Predicting wound complications following lower extremity revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to create a simple risk score to identify factors associated with wound complications after infrainguinal revascularization. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program national data set was queried from 2005 to 2021 to identify 22,114 patients undergoing elective open revascularization for peripheral arterial disease (claudication, rest pain, tissue loss) or peripheral aneurysm. Emergency and trauma cases were excluded. The data set was divided into a two-thirds derivation set and one-third validation set to create a risk prediction model. The primary end point was wound complication (wound dehiscence, superficial/deep wound surgical site infection). Eight independent risk factors for wound complications resulted from the model and were assigned whole number integer risk scores. Summary risk scores were collapsed into categories and defined as low (0-3 points), moderate (4-7 points), high (8-11 points), and very high (>12 points). RESULTS: The wound complication rate in the derivation data set was 9.7% (n = 1428). Predictors of wound complication included age ≤73 (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.46), body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.68-2.36), non-Hispanic White (vs others: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.30-1.69), diabetes (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10-1.37), white blood cell count >9900/mm3 (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.35), absence of coronary artery disease (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.35), operative time >6 hours (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.37), and undergoing a femoral endarterectomy in conjunction with bypass (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.57). In both the derivation and validation sets, wound complications correlated with risk category. Among the defined categories in the derivation set, wound complication rates were 4.5% for low-risk patients, 8.5% for moderate-risk patients, 13.8% for high-risk patients, and 23.8% for very high-risk patients, with similar results for the internal validation data set. Operative indication did not independently associate with wound complications. Patients with wound complications had higher rates of reoperation and graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: This risk prediction model uses easily obtainable clinical metrics that allow for informed discussion of wound complication risk for patients undergoing open infrainguinal revascularization.

Percutaneous radial artery access for peripheral vascular interventions is a safe alternative for upper extremity access.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous radial artery access has been increasingly used for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). Our goal was to characterize the practice patterns and perioperative outcomes among patients treated using PVI performed via radial artery access. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2016 to 2020 for PVI performed via upper extremity access. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the periprocedure outcomes of radial artery access cases. A separate sample of brachial artery access cases was used as a comparator. RESULTS: A total of 520 radial artery access cases were identified. The mean age was 69 ± 10 years, and 41.3% were women. Most procedures were performed in the hospital outpatient setting (71.7%). The sheath size was ≤5F for 10%, 6F for 78%, and 7F for 12%. Ultrasound-guided access and protamine were used in 68.3% and 17.3% of cases, respectively. The interventions were aortoiliac (55%), femoropopliteal (55%), and infrapopliteal (9%). Stenting and atherectomy were performed in 55% and 19% of cases, respectively, and more often with 7F sheaths. Access site complications were any hematoma (4.8%), including hematomas resulting in intervention (0.8%), pseudoaneurysms (1%), and access stenosis or occlusion (0.8%). On multivariable analysis, sheath size was not associated with access site complications. Percutaneous brachial artery access (n = 1135) compared with radial access was independently associated with more overall hematomas (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.81; P = .03). However, access type was not associated with hematomas resulting in intervention (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-6.72; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: PVIs via radial artery access exhibited a low prevalence of postprocedural access site complications and were associated with fewer minor hematoma complications compared with interventions performed using brachial artery access. Radial artery access compared with brachial artery access should be the preferred technique for PVIs.

Peri-Procedural Management of Hemodynamic Instability in Patients Undergoing Carotid Revascularization.

Acute perioperative changes in arterial pressure occur frequently, particularly in patients with cardiovascular disease or those receiving vasoactive medications, or in relation to certain cardiovascular surgical procedures. Hemodynamic Instability (HI) is common in patients undergoing carotid revascularization because of unique patho-physiological and surgical factors. The operation, by necessity, disrupts the afferent pathway of the baroreflex, which can lead to postendarterectomy HI. Poor arterial pressure control is associated with increased morbidity and mortality after carotid revascularization, but good control of arterial pressure is often difficult to achieve in practice. The incidence, implications, and etiology of HI associated with carotid surgery are reviewed, and some recommendations made for its management. Close monitoring and titration of therapy are probably the most important considerations rather than specific choice of agents.

Risk prediction of 30-day mortality after lower extremity major amputation.

