mortality: 50% vs 27%; HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7; P = .010). However, in-hospital complications, including SCI (2.6% vs 2.8%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.33-3.3; P = .77), were not notably different. In contrast, TEVAR after previous OAR was associated with comparable perioperative mortality (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.32-3.8; P = .73), 5-year mortality (28% vs 24%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.80-2.1; P = .54), and in-hospital complications, including SCI (2.6% vs 0.7%; OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-1.1; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TEVAR of M-TAAs after prior EVAR, particularly octogenarians, have higher perioperative and 5-year mortality and therefore, represent a high-risk group. Future efforts should strive to discern the underlying factors leading to these poorer outcomes; meanwhile, these findings emphasize the need for careful patient selection and appropriate preoperative counseling in these high-risk individuals.

Initial single-center experience using Fiber Optic RealShape guidance in complex endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we have described the technical success using Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) endovascular guidance and its effects on the overall procedural time and radiation usage during complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fenestrated and branched EVARs performed at a single center from 2017 to 2022 were prospectively studied. FORS-guided procedures were matched retrospectively 1:3 to non-FORS-guided procedures by the incorporated target arteries and body mass index. Technical success was defined as successful target vessel cannulation using FORS for the entirety of navigation (wire insertion to exchange for a stiff wire). The predictors of technical success were evaluated via logistic regression. The procedural times and radiation doses were compared between the matched cohorts using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A total of 21 FORS-guided procedures were matched to 61 non-FORS-guided procedures. A total of 95 FORS cannulations were attempted (87 for the visceral target artery and 8 for the bifurcate gate). Technical success was achieved in 81 cannulations (85%); 15 (16%) were completed without the use of live fluoroscopy. The univariate predictors of FORS technical success included <50% target artery stenosis, <50% target artery calcification, and the target vessel attempted (P < .05 for each). FORS failures were attributed to device material properties in six cases, device failure in two cases, and the wire/catheter combination in six. The use of FORS guidance was associated with shorter median procedural and fluoroscopy times and a lower dose area product and air kerma (P ≤ .0001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: The results from our initial experience with FORS during complex EVAR, including our learning curve, has shown promise, with acceptable technical success and reductions in procedural times and radiation usage.

Novel surgical quality metrics in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Existing surgical quality metrics have limited utility, are primarily used for high-mortality procedures, and often fail to account for differences in non-fatal outcomes. Our objective was to develop more comprehensive, novel surgical quality metrics, for patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. METHODS: Non-ruptured open and endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) from the Vascular Quality Initiative database were studied, 2016-2019. A win was defined as AAA repair without major complication (in-hospital) or mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days). Centers were divided into quality quartiles based on performance in two novel win-based metrics: (1) Wins Above Average (WAA) and (2) weighted Wins Above Average (wWAA). Patient-level and center-level analyses compared demographics and outcomes between "best" and "worst" quartiles, including wins, mortality, and failure to rescue (FTR) rates. Additional patient-level analyses were performed based on center stratification into volume quartiles. Correlation in surgical quality for open repair and EVAR was determined at centers performing both procedures. RESULTS: Overall, 3683 patients underwent open repair and 21,165 patients underwent EVAR. For open repair, crude rates of win, mortality, and FTR were 62.8%, 4.2%, and 10.3%, respectively. For EVAR, crude rates for win, mortality, and FTR were 94.4%, 1.1%, and 12.3%, respectively. When stratified by wWAA, patients undergoing open repair at "best" quartile centers had a higher win rate (72.0% vs 52.7%; risk ratio [RR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.46) and lower mortality (3.1% vs 6.2%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33-0.74) compared with "worst" quartile centers. Similarly, for EVAR, "best" quartile centers had a higher win rate (96.2% vs 92.1%; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), lower mortality (0.4% vs 2.2%; RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and a lower FTR rate (5.7% vs 17.9%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56) compared with "worst" quartile centers. Stratification by volume showed that high-volume centers demonstrated improved wWAA for open repair (P = .04) but not for EVAR (P = .3) compared with low-volume centers. For centers that performed both open repair and EVAR, there was no correlation in quality as determined by wWAA (r = -0.056; P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: wWAA is a novel, risk-adjusted, complication-weighted surgical quality metric that also accounts for volume differences. wWAA successfully distinguishes high- and low-quality centers for both open AAA repair and EVAR. This methodology is potentially broadly applicable for measuring surgical quality.

