Using administrative data to better treat chronic limb threatening ischemia.

Chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) is the most severe manifestation of peripheral arterial disease represents a particularly high-risk subgroup of patients. As such, efforts to better understand this complex patient population through well-designed clinical research studies are critical to improving CLTI care. Prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard in clinical research, but these trials are resource-intensive and have highly selective patient populations, which limit their feasibility and generalizability. Alternatively, retrospective studies are less expensive than RCTs, have a larger sample size, and are more generalizable owing to a broader patient population. Health care administrative data provide rich sources of information that may be used for research purposes and are increasingly being used for the study of vascular surgery conditions, including CLTI. Although administrative data are collected for billing purposes, they may be leveraged to study a broad range of topics in vascular surgery including those related to health care delivery, epidemiology, health disparities, and outcomes. This review provides an overview of administrative data available for CLTI research, the strengths and limitations of these data sources, current areas of investigation, and future opportunities for further study with the goal of improving outcomes in this high-risk population.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Editor's Choice -- Age Stratified Midterm Survival Following Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Age stratified mortality was examined following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) vs. open repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) METHODS: All patients undergoing first time elective F-EVAR and complex open aneurysm repair (c-OAR) for juxtarenal AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Open repairs were compared with commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Patients were stratified into three age groups (< 65, 65 - 75, > 75 years). Primary outcomes were peri-operative and five year mortality, and inverse probability weighted risk adjustment was performed to account for baseline differences. RESULTS: Overall, 1 961 patients underwent F-EVAR (82% commercial F-EVAR, 18% PMEG) and 3 385 patients underwent c-OAR. Across age groups, the distribution of F-EVAR (vs. c-OAR) was: < 65 years: 23%, 65 - 75 years: 33%, > 75 years: 52%. After adjustment, among patients < 65 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with similar peri-operative mortality (0.9% vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 - 1.44], p = .22), and five year mortality (13% vs. 9.5%; HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.71 - 2.90, p = .31). Among patients aged 65 - 75 years, between juxtarenal AAA repair modalities, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with a significantly lower risk of peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 5.0%; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 - 0.79, p = .004), and five year mortality (13% vs. 13%; HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 - 1.36, p = .74). Similarly, among patients > 75 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with lower peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 6.5%; HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.47, p < .001), but with similar five year mortality (18% vs. 21%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.20, p = .31). CONCLUSION: Among patients with a juxtarenal AAA, F-EVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative mortality compared with c-OAR in patients ≥ 65 years, but was similar in those < 65 years. At five years, F-EVAR was associated with similar mortality in all age groups, though there was a non-significant trend for a higher mortality rate in younger patients.

One-year aneurysm-sac dynamics are associated with reinterventions and rupture following infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: One-year aneurysm sac changes have previously been found to be associated with mortality and may have the potential to guide personalized follow-up following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In this study, we examined the association of these early sac changes with long-term reintervention and rupture. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We included patients with an imaging study at 1 year postoperatively. Aneurysm sac behavior was defined as per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines: stable sac (<5 mm change), sac regression (≥5 mm), and sac expansion (≥5 mm). Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and rupture within 8 years, which were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondarily, we utilized polynomial spline interpolation to demonstrate the continuous relationship of diameter change to 8-year hazard of reintervention, rupture, or mortality as a composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 31,185 EVAR patients, 16,102 (52%) had an imaging study at 1 year and were included in this study. At 1 year, 44% of sacs remained stable, 49% regressed, and 6.2% displayed expansion. Following risk adjustment, compared with a stable sac at 1 year, sac regression was associated with lower 8-year mortality (49% vs 53%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99; P = .036), reintervention rate (8.9% vs 15%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68; P < .001), and rupture rate (2.0% vs 4.0%; HR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.29-0.69; P < .001). Conversely, compared with a stable sac, sac expansion was associated with higher 8-year mortality (64% vs 53%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51; P < .001) and reintervention rate (27% vs 15%; HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.57-2.51; P < .001), but similar risk of rupture (7.2% vs 4.0%; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.88-2.96; P = .12). Polynomial spline interpolation demonstrated that, compared with no diameter change at 1 year, increased sac regression was associated with an incrementally lower risk of late outcomes, whereas increased sac expansion was associated with an incrementally higher risk of late outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following EVAR, compared with a stable sac at 1-year imaging, sac regression and expansion are associated with a lower and higher risk respectively of long-term mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures. Moreover, the amount of regression or expansion seems to be incrementally associated with these late outcomes, too. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve 1-year sac regression, and whether it is safe to extend follow-up intervals for patients with regressing sacs.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Clinical presentation, outcomes, and threshold for repair by sex in degenerative saccular vs fusiform aneurysms in the descending thoracic aorta.