OBJECTIVE: Universal risk calculators may underestimate mortality risk, whereas purely observational administrative data may lack appropriate granularity to individualize risk. The purpose of this study was to create a simple risk prediction model to identify the factors associated with 30-day morality after lower extremity major amputation for ischemic vascular disease. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program national data set was queried from 2005 to 2015 to identify 14,890 patients undergoing elective above-knee or below-knee amputation for rest pain, tissue loss, or gangrene. The data set was divided into a two-thirds derivation set and one-third validation set for the purpose of creating a risk prediction model. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Eight independent risk factors for mortality resulted from the model and were assigned whole number integer risk scores. Summary risk scores were collapsed into categories and defined as low (0-3 points), moderate (4-7 points), high (8-10), and very high (>10). RESULTS: Mortality in the derivation data set was 4.6% (n = 453). By multivariable backward elimination, predictors of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [95% confidence limits]) included preoperative do not resuscitate order (3.1 [2.3-4.0]), congestive heart failure (2.8 [2.1-3.6]), age >80 years (1.8 [1.4-2.2]), chronic renal insufficiency (2.1 [1.7-2.5]), above-knee amputation (1.8 [1.4-2.2]), dependent functional status (2.0 [1.6-2.5]), coronary artery disease (1.3 [1.1-1.6]), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.3 [1.0-1.6]); the final model held a C statistic of 0.74. In both the derivation and validation sets, 30-day mortality correlated with risk category. Among the defined categories in the derivation set, 30-day mortality rates were 2.3% for low-risk patients, 4.3% for moderate-risk patients, 7.5% for high-risk patients, and 17.5% for very-high-risk patients, with similar results for the validation data set. CONCLUSIONS: This risk prediction model uses eight easily obtainable clinical metrics that allow early assessment of 30-day mortality risk of patients undergoing major lower extremity amputation for ischemic indications. The internal validation of the risk score demonstrates the increased mortality with increasing risk category. Reliable expected mortality prediction is critically important for surgeons to make recommendations in accordance with a patient's or family's goals of care. These data may also be used to set realistic expectations for hospital-based quality initiatives and to provide guidance in preoperative medical optimization.

Contemporary comparison of aortofemoral bypass to alternative inflow procedures in the Veteran population.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple vascular inflow reconstruction options exist for claudication, including aortofemoral bypass (AFB) and alternative inflow procedures (AIPs) such as femoral reconstruction with iliac stents, and femoral-femoral, iliofemoral, and axillofemoral bypass. Contemporary multi-institution comparison of these techniques is lacking. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Project (VASQIP) national database (2005-2013) was used to compare AFB vs AIP in a propensity-matched analysis. Primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included rates of postoperative complications. Multivariable regression assessed the adjusted effect of inflow procedure type on mortality. RESULTS: A matched cohort of 748 claudicant patients (373 AFB, 375 AIP) was identified. The AFB and AIP groups had similar mean age (59.9 vs 60.8 years; P = .30), gender (P = .51), race (P = .52), recent smoking (79.1% vs 76.5%; P = .43), history of coronary artery disease (14.8% vs 14.7%; P > .99), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18.8% vs 18.4%; P = .92), renal insufficiency (5.9% vs 6.1%; P > .99), and diabetes (22% vs 20%; P = .53), and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (P = .41). The AFB group had longer mean operative time (4.9 vs 3.5 hours; P < .0001), more senior resident assistants (72.4% vs 61.1%; P < .0001), and greater mean red blood cell transfusion (1.1 vs 0.12 units; P < .0001). AFB and AIP had similar rates of outflow bypass (1.9% vs 1.3%; P = .58) and outflow endovascular interventions (0.54% vs 1.6%; P = .29). AFB trended toward a higher rate of mortality at 30 days postoperatively (2.7% vs 0.8%; P = .06), but by 90 days, the crude mortality rates were similar for the two (2.9% vs 2.1%; P = .5). AFB had higher rates of pneumonia (5.9% vs 0.8%; P < .001), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (1.3% vs 0%; P = .03), postoperative transfusion (2.7% vs 0.53%; P = .02), and urinary tract infection (3.5% vs 0.8%; P = .01), but similar rates of myocardial infarction (1.6% vs 0.8%; P = .34), stroke (0.8% vs 0%; P = .12), wound complications (13.1% vs 12.8%; P = .91), renal failure (1.1% vs 0.3%; P = .22), graft failure (1.3% vs 1.1%; P = .75), and return to the operating room (12.9% vs 9.6%; P = .17). Multivariable analysis showed AFB was not independently associated with mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-3.0). Significant factors included age (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), postoperative renal insufficiency (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.6-4.0), and unplanned reintubation (OR, 35.5; 95% CI, 3.1-399). CONCLUSIONS: For claudicant patients with inflow disease, AFB has higher rates of 30-day complications and a trend toward higher mortality; however by 90 days postoperatively, the two procedure types have similar rates of mortality.