In-hospital outcomes after upper extremity versus transfemoral and transcarotid access for carotid stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is frequently used for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. However, there are limited data comparing transradial or transbrachial (tr/tbCAS) access with more established CAS approaches. Therefore, we examined the effect of a tr/tbCAS approach versus a transfemoral (tfCAS) or transcarotid (TCAR) approach on outcomes after CAS. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to December 2021. We compared outcomes across 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS or tr/tbCAS versus TCAR. As a secondary analysis, we assessed outcomes stratified by carotid symptom status. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death. RESULTS: Among 40,835 CAS patients, 962 (2.4%) underwent tr/tbCAS, 18,840 (46%) underwent tfCAS, and 21,033 (52%) underwent TCAR. Among matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS, there was no significant difference in the risk of stroke/death (4.1% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-2.1), but tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of death (2.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.1% vs 3.9%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and death (3.6% vs 1.7%; RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for mRS in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.66-1.9) or death (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.81-3.3) between groups. In matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (4.2% vs 2.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7) and death (2.4% vs 0.5%; RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS remained associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.2% vs 2.4%; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.2) and death (3.7% vs 0.7%; RR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for Modified Rankin Scale in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.79-2.6) or death (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.95-5.7) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tfCAS or TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death in symptomatic patients, which was driven primarily by a higher risk of death. These inferior outcomes were partly attributable to more severe preoperative neurologic disability in tr/tbCAS patients. In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes in asymptomatic patients. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of guideline-directed patient selection in tr/tbCAS.

Hemoglobin A1c monitoring practices before lower extremity bypass in patients with diabetes vary broadly and do not predict outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is used as a marker of glycemic control, but the role of HbA1c before lower extremity bypass (LEB) in patients with diabetes remains unclear. We sought to characterize patients with diabetes undergoing LEB with and without HbA1c monitoring and to determine if HbA1c monitoring practices correlate with better outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all LEB in patients with diabetes (2010-2020). Patients with diabetes were characterized based on therapy: diet-controlled, noninsulin medication use, or insulin use. Glycemic control was characterized by preoperative HbA1c within 6 months of surgery: unknown control (no HbA1c), well-controlled (HbA1c <7%), poorly-controlled (HbA1c 7%-10%), and uncontrolled (HbA1c >10%). Centers with >5 LEB/y were stratified into terciles according to rate of HbA1c monitoring. The unadjusted associations between glycemic control and in-hospital major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, and mortality were assessed with univariate methods. The independent association of center-level HbA1c monitoring with 5-year survival and 3-year amputation-free survival (AFS) was determined with Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression modeling, adjusted for differences in patient characteristics and center volume. RESULTS: Of 16,092 patients with diabetes undergoing LEB, 4055 (25%) did not have a documented HbA1c. Insulin use was less common in no A1c (48%) and well-controlled diabetes (39%) compared with poorly controlled (67%) and uncontrolled diabetes (78%) (P < .01). In univariate analyses, glycemic control was not associated with differences for in-hospital major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, or mortality. Of 162 centers, HbA1c monitoring practices varied widely (range: 12.5%-100% of LEB). The 3-year AFS and 5-year survival were worse in the highest monitoring tercile vs the lowest (73.6% vs 77.3%, P < .01, 72.1% vs 77.5%, P < .01, respectively). On multivariable analyses, centers in the highest tercile of monitoring had the greatest hazard of AFS (hazard ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.3, P < .001) and overall mortality (hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.3, P < 0.001), compared with the centers in the lowest tercile of monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes and no preoperative HbA1c monitoring do not have worse LEB outcomes compared with those with HbA1c monitoring. Preoperative HbA1c monitoring varies widely, suggesting broad differences in practice and documentation. Centers with the highest rates of monitoring demonstrated inferior outcomes, likely due to other confounding unmeasured variables. These findings indicate that HbA1c monitoring before LEB, unto itself, should not be used as a measure of surgical quality.