OBJECTIVE: Saccular-shaped thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) are often treated at smaller diameters compared with fusiform TAAs, despite a lack of strong clinical evidence to support this practice. The aim of this study was to examine differences in presentation, treatment, and outcomes between saccular TAAs and fusiform TAAs in the descending thoracic aorta. We also examined the need for sex-specific treatment thresholds for TAAs. METHODS: All Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for degenerative TAAs in the descending thoracic aorta from 2012 through 2022 were reviewed. Patients were stratified by urgency: emergent/urgent vs elective repairs (ruptured/symptomatic). Demographics, comorbidities, anatomical/procedural characteristics, and outcomes for fusiform TAAs and saccular TAAs were compared. Cumulative distribution curves were used to plot the proportion of patients who underwent emergent/urgent repair according to sex-stratified aortic diameter. RESULTS: Among 655 emergent/urgent TEVARs, 37% were performed for saccular TAAs, whereas among 1352 elective TEVARs, 35% had saccular TAA morphology. Compared with fusiform TAAs, saccular TAAs more frequently underwent emergent/urgent (ruptured/symptomatic) TEVAR below the repair threshold in both females (<50 mm: 38% vs 10%; relative risk, 3.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.04-5.70; P < .001), and males (<55 mm: 47% vs 21%; relative risk, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.60-3.18; P < .001). Moreover, among patients with emergent/urgent fusiform TAAs, females presented at smaller diameters compared with males, whereas there was no difference in preoperative aneurysm diameter among patients with saccular TAAs. Regarding outcomes, emergent/urgent treated saccular TAAs had similar postoperative outcomes and 5-year mortality compared with fusiform TAAs. Nevertheless, in the elective cohort, patients with saccular TAAs had similar postoperative mortality compared with those with fusiform TAAs, but a lower rate of postoperative spinal cord ischemia (0.7% vs 3.2%; P = .010). Furthermore, patients with saccular TAAs had a higher rate of 5-year mortality compared with their fusiform counterparts (23% vs 17%; hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.10; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with saccular TAAs underwent emergent/urgent TEVAR at smaller diameters than those with fusiform TAAs, supporting current clinical practice guideline recommendations that saccular TAAs warrant treatment at smaller diameters. Furthermore, these data support a sex-specific treatment threshold for patients with fusiform TAAs, but not for those with saccular TAAs. Although there were no differences in outcomes following TEVAR between morphologies in the emergent/urgent cohort, patients with saccular TAAs who were treated electively were associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with those with fusiform TAAs.

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm life-altering events following endovascular aortic repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has lower rates of postoperative mortality and morbidity when compared with open repair. However, endovascular repair still carries the risk of postoperative dialysis, paralysis, and stroke. This study examined the rates of postoperative mortality and morbidity stratified by type of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: All patients who underwent EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2011 to May 2022 were identified. Patients were stratified by repair type: infrarenal EVAR, complex EVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), extent I to III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair, or aortic arch repair. The primary outcome was postoperative thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm life-altering events (TALE) across the different treatment groups. TALE was defined as a composite outcome of postoperative mortality, dialysis, paralysis, and/or stroke. Mixed effect logistic regression modeling was used to identify procedural and anatomic factors that were independently associated with TALE. RESULTS: A total of 52,592 EVARs, 3768 complex EVARs, 3899 TEVARs, 1139 extent I to III TAAA repairs, and 479 arch repairs were identified. TALE was observed in 1.2% of EVARs, 4.8% of complex EVARs, 6.0% of TEVARs, 10% of extent I to III TAAA repairs, and 14% of arch repairs. More proximal landing zone was associated with higher odds of TALE after complex EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.1; P = .008), TEVAR (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5; P = .001), and extent I to III TAAA repair (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.9; P = .001). Aortic diameter >65 mm was associated with higher odds of TALE after infrarenal EVAR (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3; P < .001), complex EVAR (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .010), TEVAR (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.0-3.8; P < .001), and arch repair (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.4; P = .007). The use of parallel grafting technique (chimney/snorkel/periscope) during extent I to III TAAA repair was also associated with higher odds of TALE (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.2; P = .032). Preoperative chronic kidney disease was also associated with higher odds of TALE after infrarenal EVAR (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 3.0-5.7; P < .001), complex EVAR (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 3.3-8.2; P < .001), TEVAR (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.8-7.1; P < .001), and extent I to III TAAA repair (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6-6.7; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although TALE was originally described for TAAA repairs, TALE may occur after complex EVAR, TEVAR, and arch repairs as well. Therefore, TALE and its component parts should be used to evaluate the efficacy of all aortic repairs and for preoperative counseling. Additionally, surgeons should be aware of anatomic and procedural characteristics that are associated with higher odds of TALE. The anticipated need for such interventions during aortic repair should be factored into preoperative risk assessment of patients.