Impact of coexisting aneurysms on open revascularization for aortoiliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: National data evaluating outcomes for occlusive abdominal aortic reconstructions are well described. The relative effect of operative indication as well as the presence of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) on in-hospital mortality is not well defined. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients who underwent open aortic surgery (2003-2010). Indication for surgery was classified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic codes to identify isolated occlusive indications as well as combined occlusive disease and AAA. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Overall, 56,374 underwent aortic reconstruction, 48,591 for occlusive disease (86.2%) and 7783 for combined occlusive disease with AAA (13.8%). Intermittent claudication was the most common indication for intervention (60.9%), whereas 39.7% underwent intervention for critical limb ischemia (22.2% rest pain, 17.6% gangrene). Patients with intermittent claudication had more concomitant AAAs (17.3%) than did patients with critical limb ischemia (8.4%). The baseline characteristics for those with occlusive disease and combined occlusive with AAA disease were similar in terms of obesity (4.8% vs 4.2%; P = .27) and congestive heart failure (6.6% vs 6.3%; P = .65) but differed by age (62.2 years vs 68.4 years; P < .0001) and hypertension (65.4% vs 69.1%; P = .005). Patients with combined occlusive and AAA disease had higher mortality than those with occlusive disease alone (3.9% vs 2.7%; P = .01). On multivariable regression, factors associated with in-hospital mortality included gangrene with AAA compared with gangrene alone (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-4.7; P < .0002), age >65 years age (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.4-4.1; P < .0001), renal failure (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8; P < .0001), and concurrent lower extremity revascularization (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P < .02). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia with concomitant AAA carries a higher mortality than intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia alone, especially in older patients with gangrene requiring revascularization and renal insufficiency. Preoperative risk stratification strategies should focus on the indication for surgery as well as the presence of concomitant AAA.

Mortality of acute mesenteric ischemia remains unchanged despite significant increase in utilization of endovascular techniques.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we evaluated if increase in utilization of endovascular surgery has affected in-hospital mortality rates among patients with acute mesenteric ischemia. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (2003-2011) was queried for acute mesenteric ischemia using ICD-9 code for acute mesenteric ischemia (557.1). This cohort was divided into patients treated with open vascular surgery (open vascular group) and by endovascular therapies (endovascular group) based on the ICD-9CM procedure codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine temporal trend for mortality while adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: There was 1.45-fold increase in utilization of endovascular techniques in this study. In-hospital mortality rate, total median charges and length of stay were significantly lower among the endovascular group than the open vascular group despite having significantly higher Elixhauser comorbidities index (3 ± 0.1 vs. 2.7 ± 0.1, p = .003). Over the course of the study period, there was no change in the overall mortality rate despite higher endovascular utilization. Factors associated with increased mortality included age, open surgical repair (Odds ratio: 1.45, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.10-1.91, p = .016) and bowel resection Odds ratio: 2.88, 95% Confidence Interval: 2.01-4.12). CONCLUSION: The mortality rate for acute mesenteric ischemia remains unchanged throughout this contemporary study. Open surgical intervention, bowel resection and age were associated with increased mortality. Endovascular group patients had better survival despite higher morbidity indices.

Perspectives on endovascular training in traditional 5+2 vascular surgery fellowship training programs.

This study aimed to compare expectations and experiences of fellows to those of faculty in vascular surgery fellowship programs with regard to endovascular training. Anonymous surveys were sent to fellows (n = 235) and program directors (n = 147), with 79 fellows and 65 faculty members responding. Fellows noted higher expectations of their endovascular skills prior to starting fellowship than the faculty group reported expecting. Faculty assessed fellows' pre-training endovascular skills at a significantly lower level than the fellows' self-assessment. Fellows were significantly less satisfied with the structured aspects of endovascular training than the faculty believed them to be. Only 3% of fellows vs. 32% of faculty felt that the presence of an endovascular simulator affected how residents ranked fellowship programs during the match. In conclusion, incoming fellows in vascular surgery fellowship programs have high expectations of themselves, but may overestimate their actual pre-training endovascular skills. Fellows desire more structured endovascular training, which is not recognized by faculty. Endovascular simulators are valued, but may not be a significant draw in the match process.