Nationwide patterns in industry payments to academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Financial relationships between vascular surgeons and industry are essential to the development and adoption of innovative technology. However, these relationships may establish competing interests. Our objective was to describe publicly available financial transactions between industry and academic vascular surgeons. METHODS: Academic vascular surgeons were identified and characterized on the basis of publicly available data correlated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Association of American Medical Colleges data to identify academic practice settings. Vascular surgeons were linked to Open Payments data for 2017 as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Univariate and nonparametric tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 1158 academic vascular surgeons identified, 997 (86%) received industry payments totaling $8,548,034. Overall, the median of total payments received was $814 (interquartile range [IQR], $124-$2863). The top paid decile of vascular surgeons received $29,645 (IQR, $16,128-$61,701). Payments to the top decile accounted for 81% of all payments. Payments did not vary by academic rank but did vary by sex, with male vascular surgeons (n = 954) receiving $889 (IQR, $146-$3217) vs female vascular surgeons (n = 204) receiving $467 (IQR, $87-$1533; P = .002). By leadership role, division chiefs received the highest median payment amount ($1571; IQR, $368-$11,281) compared with department chairs ($424; IQR, $56-$2698) and vascular surgeons without leadership role ($769; IQR, $117-$2592; P = .002). Differences in payments were also seen on the basis of U.S. census region: Northeast, $571 (IQR, $90-2462); Midwest, $590 (IQR, $75-$2364); South, $1085 (IQR, $241-$3405); and West, $1044 (IQR, $161-$4887; P = .001). The most common categories of payments were food and beverage (paid to 85% of all vascular surgeons), travel and lodging (35%), and consulting fees (13%). Among the top decile of vascular surgeons, median payments exceeded $10,000 for three categories: consulting fees, compensation, and honoraria. Payments were made by 178 distinct entities with median total payments of $286 (IQR, $70-$6285). The three top entities paid a total of $5,004,061, which accounted for 59% of all payments. Payments from at least one of the top three entities reached 76% of vascular surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Most academic vascular surgeons receive publicly reported industry payments that are paid by a limited number of entities, typically for food and beverage or travel and lodging. The top 10% of vascular surgeons received higher median payment amounts, totaling 81% of all industry payments. Vascular surgeons should be aware of publicly reported payment information and the potential for conflicts of interest.

Effect of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm extent on outcomes in patients undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes after open repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) have been definitively demonstrated to worsen as the TAAA extent increases. However, the effect of TAAA extent on fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) outcomes is unclear. We investigated the differences in outcomes of F/BEVAR according to the TAAA extent. METHODS: We reviewed a single-institution, prospectively maintained database of all F/BEVAR procedures performed in an institutional review board-approved registry and/or physician-sponsored Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial (trial no. G130210). The patients were stratified into two groups: group 1, extensive (extent 1-3) TAAAs; and group 2, nonextensive (juxtarenal, pararenal, and extent 4-5) TAAAs. The perioperative outcomes were compared using the χ2 test. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 3-year survival, target artery patency, reintervention, type I or III endoleak, and branch instability (type Ic or III endoleak, loss of branch patency, target vessel stenosis >50%) was performed. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the independent effect of extensive TAAA on 1-year mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 299 F/BEVAR procedures were performed for 87 extensive TAAAs (29%) and 212 nonextensive TAAAs (71%). Most repairs had used company-manufactured, custom-made devices (n = 241; 81%). Between the two groups, no perioperative differences were observed in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury, dialysis, target artery occlusion, access site complication, or type I or III endoleak (P > .05 for all). The incidence of perioperative paraparesis was greater in the extensive TAAA group (8.1% vs 0.5%; P = .001). However, the incidence of long-term paralysis was equivalent (2.3% vs 0.5%; P = .20), with nearly all patients with paraparesis regaining ambulatory function. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, no differences in survival, target artery patency, or freedom from reintervention were observed at 3 years (P > .05 for all). Freedom from type I or III endoleak (P < .01) and freedom from branch instability (P < .01) were significantly worse in the extensive TAAA group. Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that F/BEVAR for extensive TAAA was not associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-3.52; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike open TAAA repair, the F/BEVAR outcomes were similar for extensive and nonextensive TAAAs. The differences in perioperative paraparesis, branch instability, and type I or III endoleak likely resulted from the increasing length of aortic coverage and number of target arteries involved. These findings suggest that high-volume centers performing F/BEVAR should expect comparable outcomes for extensive and nonextensive TAAA repair.