Outcomes of Complex Endovascular Treatment of Post-Dissection Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Reports of endovascular treatment of chronic post-dissection aneurysms are limited to high volumes centres, posing questions about generalisability. METHODS: All endovascular repairs of intact pararenal and thoraco-abdominal aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2021 were studied, and peri-operative and long term outcomes were compared between repairs of degenerative and post-dissection aneurysms. Peri-operative outcomes were compared using mixed effects logistic regression, and long term outcomes using Medicare linkage. RESULTS: There were 123 patients who completed treatment for post-dissection aneurysms and 3 635 for degenerative aneurysms, with 36% of post-dissection repairs and 6.7% of degenerative repairs performed in a staged fashion (p < .001). The majority (84%) of post-dissection aneurysms were extensive thoraco-abdominal aneurysms (TAAAs: Crawford Type 1, 2, 3, 5), compared with 22% of degenerative aneurysms (p < .001). Physician modified endografts were the primary repair type for post-dissection (73%), while commercially available fenestrated grafts were the dominant repair for degenerative (48%). The first stage of staged procedures was associated with a 2.8% peri-operative mortality rate, 5.1% spinal cord ischaemia, and 8.9% thoraco-abdominal life altering events (the composite of peri-operative death, stroke, permanent spinal cord ischaemia, and dialysis). Th final stage procedure and fluoroscopy times were similar, but technical success was lower in post-dissection repairs (75% vs. 83%, p = .018), both due to issues with the main endograft or bridging vessels (11% vs. 6.6%, p = .055), and types 1and 3 endoleak at completion (17% vs. 10%, p = .035). In addition, high volume surgeons had two fold higher odds of technical success than their low volume counterparts. Adjusted peri-operative outcomes were similar between pathology types, including when comparisons were restricted to extensive TAAAs. Crude and adjusted three year survival were similar, but three year re-interventions were significantly higher following post-dissection repairs (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Complex endovascular repair of chronic post-dissection aneurysms is feasible but is associated with high rates of re-interventions and non-trivial rates of lack of technical success. More data are needed to evaluate the long term durability of these procedures, and the utility of centralising these complex procedures.

Sex Related Outcomes Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current literature suggests that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in older patients with aortic aneurysms results in higher peri-operative mortality and lower long term survival in females compared with males. However, sex related outcomes in younger patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) undergoing TEVAR remain unknown. This study examined the association between sex and outcomes after TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) between 2016 and 2019. The primary outcome was in hospital death. Secondary outcomes were peri-operative complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics, comorbidities, injury severity score, and aortic injury grade. RESULTS: Two thousand and twenty-two patients were included; 26% were female. Compared with males, females were older (46 [IQR 30, 62] vs. 39 [IQR 28, 56] years; p < .001), more often obese (41% vs. 33%; p = .005), had lower rates of alcohol use disorder (4.1% vs. 8.9%; p < .001) and a higher prevalence of hypertension (29% vs. 22%; p = .001). The injury severity was comparable between females and males (Injury Severity Score ≥ 25; 84% vs. 80%; p = .11) and there was no difference in aortic injury grades when comparing females with males (grade 1, 33% vs. 33%; grade 2, 24% vs. 25%; grade 3, 43% vs. 40%; grade 4, 0.8% vs. 1.3%; p = .53). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated no difference for in hospital mortality between females and males (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.67 - 1.53, p = .93). Compared with males, females were at lower risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17 - 0.64; p = .001) and ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.28 - 0.91; p = .023). CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate a sex related in hospital mortality difference following TEVAR for BTAI. However, female sex was associated with a lower risk of AKI and VAP. Future studies should evaluate sex differences and long term outcomes following TEVAR in patients with BTAI.

Outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury stratified by Society for Vascular Surgery grade.

OBJECTIVES: Although the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grading system is used to depict the severity of injury in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury, prior literature on its association with outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is limited. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI within the VQI between 2013 and 2022. We stratified patients based on their SVS aortic injury grade (grade 1, intimal tear; grade 2, intramural hematoma; grade 3, pseudoaneurysm; and grade 4, transection or extravasation). We assessed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality using multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses. Secondarily, we assessed the proportional trends in patients undergoing TEVAR based on SVS aortic injury grade over time. RESULTS: Overall, 1311 patients were included (grade1, 8%; grade 2, 19%; grade 3, 57%; grade 4, 17%). Baseline characteristics were similar, except for a higher prevalence of renal dysfunction, severe chest injury (Abbreviated Injury Score >3), and lower Glasgow Coma Scale with increasing aortic injury grade (Ptrend < .05). Rates of perioperative mortality by aortic injury grade were as follows: grade 1, 6.6%; grade 2, 4.9%; grade 3, 7.2%; and grade 4, 14% (Ptrend = .003) and 5-year mortality rates were 11% for grade 1, 10% for grade 2, 11% for grade 3, and 19% for grade 4 (P = .004). Patients with grade 1 injury had a high rate of spinal cord ischemia (2.8% vs grade 2, 0.40% vs grade 3, 0.40% vs grade 4, 2.7%; P = .008). After risk adjustment, there was no association between aortic injury grade and perioperative mortality (grade 4 vs grade 1, odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-3.5; P = .65), or 5-year mortality (grade 4 vs grade 1, hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-2.30; P = .82). Although there was a trend for decrease in the proportion of patients undergoing TEVAR with a grade 2 BTAI (22% to 14%; Ptrend = .084), the proportion for grade 1 injury remained unchanged over time (6.0% to 5.1%; Ptrend = .69). CONCLUSIONS: After TEVAR for BTAI, there was higher perioperative and 5-year mortality in patients with grade 4 BTAI. However, after risk adjustment, there was no association between SVS aortic injury grade and perioperative and 5-year mortality in patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI. More than 5% of patients with BTAI who underwent TEVAR had a grade 1 injury, with a concerning rate of spinal cord ischemia potentially attributable to TEVAR, and this proportion did not decrease over time. Further efforts should focus on enabling careful selection of patients with BTAI who will experience more benefit than harm from operative repair and preventing the inadvertent use of TEVAR in low-grade injuries.

Vascular Quality Initiative assessment of compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on the management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: Compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is associated with improved outcomes for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, but this has not been assessed for carotid artery disease. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry was used to examine compliance with the SVS CPGs for the management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease and its impact on outcomes. METHODS: The 2021 SVS extracranial cerebrovascular disease CPGs were reviewed for evaluation by VQI data. Compliance rates by the center and provider were calculated, and the impact of compliance on outcomes was assessed using logistic regression with inverse probability-weighted risk adjustment for each CPG recommendation, allowing for clustering by the center. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death. As a secondary analysis, compliance with the 2021 SVS carotid implementation document recommendations and associated outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 11 carotid CPG recommendations, 4 (36%) could be evaluated using VQI registry data. Median center-specific CPG compliance ranged from 38% to 95%, and median provider-specific compliance ranged from 36% to 100%. After adjustment, compliance with 2 of the recommendations was associated with lower rates of in-hospital stroke/death: first, the use of best medical therapy (antiplatelet and statin therapy) in low/standard surgical risk patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for >70% asymptomatic stenosis (event rate in compliant vs noncompliant cases 0.59% vs 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.66); and second, carotid endarterectomy over transfemoral carotid artery stenting in low/standard surgical risk patients with >50% symptomatic stenosis (1.9% vs 3.4%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.71). Of the 132 implementation document recommendations, only 10 (7.6%) could be assessed using VQI data, with median center- and provider-specific compliance rates ranging from 67% to 100%. The impact of compliance on outcomes could only be assessed for 6 (4.5%) of these recommendations, and compliance with all 6 recommendations was associated with lower stroke/death. CONCLUSIONS: Few SVS recommendations could be assessed in the VQI because of incongruity between the recommendations and the VQI data variables collected. Although guideline compliance was extremely variable among VQI centers and providers, compliance with most of these recommendations was associated with improved outcomes after carotid revascularization. This finding confirms the value of guideline compliance, which should be encouraged for centers and providers. Optimization of VQI data to promote evaluation of guideline compliance and distribution of these findings to VQI centers and providers will help facilitate quality improvement efforts in the care of vascular patients.