Predictors and consequences of unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: In the United States, vascular surgeons frequently perform carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given the resource burden of unplanned readmission (URA), we sought to identify the predictors and consequences of URA after this common vascular surgery procedure to identify potential points of intervention. METHODS: Using a prospective single-institution database, we retrospectively identified consecutive patients undergoing CEA (2001-2011). Demographic and perioperative factors were prospectively collected. The primary end point was 30-day postdischarge URA after CEA. The secondary end point was 1-year survival. We performed a univariable analysis for URA followed by a multivariable Cox model. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 1-year survival. RESULTS: During the study period, 840 patients underwent 897 CEAs. The 30-day postdischarge overall readmission rate and URA rate were 8.6% and 6.5%, respectively. Most URA patients (n = 42; 73.4%) were readmitted for a CEA-related reason (headache, cardiac, hypertension, surgical site infection, bleeding/hematoma, stroke/transient ischemic attack, dysphagia, or hyperperfusion syndrome). Seventeen patients (29.3%) had more than one reason for URA. Median time to URA was 4 days (interquartile range, 1-9 days). Postoperative length of stay, indication for CEA, and discharge destination were not associated with URA. In multivariable analysis, in-hospital occurrence of congestive heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 15.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-48.8; P < .001), stroke (HR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.8-14.0; P < .001), bleeding/hematoma (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.4-6.9; P = .003), and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.5; P = .01) were significantly associated with URA. Patients in the URA group also had decreased survival during 1 year (91% vs 96%; P = .01, log-rank). CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day URA rate after CEA is low (6.5%). Prior coronary artery bypass grafting and in-hospital postoperative occurrence of stroke, bleeding/hematoma, and congestive heart failure identify those at increased risk of URA, and URA signals increased long-term risk of postoperative mortality.

Contemporary comparison of supra-aortic trunk surgical reconstructions for occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Open surgical reconstruction for supra-aortic trunk occlusive disease persists despite advances in endovascular therapy. Although extrathoracic reconstructions developed as a safer alternative to transthoracic reconstructions, contemporary national data evaluating relative rates of operative outcomes are lacking. METHODS: With use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2011), patients who underwent transthoracic or extrathoracic reconstruction were evaluated. Patients with nonocclusive indications were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite end point of stroke/myocardial infarction (MI)/death. Secondary outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients (10.7%) underwent transthoracic reconstructions and 692 patients (89.3%) underwent extrathoracic reconstructions. Vascular surgeons performed most transthoracic (96%) and extrathoracic (97%) reconstructions. The most common extrathoracic reconstructions were carotid-subclavian bypass (68%), carotid-carotid bypass (14%), and subclavian transposition (7%). Less commonly, axillary-axillary bypass (6%), subclavian-axillary bypass (2%), subclavian-subclavian bypass (1%), and carotid transposition (1%) were performed. At the time of operation, 10% (transthoracic reconstructions) and 8% (extrathoracic reconstructions) of patients had a concurrent carotid endarterectomy (P < .60). Analysis of more than 20 characteristics showed that the groups did not differ significantly. The two groups had similar rates of postoperative stroke (1.2% in the transthoracic reconstruction group vs 2.2% in the extrathoracic reconstruction group; P > .99), MI (0% vs 1.3%; P = .61), death (2.4% vs 1.3%; P = .33), and stroke/MI/death (3.6% vs 3.8%; P > .99). Transthoracic reconstruction patients had longer hospital stays (6.3 days vs 4.0 days; P < .0002), received more transfusions (8.4% vs 2.5%; P < .0096), and had higher rates of postoperative sepsis (3.6% vs 0.3%; P < .01) and venous thromboembolic complications (3.6% vs 0.4%; P < .02). After adjustment for other factors, including surgical approach, stroke/MI/death was significantly associated with postoperative pneumonia (odds ratio [OR], 26.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.29-108.28; P < .0001), postoperative ventilator dependence (OR, 12.45; 95% CI, 2.74-56.48; P = .001), and postoperative return to the operating room (OR, 4.75; 95% CI, 1.67-13.54; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: At U.S. hospitals, extrathoracic reconstruction is the more common reconstruction for supra-aortic trunk occlusive disease. Both approaches carry acceptably low rates of death, MI, and stroke. Transthoracic reconstruction results in more resource utilization because of its postoperative complications and greater complexity.