Financial implications of coronavirus disease 2019 on a tertiary academic vascular surgery practice.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the healthcare system in the United States. The redistribution of resources and suspension of elective procedures and other services has resulted in financial stress across all service lines. The financial effects on the practice of vascular surgery have not yet been quantified. We hypothesized that vascular surgery divisions have experienced losses affecting the hospital and professional sides that will not be recoupable without significant productivity increases. METHODS: Administrative claims data for clinical services performed by the vascular surgery division at a tertiary medical center for March and April 2019 and for March and April 2020 were analyzed. These claims were separated into two categories: hospital claims (inpatient and outpatient) and professional claims (professional reimbursement for all services provided). Medicare reimbursement methods were used to assign financial value: diagnosis-related group for inpatient services, ambulatory payment classification for outpatient services, and the Medicare physician fee schedule for professional reimbursement and work relative value units (wRVUs). Reimbursements and productivity (wRVUs) were compared between the two periods. A financial model was created to determine the increase in future productivity over baseline required to mitigate the losses incurred during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 11,317 vascular surgery claims were reviewed. Hospital reimbursement during the pandemic decreased from $4,982,114 to $2,649,521 (-47%) overall (inpatient, from $3,505,775 to $2,128,133 [-39%]; outpatient, from $1,476,339 to $521,388 [-65%]) and professional reimbursement decreased from $933,897 to $430,967 (-54%) compared with the same period in 2019. Professional productivity as measured by wRVUs sustained a similar decline from 10,478 wRVUs to 5386 wRVUs (-51%). Modeling sensitivity analyses demonstrated that if a vascular division were able to increase inpatient and outpatient revenue to greater than prepandemic levels by 10%, 5%, or 3%, it would take 9, 19, or 31 months, respectively, for the hospital to recover their pandemic-associated losses. Similarly, professional reimbursement recovery would require 11, 20, or 36 months with corresponding increases in productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound and lasting effects on the world in terms of lives lost and financial hardships. The financial effects on vascular surgery divisions has resulted in losses ranging from 39% to 65% compared with the prepandemic period in the previous year. Because the complete mitigation of losses is not feasible in the short term, alternative and novel strategies are needed to financially sustain the vascular division and hospital during a prolonged recovery period.

Late outcomes after endovascular and open repair of large abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of aortic abdominal aneurysm (AAA) rupture increases with an increasing aneurysm diameter. However, the effect of the AAA diameter on late outcomes after aneurysm repair is unclear. Therefore, we assessed the association of a large AAA diameter with late outcomes for patients undergoing open and endovascular AAA repair. METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone elective open or endovascular infrarenal aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2016 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. A large AAA diameter was defined as a diameter >65 mm. We assessed the 5-year reintervention, rupture, mortality, and follow-up rates. We constructed propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimations and Cox proportional hazard models to identify independent associations between large AAA repair and our outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 21,119 aneurysm repairs identified, 15.2% were for large AAAs. Of the 21,119 repairs, 19,017 were endovascular and 2102 were open. The large AAA cohort was less likely to have undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; 84.9% vs 91%; P < .001), more likely to be older (median age, 76 vs 75 years; P < .001), and were less likely to be women (16.2% vs 21.7%; P < .001). After EVAR, patients with large AAAs had had lower adjusted 5-year freedom from reintervention (73.9% vs 84.6%; P < .001), freedom from rupture (88.5% vs 93.6%; P < .001), survival (58.0% vs 66.4%; P < .001), and freedom from loss to follow-up (77.7% vs 83.3%; P < .001) compared with patients with smaller AAAs. However, after open repair, the adjusted 5-year freedom from reintervention (95.8% vs 93.3%; P = .11), freedom from rupture (97.4% vs 97.8%; P = .32), survival (70.4% vs 74.0%; P = .13), and loss to follow-up (60.5% vs 62.8%; P = .86) were similar to the results for patients with smaller AAAs. For patients with large AAAs, the adjusted 5-year survival was lower after EVAR than that after open repair (55.3% vs 63.7%) but not after smaller AAA repair (67.3% vs 70.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year adjusted reintervention, ruptures, mortality, and loss to follow-up rates for patients who had undergone large AAA EVAR were higher than those for patients who had undergone small AAA EVAR and large AAA open repair. Therefore, for patients with large AAAs who are medically fit, open repair should be strongly considered. Furthermore, these findings highlight the necessity for rigorous long-term follow-up after EVAR.