Early Versus Delayed Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We examined early (≤24 h) versus delayed (>24 h) thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI), taking the aortic injury severity into consideration. BACKGROUND: Current trauma surgery guidelines recommend delayed TEVAR following BTAI. However, this recommendation was based on small studies, and specifics regarding recommendation strategies based on aortic injury grades are lacking. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program between 2016 and 2019 were included and then stratified into 2 groups (early: ≤24 h vs. delayed: >24 h). In-hospital outcomes were compared after creating 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts, matching for demographics, comorbidities, concomitant injuries, additional procedures, and aortic injury severity based on the acute aortic syndrome (AAS) classification. RESULTS: Overall, 1339 patients were included, of whom 1054(79%) underwent early TEVAR. Compared with the delayed group, the early group had significantly less severe head injuries (early vs delayed; 25% vs 32%; P =0.014), fewer early interventions for AAS grade 1 occurred, and AAS grade 3 aortic injuries often were intervened upon within 24 hours (grade 1: 28% vs 47%; grade 3: 49% vs 23%; P <0.001). After matching, the final sample included 548 matched patients. Compared with the delayed group, the early group had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality (8.8% vs 4.4%, relative risk: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.4; P =0.028), alongside a shorter length of hospital stay (5.0 vs 10 days; P =0.028), a shorter intensive care unit length of stay (4.0 vs 11 days; P <0.001) and fewer days on the ventilator (4.0 vs 6.5 days; P =0.036). Furthermore, regardless of the higher risk of acute kidney injury in the delayed group (3.3% vs 7.7%, relative risk: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.92; P =0.029), no other differences in in-hospital complications were observed between the early and delayed group. CONCLUSION: In this propensity score-matched analysis, delayed TEVAR was associated with lower mortality risk, even after adjusting for aortic injury grade.

Distal embolic protection use during transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Despite current guidelines recommending the use of distal embolic protection during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) to prevent periprocedural stroke, there remains significant variation in the routine use of distal filters. We sought to assess in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing tfCAS with and without embolic protection using a distal filter. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing tfCAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2021 and excluded those who received proximal embolic balloon protection. We created propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tfCAS with and without attempted placement of a distal filter. Subgroup analyses of patients with failed vs successful filter placement and failed vs no attempt at filter placement were performed. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using log binomial regression, adjusted for protamine use. Outcomes of interest were composite stroke/death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hyperperfusion syndrome. RESULTS: Among 29,853 patients who underwent tfCAS, 28,213 (95%) had a filter attempted for distal embolic protection and 1640 (5%) did not. After matching, 6859 patients were identified. No attempted filter was associated with significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death (6.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.23; P < .001), stroke (3.7% vs 2.5%; aRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .022), and mortality (3.5% vs 1.7%; aRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.42-3.020; P < .001). In a secondary analysis of patients who had failed attempt at filter placement vs successful filter placement, failed filter placement was associated with worse outcomes (stroke/death: 5.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21; P = .001 and stroke: 5.3% vs 1.8%; aRR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.78-4.61; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes in patients with failed vs no attempted filter placement (stroke/death: 5.4% vs 6.2%; aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.61-1.63; P = .99; stroke: 4.7% vs 3.7%; aRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.79-2.48; P = .20; death: 0.9% vs 3.4%; aRR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.01; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: tfCAS performed without attempted distal embolic protection was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke and death. Patients undergoing tfCAS after failed attempt at filter placement have equivalent stroke/death to patients in whom no filter was attempted, but more than a two-fold higher risk of stroke/death compared with those with successfully placed filters. These findings support current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommending routine use of distal embolic protection during tfCAS. If a filter cannot be placed safely, an alternative approach to carotid revascularization should be considered.