Contemporary predictors of extended postoperative hospital length of stay after carotid endarterectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital length of stay (LOS) contributes to costs. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is performed frequently by vascular surgeons, making contemporary CEA LOS rates and predictors vital knowledge for quality evaluation and cost containment initiatives. METHODS: Using a prospective single-institution database, we retrospectively identified consecutive patients undergoing CEA from 2001 to 2011. Demographic and perioperative factors were prospectively collected. The primary end point was extended postoperative LOS (ELOS), defined as postoperative LOS ≥2 days. Factors associated with ELOS were analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression model. Rates of 1-year readmission and death were compared with the Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank test). RESULTS: Eight hundred forty patients underwent 897 CEAs with 39% of procedures among females and 35% for symptomatic disease. One hundred two (11.4%) patients were inpatients prior to the day of CEA ("preadmitted"); their preoperative days by definition are not included in ELOS. Median postoperative LOS was 1 day (interquartile range, 1-2). Four hundred fourteen patients (46.2%) had ELOS. Preadmission was associated with ELOS (72% vs 41%; P < .01) and ELOS patients were less likely to be discharged home (11.9% vs 1.5%; P < .01). There was no association between ELOS and unplanned 30-day postdischarge readmission (6.0% vs 7.0%; P = .59). On multivariable analysis, preoperative factors significantly associated with ELOS included preadmission (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.7; P < .001), history of congestive heart failure (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03), female gender (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; P < .001), and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = .04). Operative factors included electroencephalography change (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2; P = .01), operating room start time after 12:00 pm (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P < .01), and total operating room time (OR, 1.5 per hour; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9; P < .01). Postoperative factors included transfer to intensive care unit (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.1-9.4; P < .01), number of in-hospital postoperative complications (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.2-6.5; P < .01), and Foley catheter placement (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4; P < .01). Over 1 year, ELOS was associated with increased hospital readmission (93.6% vs 84.7%; log-rank test, P < .01) and decreased survival (95.1% vs 98.3%; log-rank test, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of CEA patients were discharged on or after postoperative day 2. Interventions on modifiable risk factors, such as early Foley catheter placement to prevent urinary retention and morning CEA scheduling, may decrease LOS. ELOS may identify a subset of patients at increased risk for long-term readmission and mortality.

Carotid-subclavian bypass and subclavian-carotid transposition in the thoracic endovascular aortic repair era.

OBJECTIVE: Beyond traditional indications, subclavian revascularization is increasingly performed to allow for aortic arch debranching in the setting of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Endovascular treatment options for subclavian disease have emerged, perhaps altering the patient population undergoing open revascularization. We leveraged prospectively collected American College of Surgeons (ACS)-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data to delineate evolving stroke and mortality rates after carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) and subclavian-carotid transposition (SCT) in this dynamic context. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database (2005 to 2010) was used to examine patients who underwent CSB or SCT. Patients admitted for emergency cases were excluded. Factors associated with 30-day postoperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or death (CVA/D) were defined using univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: CSB comprised 41% of revascularizations associated with TEVAR and 89% of isolated revascularizations. A greater proportion of TEVARs were performed in the SCT group (37.4% vs 4.9%; P < .01). The groups were similar in demographic characteristics and prevalence of comorbidities. Overall stroke, mortality, and combined CVA/D rates were 3.5% (n = 31), 3.3% (n = 29), and 5.8% (n = 51), respectively. Surgical approach did not affect outcome. The CVA/D rate was 10.2% (n = 9) for revascularization in conjunction with TEVAR and 5.3% (n = 42) for isolated reconstruction (P = .06). For patients undergoing isolated revascularization, increasing age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.10; P < .01), and nonindependent functional status (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-8.68; P < .01) were significantly associated with CVA/D. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary data set, there was no significant difference in CVA/D by surgical approach. TEVAR trended toward an association with CVA/D compared with isolated subclavian reconstruction. CVA/D continues to complicate contemporary CSB and SCT, especially among elderly and nonindependent patient subsets.

Distal anastomotic vein adjunct usage in infrainguinal prosthetic bypasses.

OBJECTIVE: Single-segment saphenous vein remains the optimal conduit for infrainguinal revascularization. In its absence, prosthetic conduit may be used. Existing data regarding the significance of anastomotic distal vein adjunct (DVA) usage with prosthetic grafts are based on small series. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis derived from the regional Vascular Study Group of New England as well as the Brigham and Women's hospital database. A total of 1018 infrainguinal prosthetic bypass grafts were captured in the dataset from 73 surgeons at 15 participating institutions. Propensity scoring and 3:1 matching was performed to create similar exposure groups for analysis. Outcome measures of interest included: primary patency, freedom from major adverse limb events (MALEs), and amputation free survival at 1 year as a function of vein patch utilization. Time to event data were compared with the log-rank test; multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between vein cuff usage and the primary end points. DVA was defined as a vein patch, cuff, or boot in any configuration. RESULTS: Of the 1018 bypass operations, 94 (9.2%) had a DVA whereas 924 (90.8%) did not (no DVA). After propensity score matching, 88 DVAs (25%) and 264 no DVAs (75%) were analyzed. On univariate analysis of the matched cohort, the DVA and no DVA groups were similar in terms of mean age (70.0 vs 69.0; P = .55), male sex (58.0% vs 58.3%; P > .99), and preoperative characteristics such as living at home (93.2% vs 94.3%; P = .79) and independent ambulatory status (72.7% vs 75.7%; P = .64). The DVA and no DVA groups had similar rates of major comorbidities such as hypertension chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and dialysis dependence (P > .05 for all). Likewise, they had similar rates of distal origin grafts (13.6% vs 12.5%; P = .85), critical limb ischemia indications (P = .53), and prior arterial bypass (58% vs 47%; P = .08). The DVA group had a higher rate of completion angiogram performed (55.7% vs 37.5%; P =.002) and were more likely to be discharged on coumadin (53.4% vs 37.1%; P =.01). By multivariable analysis, use of a distal DVA was protective against MALEs (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.90; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: This contemporary multi-institutional propensity-matched study demonstrates that patients that receive distal anastomotic vein adjuncts as part of infrainguinal prosthetic bypass operations in general have more extreme comorbidities and more technically challenging operations based on level of target vessel and prior bypass attempts. After propensity-matched analysis, the use of a DVA may protect against MALEs in prosthetic bypass surgery and should be considered when feasible.