Inadequate Adherence to Imaging Surveillance and Medical Management in Patients with Duplex Ultrasound-Detected Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that patients with ≥50% carotid artery stenosis undergo surveillance imaging and atherosclerotic risk reduction medical therapies, regardless of whether revascularization is performed. The objective of this study was to determine rates of adherence to these recommended measures and to identify risk factors for nonadherence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all carotid duplex ultrasound (DUS) from 2016 to 2017 at a single institution. Patients with unilateral or bilateral ≥50% carotid stenosis were included. Primary outcomes were rates and timing of surveillance imaging and medication regimen. Patient and study characteristics were compared using univariate and multivariable analyses. A subgroup analysis of patients with a new finding of carotid stenosis was also performed. RESULTS: Carotid stenosis >50% was detected in 340 patients. Overall, 182 patients (54%) had follow-up imaging (median 261 days [IQR 166-366]) and 158 patients (46%) had no imaging follow-up (NIFU). NIFU patients had similar rates of aspirin use (86% vs. 88%, P = 0.6) and tobacco cessation counseling (71% vs. 71%, P = 0.8) but had less statin use (85% vs. 94%, P = 0.01) compared to those with imaging follow-up. Subsequent carotid revascularization was more common in patients with imaging follow-up (18% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). NIFU patients were less likely to have Medicare or commercial insurance (54% vs. 75%, P < 0.001). The indication for DUS in NIFU patients, compared to those in follow up, was less commonly neurologic symptoms (11% vs. 14%), more commonly other clinical findings (35% vs. 16%), and more commonly as work up before nonvascular surgery (25% vs. 4%, P < 0.001), respectively. NIFU rates decreased with increasing degree of carotid stenosis. Prior carotid intervention, prior DUS, or DUS ordered by a vascular surgeon were characteristics associated with imaging follow-up (P < 0.05 for all). In a subgroup of 160 patients with new carotid stenosis, a majority (64%) had NIFU and statin use was lower in these patients (82% vs. 96%, P = 0.007). On multivariable analysis, preop indication was predictive of NIFU (odds ratio [OR] 8.1 [95% confidence interval, CI 2.5-26.4], P < 0.001) whereas protective factors included: 70-80% stenosis (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.14-0.76], P = 0.01), study ordered by vascular surgeon (OR 0.40 [95% CI 0.19-0.83], P = 0.01), and Medicare/commercial insurance (OR 0.36 [95% CI 0.2-0.66], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of patients found to have ≥50% carotid stenosis on DUS had no imaging follow-up; these patients were less likely to be on recommended statin therapy. The benefits of nonrevascularization-based treatments for carotid disease require adherence to therapy. Forgoing surveillance imaging in patients with hemodynamically significant carotid stenosis should be a shared decision between provider and patient and does not obviate the need for medical therapies.

The Association of the Day of the Week with Outcomes of Infrainguinal Lower Extremity Bypass.