Impact of neighborhood social disadvantage on the presentation and management of peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Studies examining the relationship between socioeconomic disparities and peripheral artery disease (PAD) often focus on individual social health determinants and fail to account for the complex interplay between factors that ultimately impact disease severity and outcomes. Area deprivation index (ADI), a validated measure of neighborhood adversity, provides a more comprehensive assessment of social disadvantage. Therefore, we examined the impact of ADI on PAD severity and its management. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent infrainguinal revascularization (open or endovascular) or amputation for symptomatic PAD in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between 2003 and 2020. An ADI score of 1 to 100 was assigned to each patient based on their residential zip code, with higher ADI scores corresponding with increasing adversity. Patients were categorized by ADI quintiles (Q1-Q5). The outcomes of interest included indication for procedure (claudication, rest pain, or tissue loss) and rates of revascularization (vs primary amputation). Multinomial logistic regression was used to evaluate for an independent association between ADI quintile and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 79,973 patients identified, 9604 (12%) were in the lowest ADI quintile (Q1), 14,961 (18.7%) in Q2, 19,800 (24.8%) in Q3, 21,735 (27.2%) in Q4, and 13,873 (17.4%) in Q5. There were significant trends toward lower rates of claudication (Q1: 39% vs Q5: 34%, P < .001), higher rates of rest pain (Q1: 12.4% vs Q5: 17.8%, P < .001) as the indication for intervention, and lower rates of revascularization (Q1: 80% vs Q5: 69%, P < .001) with increasing ADI quintiles. In adjusted analyses, there was a progressively higher likelihood of presenting with rest pain vs claudication, with patients in Q5 having the highest probability when compared with those in Q1 (relative risk: 2.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.8-2.2; P < .001). Patients in Q5, when compared with those in Q1, also had a higher likelihood of presenting with tissue loss vs claudication (relative risk: 1.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.3-1.6; P < .001). Compared with patients in Q1, patients in Q2-Q5 had a lower likelihood of undergoing any revascularization procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent infrainguinal revascularization or amputation in the Vascular Quality Initiative, those with higher neighborhood adversity had more advanced disease at presentation and lower rates of revascularization. Further work is needed to better understand neighborhood factors that are contributing to these disparities in order to identify community-level targets for improvement.

Males and females have similar mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has demonstrated worse outcomes for female patients after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Also, prior studies in the context of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysms have reported conflicting results regarding sex-related outcomes. Because the influence of sex on the outcomes after TEVAR for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) remains understudied, we evaluated the association between sex and outcomes after TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: We identified patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2013 to 2022 and included those who had undergone TEVAR within zones 2 to 5 of the thoracic aorta. Patients with missing information regarding the aortic injury grade (Society for Vascular Surgery aortic injury grading system) were excluded. We performed multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression to determine the influence of sex on the perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 1311 patients, of whom 27% were female. The female patients were significantly older (female, 47 years [interquartile range (IQR), 30-63 years]; male, 38 years [IQR, 28-55 years]; P < .001) with higher rates of comorbidities. Although the female patients had had higher Glasgow coma scale scores (median, 15 [IQR, 11-15]; vs 14 [IQR, 8-15]; P = .028), no differences were found in the aortic injury grade or other coexisting traumatic injuries between the sexes. Apart from the longer procedure duration for the female patients (median, 79 minutes [IQR, 52-119 minutes]; vs 69 minutes [IQR, 48-106 minutes]; P = .008), the procedural characteristics were comparable. After adjustment, no significant association was found between female sex and perioperative mortality (7.1% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.3; P = .34). The male and female patients had had comparable rates of postoperative complications (26% vs 29%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.52-1.5]; P = .26) including access-related complications (0.5% vs 0.8%; P=.83). However, females had a significantly higher risk for reintervention during the index admission (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .024). No significant difference was found between the male and female patients with respect to 5-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.35; P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike the sex-based outcome disparities observed after thoracic aortic aneurysm repair, we found no significant association between sex and perioperative outcomes or long-term mortality after TEVAR for BTAIs. This contrast in the sex-related outcomes after other vascular pathologies might be explained by differences in the pathology, demographics, and anatomic factors in these patients.

