Earned Outcomes Correlate with Reliability-Adjusted Surgical Mortality after Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair and Predict Future Performance.

OBJECTIVES: Cumulative, probability-based metrics are regularly used to measure quality in professional sports, but these methods have not been applied to health care delivery. These techniques have the potential to be particularly useful in describing surgical quality, where case volume is variable and outcomes tend to be dominated by statistical "noise". The established statistical technique used to adjust for differences in case volume is reliability-adjustment which emphasizes statistical "signal"but has several limitations. We sought to validate a novel measure of surgical quality based on earned outcomes methods (deaths above average, DAA) against reliability-adjusted mortality rates, using abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes to illustrate the measure's performance. METHODS: Earned outcomes methods were used to calculate the outcome of interest for each patient: deaths above average (DAA). Hospital-level DAA were calculated for non-ruptured open AAA repair and EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database from 2016-2019. DAA for each center is the sum of observed - predicted risk of death for each patient; predicted risk of death was calculated using established multivariable logistic regression modeling. Correlations of DAA with reliability-adjusted mortality rates and procedure volume were determined. Because an accurate quality metric should correlate with future results, outcomes from 2016-2017 were used to categorize hospital quality based on (1) risk-adjusted mortality, (2) risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality, and (3) DAA. The best performing quality metric was determined by comparing the ability of these categories to predict 2018-2019 risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,734 patients underwent open repair (106 hospitals), and 20,680 patients underwent EVAR (183 hospitals). DAA was closely correlated with reliability-adjusted mortality rates for open repair (r=0.94, P<0.001) and EVAR (r=0.99, P<0.001). DAA also correlated with hospital case volume for open repair (r=-.54, P<0.001), but not EVAR (r=0.07, P=0.3). In 2016-2017, most hospitals had 0% mortality (55% open repair, 57% EVAR), making it impossible to evaluate these hospitals using traditional risk-adjusted mortality rates alone. Further, zero mortality hospitals in 2016-2017 did not demonstrate improved outcomes in 2018-2019 for open repair (3.8% vs 4.6%, P=0.5) or EVAR (0.8% vs 1.0%, P=0.2) compared to all other hospitals. In contrast to traditional risk-adjustment, 2016-2017 DAA evenly divided centers into quality quartiles which predicted 2018-2019 performance with increased mortality rate associated with each decrement in quality quartile (Q1 3.2%, Q2 4.0%, Q3 5.1%, Q4 6.0%). There was a significantly higher risk of mortality at worst quartile open repair hospitals compared to best quartile hospitals (OR 2.01, [95% CI 1.07-3.76], P=0.03). Using 2016-2019 DAA to define quality, highest quality quartile open repair hospitals had lower median DAA compared to lowest quality quartile hospitals (-1.18 DAA vs +1.32 DAA, P<0.001), correlating with lower median reliability-adjusted mortality rates (3.6% vs 5.1%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for differences in hospital volume is essential when measuring hospital-level outcomes. Earned outcomes accurately categorize hospital quality and correlate with reliability-adjustment but are easier to calculate and interpret. From 2016-2019, highest quality open AAA repair hospitals prevented >40 perioperative deaths compared to the average hospital, and >80 perioperative deaths compared to lowest quality hospitals.

Polyvascular Disease is Common in Patients Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy and Lower Extremity Bypass and is Associated With Worse Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in > 1 arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were: (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. RESULTS: Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39% 2 arterial beds, 7.6% 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41% 2 arterial beds, 5.7% 3 arterial beds; n=25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P<0.0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% 1 bed vs 1.5% 2 beds vs 2.7% 3 beds, P<0.001) and LEB (2.2% 1 bed vs 5.3% 2 beds vs 6.6% 3 beds, P<0.001). Polyvascular disease was independently associated with perioperative MI/death after CEA (OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.40-1.81), P<.0001) and LEB (OR 1.78 (95% CI 1.52-2.08), P<.0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% 3 beds vs 88% 2 beds vs 92% 1 bed, P<0.01) and LEB (72% 3 beds vs 75% 2 beds vs 84% 1 bed, P<0.01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5 year survival observed in those with 3 arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with five-year mortality following CEA (HR 1.33 (95% CI 1.24-1.40), P=0.0001) and LEB (HR 1.30 (95% CI 1.20-1.41), P=0.0001). CONCLUSION: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. Following revascularization, polyvascular disease patients may be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow up.