Risk prediction of 30-day readmission after infrainguinal bypass for critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital readmission after lower extremity bypass is a large cost burden and has become a focal point for policy change directed at disease-specific bundling strategies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates and predictors of 30-day readmission from a large, multicenter trial data set. METHODS: We analyzed the PRoject of Ex-Vivo vein graft ENgineering via Transfection III (PREVENT III) data set of 1404 critical limb ischemia (CLI) patients undergoing lower extremity vein graft bypass at 83 North American centers. The primary end point was readmission ≤30 days of discharge. Secondary end points included graft patency and limb salvage evaluated in the context of readmission. The data set was split into a two-thirds derivation set and a one-third validation set for the purposes of creating a risk prediction model. A whole number integer risk score was assigned to independent predictors of readmission. Summary risk scores were collapsed into categories and defined as low (0-1 points), medium (2-5 points), and high (>5 points). RESULTS: We analyzed 1356 vein graft bypass patients, of which 23 (1.7%) died in-hospital and were excluded from the readmission analyses. In the derivation data set of 866 patients, 211 (24.4%) were readmitted ≤30 days of discharge. The most common reasons for readmission were wound infection in index leg (39.8%), an additional procedure in the index leg (20.8%), and nonvascular reasons (19%). By multivariable analysis, factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission (odds ratio [95% confidence limits]) included female gender (1.5 [1.0, 2.1]), current smoking (1.6 [1.1, 2.4]), in-hospital loss of graft patency (1.8 [1.0, 3.2]), dialysis (2.0 [1.2, 3.2]), and tissue loss (1.7 [1.1, 2.5]). In the derivation set, rates of readmission correlated to risk category. The 30-day readmission rates were 15.6% for low-risk patients (0-1 points), 24.1% for moderate-risk (2-5 points) patients, and 38.0% for high-risk (>5 points) patients. Similarly, in the validation set, the rates were 16.5%, 25.4%, and 38.1% for low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Thirty-day readmission was not associated with loss of long-term graft patency but was associated with long-term limb loss (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.1; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission after lower extremity bypass for CLI is common (24%). Certain characteristics, such as female gender, current smoking, dialysis-dependence, tissue loss, and in-hospital graft-related events, are associated with increased risk. Readmission is associated with long-term limb loss. These data provide benchmark values for this complex patient population and may prove useful when hospital readmission is used as a quality metric for hospital performance.

Predictive factors of 30-day unplanned readmission after lower extremity bypass.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day unplanned readmission after lower extremity bypass represents a large cost burden and is a logical target for cost-containment strategies. We undertook this study to evaluate factors associated with unplanned readmission after lower extremity bypass. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis from a prospective institutional registry. All lower extremity bypasses for occlusive disease from January 1995 to July 2011 were included. The primary end point was 30-day unplanned readmission. Secondary end points included graft patency and limb salvage. RESULTS: Of 1543 lower extremity bypasses performed, 84.5% were for critical limb ischemia and 15.5% were patients with intermittent claudication. Twenty-seven patients (1.7%) died in-house and were excluded from further analysis. Of 1516 lower extremity bypasses analyzed, 42 (2.8%) were in patients with a planned readmission within 30 days, and 349 (23.0%), in patients with an unplanned readmission. Most unplanned readmissions were wound related (62.9%). By multivariable analysis, preoperative predictive factors for unplanned readmission were dialysis dependence (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; P = .004), tissue loss indication (OR, 1.62; P = .0004), and history of congestive heart failure (OR, 1.43; P = .03). Postoperative predictors included distal inflow source (OR, 1.38; P = .016), in-hospital wound infection (OR, 8.30; P < .0001), in-hospital graft failure (OR, 3.20; P < .0001), and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.96; P < .04). Neither index length of stay nor discharge disposition independently predicted unplanned readmission. Unplanned readmission was associated with loss of assisted primary patency (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.80; P = .01) and long-term limb loss (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.29; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day unplanned readmission is a frequent occurrence after lower extremity bypass (23.0%). Stratifying patients by risk factors associated with unplanned readmission is essential for quality improvement and equitable resource allocation when disease-specific bundling strategies are being derived.