Efficacy and safety of single versus dual antiplatelet therapy in carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet (AP) therapy (DAPT) before carotid artery stenting (CAS); however, the true clinical effect of single AP therapy vs DAPT is unknown. We examined the efficacy and safety of preoperative single AP therapy vs DAPT in patients who had undergone transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone tfCAS or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2016 to 2021. We stratified the patients by procedure and identified those who had received the following preoperative AP regimens: DAPT (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] + P2Y12 inhibitor [P2Yi]), no AP therapy, ASA only, ASA + AP loading dose, P2Yi only, and P2Yi + AP loading dose. The AP loading dose was given within 4 hours of CAS. We generated propensity scores for each treatment regimen and assessed in-hospital outcomes using inverse probability weighted log binomial regression, with DAPT as the reference and adjusting for intraoperative protamine use. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite end point of stroke and death, and the primary safety outcome was access-related bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 18,570 tfCAS patients, 70% had received DAPT, 5.6% no AP therapy, 10% ASA only, 8.0% ASA + AP loading dose, 4.6% P2Yi only, and 2.9% P2Yi + AP loading dose. The corresponding unadjusted rates of stroke/death were 2.2%, 6.8%, 4.1%, 5.1%, 2.4%, and 2.3%. After adjustment, compared with DAPT, the incidence of stroke/death was higher with no AP therapy (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.2), ASA only (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1), and ASA + AP loading dose (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.7) but was similar with P2Yi only (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.58-1.7) and P2Yi + AP loading dose (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.49-2.5). Of the 25,459 TCAR patients, 81% had received DAPT, 2.0% no AP therapy, 5.5% ASA only, 3.5% ASA + AP loading dose, 4.9% P2Yi only, and 2.4% P2Yi + AP loading dose. The corresponding unadjusted rates of stroke/death were 1.5%, 3.3%, 3.3%, 2.9%, 1.2%, and 1.1%. After adjustment, compared with DAPT, the incidence of stroke/death was higher with no AP therapy (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3) and ASA only (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.1), with a trend toward a higher incidence with ASA + AP loading dose (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.99-2.6), and was similar with P2Yi only (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.54-1.8) and P2Yi + AP loading dose (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.27-1.6). No differences were found in the incidence of access-related bleeding between the treatment groups after tfCAS or TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DAPT, no AP therapy or ASA monotherapy was associated with higher rates of stroke/death after CAS and should be discouraged as unsafe practice. Meanwhile, P2Yi monotherapy was associated with similar rates of stroke/death. No differences were found in the incidence of bleeding complications, and adding an AP loading dose to ASA or P2Yi monotherapy within 4 hours of the procedure did not affect the outcomes. Overall, these findings support the current guidelines recommending DAPT before CAS but also suggest that P2Yi monotherapy might confer thromboembolic benefits similar to those with DAPT. However, an immediate preoperative AP loading dose might not provide additional thromboembolic benefits.

The impact of neighborhood social disadvantage on abdominal aortic aneurysm severity and management.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have highlighted socioeconomic disparities in the severity and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease. However, these studies focus on individual measures of social disadvantage such as income and insurance status. The area deprivation index (ADI), a validated measure of neighborhood deprivation, provides a more comprehensive assessment of social disadvantage. Therefore, we examined the impact of ADI on AAA severity and its management. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent endovascular or open repair of an AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between 2003 and 2020. An ADI score of 1 to 100 was assigned to each patient based on their residential zip code, with higher ADI scores corresponding with increasing deprivation. Patients were categorized by ADI quintiles. Outcomes of interest included rates of ruptured AAA (rAAA) repair versus an intact AAA repair and rates of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus the open approach. Logistic regression was used to evaluate for an independent association between ADI quintile and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 55,931 patients who underwent AAA repair, 6649 (12%) were in the lowest ADI quintile, 11,692 (21%) in the second, 15,958 (29%) in the third, 15,035 (27%) in the fourth, and 6597 (12%) in the highest ADI quintile. Patients in the two highest ADI quintiles had a higher proportion of rAAA repair (vs intact repair) compared with those in the lowest ADI quintile (8.8% and 9.1% vs 6.2%; P < .001). They were also less likely to undergo EVAR (vs open approach) when compared with the lowest ADI quintile (81% and 81% vs 88%; P < .001). There was an overall trend toward increasing rAAA and decreasing EVAR rates with increasing ADI quintiles (P < .001). In adjusted analyses, when compared with patients in the lowest ADI quintile, patients in the highest ADI quintile had higher odds of rAAA repair (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8; P < .001) and lower odds of undergoing EVAR (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative, those with higher neighborhood deprivation had significantly higher rates of rAAA repair (vs intact repair) and lower rates of EVAR (vs open approach). Further work is needed to better understand neighborhood factors that are contributing to these disparities to identify community-level targets for improvement.