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic vs therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular techniques have transformed the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a prevalent and devastating complication. Prophylactic drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is among the proposed strategies for prevention of SCI. Although prophylactic CSF drainage is widely used and conceptually attractive, prophylactic CSF drains have not been demonstrated to definitively prevent the occurrence nor mitigate the severity of SCI in endovascular TAAA repair. Whether or not outcomes of prophylactic drains are superior to therapeutic drains remains unknown. This pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial designed to investigate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair using branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FBEVAR). METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter randomized pilot clinical trial conducted at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and The University of Massachusetts. Twenty patients were enrolled and randomized to either the prophylactic drainage or therapeutic drainage groups, prior to undergoing FBEVAR for extensive TAAAs and arch aortic aneurysms. This was a pilot feasibility study that was not powered to detect statistical differences in clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was feasibility of randomization and compliance with a shared lumbar drain protocol. Secondary outcomes included rate of drain complications and SCI. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled and successfully randomized, without any crossovers, to either the control cohort (n = 10), without prophylactic drains, or the experimental cohort (n = 10), with prophylactic drains. There were no differences in age, comorbidities, or history of prior aortic surgery across the cohorts. All patients were treated with FBEVAR. Aneurysm classifications were as follows: Extent I (10%), Extent II (50%), Extent III (35%), and Extent IV (5%). The average length of aortic coverage was 207 ± 21.6 mm. The length of aortic coverage did not vary across cohorts, nor did procedural times or blood loss volume. Compliance with the SCI prevention protocol was 100% across both groups. Within the prophylactic drain cohort, one patient experienced an adverse event related to lumbar drain placement, manifested as an epidural hematoma requiring laminectomy, without neurologic deficit (n = 1/10; 10%). There was one SCI event (n = 1/20; 5%), which occurred in the prophylactic drain cohort on postoperative day 9 following an episode of hypotension related to a gastrointestinal bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The role of prophylactic CSF drains for the prevention of SCI following endovascular TAAA repair is a topic of ongoing research, with many current practices based on expert opinion and experience, rather than rigorous scientific data. This study demonstrates the feasibility of a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair.

Targeted use of postoperative discharge phone calls to reduce early readmission rates.

OBJECTIVES: Postoperative readmissions are common and costly. Office-initiated phone calls to patients shortly after discharge may identify concerns and allow for early intervention to prevent readmission. We sought to evaluate our 30-day readmission rate after the implementation of a standardized postoperative discharge phone call (PODPC) intervention, compared with a historical aggregated cohort. METHODS: From July 2020 to 21, postoperative patients were prospectively identified at 48 hour after discharge. Medical assistants performed PODPCs, administering a survey designed to identify medical/surgical issues that could signify a complication and warrant escalation to a nurse practitioner (NP) for further management. Demographics, comorbidities, and procedure type were obtained retrospectively. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate PODPC responses, frequency of escalation, readmission, and reasons. The electronic medical record identified a historical aggregated cohort (July 2018 to 2019) and the 30-day readmission rate. A χ2 analysis was used to compare readmission rates between the preintervention historical and PODPC intervention groups. Predictors of 30-day readmission were modeled with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 411 PODPCs conducted, 106 patients (26%) reported not feeling well; having concerns. Eighty-four PODPCs (20%) triggered escalation to a NP; of these, 60 patients (71%) were counseled over the phone by an NP, 16 (19%) were brought into clinic, 6 (7%) were sent to the emergency department, and 2 (2%) did not answer the NP call. Of 411 patients, 17% (n = 68) were readmitted within 30 days. Comparatively, the historical aggregated cohort readmission rate was significantly higher at 28% (n = 346; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-3.65; P = .046), and feeling run down; having difficulty with movement; needing assistance for most activities (OR, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.09-7.43; P < .0001) were predictive of 30-day readmission when controlling for procedure type. CONCLUSIONS: Although readmissions remained common (>15%), being in the intervention cohort was associated with a significantly lower readmission rate compared with the historical aggregated cohort. One-fifth of PODPCs identified a concern; however, >90% of these could be managed by an NP by phone or in clinic. This PODPC intervention holds promise as a viable mechanism for decreasing readmissions.