Outcomes of lower extremity bypass performed for acute limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Acute limb ischemia remains one of the most challenging emergencies in vascular surgery. Historically, outcomes following interventions for acute limb ischemia have been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to determine contemporary outcomes following lower extremity bypass performed for acute limb ischemia. METHODS: All patients undergoing infrainguinal lower extremity bypass between 2003 and 2011 within hospitals comprising the Vascular Study Group of New England were identified. Patients were stratified according to whether or not the indication for lower extremity bypass was acute limb ischemia. Primary end points included bypass graft occlusion, major amputation, and mortality at 1 year postoperatively as determined by Kaplan-Meier life table analysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate independent predictors of mortality and major amputation at 1 year. RESULTS: Of 5712 lower extremity bypass procedures, 323 (5.7%) were performed for acute limb ischemia. Patients undergoing lower extremity bypass for acute limb ischemia were similar in age (66 vs 67; P = .084) and sex (68% male vs 69% male; P = .617) compared with chronic ischemia patients, but were less likely to be on aspirin (63% vs 75%; P < .0001) or a statin (55% vs 68%; P < .0001). Patients with acute limb ischemia were more likely to be current smokers (49% vs 39%; P < .0001), to have had a prior ipsilateral bypass (33% vs 24%; P = .004) or a prior ipsilateral percutaneous intervention (41% vs 29%; P = .001). Bypasses performed for acute limb ischemia were longer in duration (270 vs 244 minutes; P = .007), had greater blood loss (363 vs 272 mL; P < .0001), and more commonly utilized prosthetic conduits (41% vs 33%; P = .003). Acute limb ischemia patients experienced increased in-hospital major adverse events (20% vs 12%; P < .0001) including myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure exacerbation, deterioration in renal function, and respiratory complications. Patients who underwent lower extremity bypass for acute limb ischemia had no difference in rates of graft occlusion (18.1% vs 18.5%; P = .77), but did have significantly higher rates of limb loss (22.4% vs 9.7%; P < .0001) and mortality (20.9% vs 13.1%; P < .0001) at 1 year. On multivariable analysis, acute limb ischemia was an independent predictor of both major amputation (hazard ratio, 2.16; confidence interval, 1.38-3.40; P = .001) and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.41; confidence interval, 1.09-1.83; P = .009) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who present with acute limb ischemia represent a less medically optimized subgroup within the population of patients undergoing lower extremity bypass. These patients may be expected to have more complex operations followed by increased rates of perioperative adverse events. Additionally, despite equivalent graft patency rates, patients undergoing lower extremity bypass for acute ischemia have significantly higher rates of major amputation and mortality at 1 year.

Optimal conduit choice in the absence of single-segment great saphenous vein for below-knee popliteal bypass.

BACKGROUND: Single-segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) remains the conduit of choice for femoral to below-knee popliteal (F-BK) surgical revascularization. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal conduit in patients with inadequate SSGSV. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained vascular registry. Patients underwent F-BK bypass with alternative vein (AV; arm vein, spliced GSV, or composite vein) or prosthetic conduit (PC). RESULTS: From January 1995 to June 2010, 83 patients had unusable SSGSV for F-BK popliteal reconstruction. Thirty-three patients had an AV conduit and 50 had PC. The AV group was a lower median age than the PC group (69 vs 75 years). The two groups were otherwise similar in comorbid conditions of diabetes mellitus (57.6% vs 58.0%; P > .99), smoking (15.2% vs 32.0%; P = .12), and hemodialysis (3% vs 12%; P = .23). The groups were similar in baseline characteristics such as limb salvage as indication (93.9% vs 86.0%; P = .31), mean runoff score (5.2 vs 4.6; P = .39), and prior ipsilateral bypass attempts (18.2% vs 18.0%; P > .99). The AV and PC groups were also similar in 30-day mortality (6.1% vs 4.0%; P > .99) and wound infection rates (6.1% vs 6.0%; P > .99). PC patients were more likely to be discharged on Coumadin (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) than AV patients (62.0% vs 27.3%; P = .002). Seventeen of the 50 PC patients (34%) had a distal anastomotic vein cuff. A log-rank test comparison of 5-year outcomes for the AV and PC groups found no significant difference in primary patency (55.3% ± 9.9% vs 51.9% ± 10.8%; P = .82), assisted primary patency (68.8% ± 9.6% vs 54.0% ± 11.0%; P = .45), secondary patency (68.4% ± 9.6% vs 63.7% ± 10.4% for PC; P = .82), or limb salvage rates (96.2% ± 3.8% vs 81.1% ± 8.1%; P = .19). Multivariable analysis demonstrated no association between conduit type and loss of patency or limb. The factors most predictive of primary patency loss were limb salvage as the indication for surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 4.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-10.9; P = .003) and current hemodialysis (HR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.08-11.4; P = .037). The most predictive factor of limb loss was current hemodialysis (HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 1.13-43.4; P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with inadequate SSGSV, PCs, with varying degrees of medical and surgical adjuncts, appear comparable to AV sources in graft patency for below-knee popliteal bypass targets. This observation is tempered by the small cohort sample size of this single-institutional analysis. Critical limb ischemia as the operative indication and current hemodialysis predict impaired patency, and hemodialysis is associated with limb loss.