BACKGROUND: The day of the week (DOW) for performing procedures and operations has been shown to affect clinical and resource utilization outcomes. Limited published data are available on vascular surgery operations. Our primary objective was to assess outcomes by DOW for infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB) performed for claudication or rest pain. The secondary objective was to assess outcomes by DOW for LEBs performed for tissue loss. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003 to 2018 for all elective index infrainguinal LEBs performed for claudication or rest pain. Cases performed for acute limb ischemia as well as concomitant peripheral vascular intervention, nonelective LEBs, sequential grafts, and weekend cases were excluded. LEBs were grouped by DOW: Monday-Tuesday (early weekdays) versus Wednesday-Friday (later weekdays). Baseline data, operative details, and outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. LEBs performed for claudication/rest pain were analyzed together while tissue loss was assessed separately. RESULTS: There were 12,084 LEBs identified-44.5% performed on Monday-Tuesday and 55.5% on Wednesday-Friday. Overall, the mean age was 65.6 years, 68.6% were male, and 82.8% were Caucasian. LEBs were performed for claudication in 57.4% of cases. An autogenous great saphenous vein was used in 58.8% of cases, whereas a prosthetic graft was used in 35.1% of cases. The most common bypass origin was the femoral artery (94.1%), and target was the popliteal artery (70.1%). Significant differences between Monday-Tuesday versus Wednesday-Friday, respectively, were mean body mass index (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 28 kg/m2), preoperative aspirin use (74.2% vs. 72.5%), continuous vein harvest technique (41.9% vs. 44%), and mean operative time (mins) (216.2 vs. 222.6) (all P < 0.05). Univariate postoperative outcomes were significantly different between Monday-Tuesday versus Wednesday-Friday, respectively, for mean length of stay (LOS) (days) (3.9 vs. 4.3), cardiac complications (myocardial infarction/dysrhythmia/congestive heart failure) (3.5% vs. 4.9%), stroke (0.3% vs. 0.6%), and respiratory complications (0.8% vs. 1.3%) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that LEBs performed on Wednesday-Friday versus Monday-Tuesday for claudication/rest pain were independently associated with cardiac complications and prolonged LOS. There were also 8,491 LEBs performed for tissue loss which overall had similar findings to LEBs performed for claudication/rest pain such as increased LOS for LEBs performed for tissue loss on Wednesday-Friday (P < 0.001) and similar likeliness for respiratory complication, wound complication, return to the operating room, and mortality (all P > 0.05). However, LEBs performed for tissue loss on Wednesday-Friday versus Monday-Tuesday had similar cardiac complications (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Elective LEBs performed on later weekdays for claudication/rest pain were associated with cardiac complications and prolonged LOS, whereas tissue loss confirmed association with prolonged LOS. Further investigations are needed to identify whether increased resources or allocation of resources should be focused on later weekdays to optimize patient outcomes.

High Mortality and Venous Thromboembolism Risk Following Major Penetrating Abdominal Venous Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating injuries to the inferior vena cava and/or iliac veins are a source of hemorrhage but may also predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). We sought to determine the relationship between iliocaval injury, VTE and mortality. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for penetrating abdominal trauma from 2015-2017. Univariate analyses compared baseline characteristics and outcomes based on presence of iliocaval injury. Multivariable analyses determined the effect of iliocaval injury on VTE and mortality. RESULTS: Of 9,974 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma, 329 had iliocaval injury (3.3%). Iliocaval injury patients were more likely to have a firearm mechanism (83% vs. 43%, P < 0.001), concurrent head (P = 0.036), spinal cord (P < 0.001), and pelvic injuries (P < 0.001), and higher total injury severity score (median 20 vs. 8.0, P < 0.001). They were more likely to undergo 24-hr hemorrhage control surgery (69% vs. 17%, P < 0.001), but less likely to receive VTE chemoprophylaxis during admission (64% vs. 68%, P = 0.04). Of patients undergoing iliocaval surgery, 64% underwent repair, 26% ligation, and 10% unknown. Iliocaval injury patients had higher rates of VTE (12% vs. 2%), 24-hr mortality (23% vs. 2.0%) and in-hospital mortality (33% vs. 3.4%) (P < 0.001 for all). VTE rates were similar following repair (14%) and ligation (17%). Iliocaval injury patients also had higher rates of cardiac complications (10.3% vs. 1.4%), acute kidney injury (8.2% vs. 1.3%), extremity compartment syndrome (4.0 vs. 0.2%), and unplanned return to OR (7.9% vs. 2.5%) (P < 0.001 for all). In multivariable analyses, iliocaval injury was independently associated with risk of VTE (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29-3.48; P = 0.003), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 9.61; 95% CI, 4.96-18.64; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Iliocaval injuries occur in <5% of penetrating abdominal trauma but are associated with more severe injury patterns and high mortality rates. Regardless of repair type, survivors should be considered high risk for developing VTE.