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

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

Decreasing prevalence of centers meeting the Society for Vascular Surgery abdominal aortic aneurysm guidelines in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Based on data supporting a volume-outcome relationship in elective aortic aneurysm repair, the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines recommend that endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 operations annually and have a perioperative mortality and conversion-to-open rate of ≤2% and that open aortic repair (OAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 open aortic operations annually and have a perioperative mortality ≤5%. However, the number and distribution of centers meeting the SVS criteria remains unclear. This study aimed to estimate the temporal trends and geographic distribution of Centers Meeting the SVS Aortic Guidelines (CMAG) in the United States. METHODS: The SVS Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all OAR, aortic bypasses, and EVAR from 2011 to 2019. Annual OAR and EVAR volume, 30-day elective operative mortality for OAR or EVAR, and EVAR conversion-to-open rate for all centers were calculated. The SVS guidelines for OAR and EVAR, individually and combined, were applied to each institution leading to a CMAG designation. The proportion of CMAGs by region (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were compared by year using a χ2 test. Temporal trends were estimated using a multivariable logistic regression for CMAG, adjusting by region. RESULTS: Overall, 67,865 patients (49,264 EVAR; 11,010 OAR; 7591 aortic bypasses) at 336 institutions were examined. The proportion of EVAR CMAGs increased nationally by 1.7% annually from 51.6% (n = 33/64) in 2011 to 67.1% (n = 190/283) in 2019 (ß = .05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.09; P = .02). The proportion of EVAR CMAGs across regions ranged from 27.3% to 66.7% in 2011 to 63.9% to 72.9% in 2019. In contrast, the proportion of OAR CMAGs has decreased nationally by 1.8% annually from 32.8% (n = 21/64) in 2011 to 16.3% (n = 46/283) in 2019 (ß = -.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.10; P < .01). Combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs were even less frequent and decreased by 1.5% annually from 26.6% (n = 17/64) in 2011 to 13.1% (n = 37/283) in 2019 (ß = -.12; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.07; P < .01). In 2019, there was no significant difference in regional variation of the proportion of combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs (P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: Although an increasing proportion of institutions nationally meet the SVS guidelines for EVAR, a smaller proportion meet them for OAR, with a concerning downward trend. These data question whether we can safely offer OAR at most institutions, have important implications about sufficient OAR exposure for trainees, and support regionalization of OAR.

Predictors of Ambulatory Status at 1 Year Following Major Lower Extremity Amputation.

Nearly 60,000 major lower extremity amputations (AKA/BKA) are performed annually in the United States. We created a simple risk score for predicting ambulation at 1 year following AKA/BKA. We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative amputation database for patients who underwent above-knee (AKA) or below-knee (BKA) amputation (2013-2018). The primary endpoint was ambulation at 1 year either independently or with assistance. The cohort was divided into 80% derivation and 20% validation. Using the derivation set, a multivariable model identified preoperatively available independent predictors of 1 year ambulation and an integer-based risk-score was created. Scores were calculated to assign patients to risk groups-low, medium, or high chance of being ambulatory at 1 year. Internal validation was performed by applying the risk score to the validation set. Of 8725 AKA/BKA, 2055 met inclusion criteria-excluded: 2644 nonambulatory prior to amputation, 3753 missing 1-year follow-up ambulatory status. The majority-n = 1366, 66% were BKAs. The indications were CLTI; 47%, ischemic tissue loss; 9%, ischemic rest pain; 35%, infection/neuropathic; 9%, acute limb ischemia. Ambulation at 1 year was higher for BKA than AKA: 67%, versus 50%, p < .0001. In the final prediction model, contralateral BKA/AKA was the strongest predictor of nonambulation. The score provided reasonable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.65) and was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = .24). Sixty-two percent of patients who were ambulatory preoperatively remained ambulatory at 1 year. An integer-based risk score can stratify patients according to chance of ambulation at 1 year after major amputation and may be useful for preoperative patient counseling and selection.

Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). BACKGROUND: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006-2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. RESULTS: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P <0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P <0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7-37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50-2.44; P <0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.62; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

Proximal Instructions for Use Violations in Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative: Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is often attempted in patients with marginal anatomy. These patients' midterm outcomes are available in the Vascular Quality Initiative for analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in the Vascular Quality Initiative from patients who underwent elective infrarenal EVAR between 2011 and 2018. Each EVAR was identified as either on- or off-instructions for use (IFU) based on aortic neck criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak with IFU status. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event models estimated reintervention, aneurysm sac enlargement, and overall survival. RESULTS: We identified 5,488 patients with at least 1 follow-up recorded. Those treated off-IFU included 1,236 patients ([23%] mean follow-up 401 days) compared with 4,252 (77%) treated on-IFU (mean follow-up 406 days). There was no evidence of significant differences in crude 30-day survival (96% vs 97%; p = 0.28) or estimated 2-year survival (97% vs 97%; log-rank p = 0.28). Crude type Ia endoleak frequency was greater in patients treated off IFU (2% vs 1%; p = 0.03). Off-IFU EVAR was associated with type Ia endoleak on multivariable regression model (odds ratio 1.84 [95% CI 1.23 to 2.76]; p = 0.003). Patients treated off IFU vs on IFU experienced had increased risk of reintervention within 2 years (7% vs 5%; log-rank p = 0.02), a finding consistent with results from the Cox modeling (hazard ratio 1.38 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.81]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated off IFU were at greater risk for type Ia endoleak and reintervention, although they had similar 2-year survival compared with those treated on IFU. Patients with anatomy outside IFU should be considered for open surgery or complex endovascular repair to reduce the probability for revision.

Severity of acute kidney injury is associated with decreased survival after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently in complex aortic surgery and has been implicated in perioperative and long-term survival. This study sought to characterize the relationship between AKI severity and mortality after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR). METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled by the US Aortic Research Consortium in 10, prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies evaluating F/B-EVAR, between 2005 and 2023, were included in this study. Perioperative AKI during hospitalization was defined by and staged using the 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. Determinants of AKI were evaluated with backward stepwise mixed effects multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Survival was analyzed with conditionally adjusted survival curves and backward stepwise mixed effects Cox proportional hazards modelling. RESULTS: In the study period, 2413 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 74 years (IQR, 69-79 years) underwent F/B-EVAR. The median follow-up duration was 2.2 years (IQR, 0.7-3.7 years). The median baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine were 68 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR, 53-84 mL/min/1.73 m2) and 1.1 mg/dL (IQR, 0.9-1.3 mg/dL), respectively. Stratification of AKI identified 316 patients (13%) with stage 1 injury, 42 (2%) with stage 2 injury, and 74 (3%) with stage 3 injury. Renal replacement therapy was initiated during the index hospitalization in 36 patients (1.5% of cohort, 49% of stage 3 injuries). Thirty-day major adverse events were associated with AKI severity (all P ≤ .0001). Multivariable predictors of AKI severity included baseline eGFR (proportional odds ratio, 0.9 per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95 per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2]; P < .0001), baseline serum hematocrit (0.58 per 10% [95% CI, 0.48-0.71 per 10%]; P < .0001), renal artery technical failure during aneurysm repair (3 [95% CI,1.61-5.72]; P = .0006), and total operating time (1.05 per 10 minutes [95% CI, 1.04-1.07 per 10 minutes]; P < .0001). One-year unadjusted survivals for AKI severity strata were 91% (95% CI, 90%-92%) for no injury, 80% (95% CI, 76%-85%) for stage 1 injury, 72% (95% CI, 59-87%) for stage 2 injury, and 46% (95% CI, 35-59%) for stage 3 injury (P<.0001). Multivariable determinants of survival included AKI severity (stage 1, hazard ratio [HR], 1.6 [95% CI, 1.3-2]); stage 2, HR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.4-3.4]); stage 3 HR, 4 [95% CI, 2.9-5.5]; P < .0001), decreased eGFR (HR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.9-1.3]; P = .4), patient age (HR, 1.6 per 10 years [95% CI, 1.4-1.8 per 10 years]; P < .0001), baseline chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.3-1.8]; P < .0001), baseline congestive heart failure (HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.6-2.1]; P < .0001), postoperative paraplegia (HR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.1-4]; P = .02), and procedural technical success (HR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: AKI, as defined by the 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria, occurred in 18% of patients after F/B-EVAR. Greater severity of AKI after F/B-EVAR was associated with decreased postoperative survival. The predictors of AKI severity identified in these analyses suggest a role for improved preoperative risk mitigation and staging of interventions in complex aortic repair.