Primary aortoenteric fistula following endovascular aortic repair due to type II endoleak.

An 84-year-old female was lost to follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair at another hospital with known type II endoleak. She later presented with presyncope and hematemesis. A referral center esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed possible duodenal diverticulum. She had recurrent symptoms and repeat computed tomography scan showed air within the aortic sac. At our center, she underwent stent graft explantation and axillofemoral reconstruction for a primary aortoenteric fistula. She was discharged and is doing well 5 months postoperatively. A high degree of suspicion for aortoenteric fistula is imperative in any patient with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage after open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

National trends in utilization and postprocedure outcomes for carotid artery revascularization 2005 to 2007.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared, at a national level, trends in utilization, mortality, and stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) from 2005 to 2007. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patient discharges with International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for CAS and CEA. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, stroke, hospital charges, and discharge disposition. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate these outcomes by neurologic presentation using χ(2) and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 404,256 discharges for carotid revascularization, CAS utilization was 66% higher in 2006 than in 2005 (9.3% vs 14%, P = .0004). Crude mortality, stroke, and median charges remained higher for CAS than for CEA; discharge to home was more common after CEA. Results improved from 2005 to 2007. By logistic regression of the total cohort from 2005 to 2006, CAS was independently predictive of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.00; P < .0001). Independent predictors of stroke included CAS (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18-1.73; P < .0001) and symptomatic disease (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.06-2.93;P < .0001). Among subgroups based on neurological presentation, regression showed that CAS significantly increased the odds of stroke in asymptomatic patients (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0; P = .0003). Among symptomatic patients, CAS increased the odds of in-hospital death (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.1, P < .0001) and trended toward significance for stroke (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8; P = .0569). CONCLUSION: Utilization of CAS has increased from the years 2005 to 2007 with some improvements in the outcome. Despite improvements in outcome, resource utilization remains significantly higher for CAS than CEA.

Surgeon case volume, not institution case volume, is the primary determinant of in-hospital mortality after elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Studies analyzing the effects of volume on outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have primarily centered on institutional volume and not on individual surgeon volume. We sought to determine the relative effects of both surgeon and institution volume on mortality after open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact AAAs. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2003-2007) was queried to identify all patients undergoing open repair and EVAR for nonruptured AAAs. To calculate surgeon and institution volume, 11 participating states that record a unique physician identifier for each procedure were included. Surgeon and institution volume were defined as low (first quintile), medium (second, third, or fourth quintile), and high (fifth quintile). Stratification by institution volume and then by surgeon volume was performed to analyze the primary endpoint: in-hospital mortality. Multivariable models were used to evaluate the association of institution and surgeon volume with mortality for open repair and EVAR, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: During the study period, 5972 open repairs and 8121 EVARs were performed. For open AAA repair, a significant mortality reduction was associated with both annual institution volume (low <7, medium 7-30, and high >30) and surgeon volume (low ≤ 2, medium 3-9, and high >9). High surgeon volume conferred a greater mortality reduction than did high institution volume. When low and medium volume institutions were stratified by surgeon volume, mortality after open AAA repair was inversely proportional to surgeon volume (8.7%, 3.6%, and 0%; P < .0001, for low, medium, and high-volume surgeons at low-volume institutions; and 6.7%, 4.8%, and 3.3%; P = .02, for low, medium, and high-volume surgeons at medium-volume institutions). High-volume institutions stratified by surgeon volume demonstrated the same trend (5.1%, 3.4%, and 2.8%), but this finding was not statistically significant (P = .57). Multivariable analysis was confirmatory: low surgeon volume independently predicted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.1; P < .001); low institution volume did not (P = .1). For EVAR, neither institution volume nor surgeon volume influenced mortality (univariate or multivariable). CONCLUSION: The primary factor driving the mortality reduction associated with case volume after open AAA repair is surgeon volume, not institution volume. Regionalization of AAAs should focus on open repair, as EVAR outcomes are equivalent across volume levels. Payers may need to re-evaluate strategies that encourage open AAA repair at high-volume institutions if specific surgeon volume is not considered.