In-hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy for stroke stratified by modified Rankin scale score and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Although the benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating symptomatic carotid stenosis are well known, the optimal timing of intervention after acute stroke and whether the optimal timing will vary with preoperative stroke severity has remained unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effect of stroke severity and timing of the intervention on the postoperative outcomes for patients who had undergone CEA for stroke. METHODS: We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone CEA from 2012 to 2020 for prior stroke. The patients were stratified using the preoperative modified Rankin scale score (mRS score, 0-5) and time to CEA after stroke onset (≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, 91-180 days). After univariate comparisons, the patients were stratified into the following mRS cohorts for further analysis: 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death. RESULTS: We identified 15,601 patients, of whom 30% had had an mRS score of 0, 34% an mRS score of 1, 17% an mRS score of 2, 11% an mRS score of 3, 8% an mRS score of 4, and 1% an mRS score of 5. Overall, 9.3% of the patients had undergone CEA within ≤2 days, 46% within 3 to 14 days, 36% in 15 to 90 days, and 8.4% within 90 to 180 days. A decreasing mRS score and an increasing time to CEA were associated with lower rates of perioperative stroke/death (Ptrend < .01). After risk adjustment, with CEA at 3 to 14 days as the comparator group, the mRS score 0 to 1 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (3.6% vs 2.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.7). The mRS score 2 group had had a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.3) but a lower incidence after CEA at 15 to 90 days (2.1% vs 3.9%; OR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96). The mRS score 3 to 4 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (8.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9) but a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA at 15 to 90 days (3.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3). For the mRS score 5 group, the stroke/death rates were ≥6.5% across all the time to CEA groups. However, the low sample size limited meaningful comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with minimal disability after stroke (mRS score, 0-1) seemed to benefit from CEA within 3 to 14 days. However, those with severe disability (mRS score 5) have a very high risk from CEA at any time point given the poor outcomes. In contrast to the current guidelines, patients with mild disability (mRS score 2) could benefit from delaying CEA to 15 to 90 days, and those with moderate disability (mRS score 3-4) might benefit from CEA within 3 to 90 days given the acceptable in-hospital outcomes. These data should be considered within the context of the clinical situation in the weeks after index event to determine the net benefit of delayed CEA.

Statin therapy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality following carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Statin therapy is the standard of care for patients with carotid artery stenosis given its proven cardiovascular benefits. However, the impact of statin therapy on outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the association of statin therapy with outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent CEA, tfCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to September 2021. To compare outcomes, we stratified patients by procedure type and created 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who received no preoperative statin therapy (within 36 hours of procedure) versus those who received preoperative statin therapy. Propensity scores incorporated demographic characteristics, comorbidities, carotid symptom status, preoperative medications, and physician and hospital procedural experience. The primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke and/or death. As a secondary analysis, we performed repeat propensity score-matching by postoperative statin use (prescribed at discharge) and assessed 5-year mortality. Relative risks (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using log binomial regression and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: Among 97,835 CEA, 20,303 tfCAS, and 22,371 TCAR patients, 15%, 17%, and 10% of patients did not receive preoperative statin therapy, respectively. Compared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death among 13,434 matched CEA patients (no statin, 1.7% vs statin, 1.4%; RR, 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.5) and among 2707 matched tfCAS patients (4.8% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3). However, there was no difference for this outcome by statin use among 2089 matched TCAR patients (1.8% vs 1.6%; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). At 5 years, no statin therapy at discharge was associated with higher 5-year mortality after CEA (15% vs 10%; HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2) and tfCAS (18% vs 14%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8), but there was no difference after TCAR (14% vs 11%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death and 5-year mortality among CEA and tfCAS patients. Although there was no significant difference in outcomes among TCAR patients, this may in part be due to lower statistical power in this cohort. Overall, statin therapy is essential in the short- and long-term management of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Our findings not only support current Society for Vascular Surgery recommendations for statin therapy in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, but they also highlight an important opportunity for quality improvement.