Transatlantic multicenter study on the use of a modified preloaded delivery system for fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the outcomes of endovascular complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the Cook fenestrated device with the modified preloaded delivery system (MPDS) with a biport handle and preloaded catheters. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective single arm cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms treated with the MPDS fenestrated device (Cook Medical). Patient clinical characteristics, anatomy, and indications for device use were collected. Outcomes, classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards, were collected at discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Overall, 712 patients (median age, 73 years; interquartile range [IQR], 68-78 years; 83% male) from 16 centers in Europe and the United States treated electively were included: 35.4% (n = 252) presented with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and 64.6% (n = 460) with complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Overall, 2755 target vessels were included (mean ,3.9 per patient). Of these, 1628 were incorporated via ipsilateral preloads using the MPDS (1440 accessed from the biport handle and 188 from above). The mean size of the contralateral femoral sheath during target vessel catheterization was 15F ± 4, and in 41 patients (6.7%) the sheath size was ≤8F. Technical success was 96.1%. Median procedural time was 209 minutes (IQR, 161-270 minutes), contrast volume was 100 mL (IQR, 70-150mL), fluoroscopy time was 63.9 minutes (IQR, 49.7-80.4 minutes) and median cumulative air kerma radiation dose was 2630 mGy (IQR, 838-5251 mGy). Thirty-day mortality was 4.8% (n = 34). Access complications occurred in 6.8% (n = 48) and 30-day reintervention in 7% (n = 50; 18 branch related). Follow-up of >30 days was available for 628 patients (88%), with a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR, 8-39 months). Branch-related endoleaks (type Ic/IIIc) were observed in 15 patients (2.6%) and aneurysm growth of >5 mm was observed in 54 (9.5%). Freedom from reintervention at 12 and 24 months was 87.1% (standard error [SE],1.5%) and 79.2% (SE, 2.0%), respectively. Overall target vessel patency at 12 and 24 months was 98.6% (SE, 0.3%) and 96.8% (SE, 0.4%), respectively, and was 97.9% (SE, 0.4%) and 95.3% (SE, 0.8%) for arteries stented from below using the MPDS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MPDS is safe and effective. Overall benefits include a decrease in contralateral sheath size in the treatment of complex anatomies with favorable results.

Multicenter trans-Atlantic experience with fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter international study aimed to describe outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FB-EVAR) in a cohort of patients treated for chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (PD-TAAAs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of all consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for repair of extent I to III PD-TAAAs in 16 centers from the United States and Europe (2008-2021). Data were extracted from institutional prospectively maintained databases and electronic patient records. All patients received off-the-shelf or patient-specific manufactured fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Endpoints were any cause mortality and major adverse events at 30 days, technical success, target artery (TA) patency, freedom from TA instability, minor (endovascular with <12 Fr sheath) and major (open or ≥12 Fr sheath) secondary interventions, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM). RESULTS: A total of 246 patients (76% male; median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-73 years]) were treated for extent I (7%), extent II (55%), and extent III (35%) PD-TAAAs by FB-EVAR. The median aneurysm diameter was 65 mm (interquartile range, 59-73 mm). Eighteen patients (7%) were octogenarians, 212 (86%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3, and 21 (9%) presented with contained ruptured or symptomatic aneurysms. There were 917 renal-mesenteric vessels targeted by 581 fenestrations (63%) and 336 directional branches (37%), with a mean of 3.7 vessels per patient. Technical success was 96%. Mortality and rate of major adverse events at 30 days was 3% and 28%, including disabling complications such as new onset dialysis in 1%, major stroke in 1%, and permanent paraplegia in 2%. Mean follow-up was 24 months. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated patient survival at 3 and 5 years was 79% ± 6% and 65% ± 10%. KM estimated freedom from ARM was 95% ± 3% and 93% ± 5% at the same intervals. Unplanned secondary interventions were needed in 94 patients (38%), including minor procedures in 64 (25%) and major procedures in 30 (12%). There was one conversion to open surgical repair (<1%). KM estimated freedom from any secondary intervention was 44% ± 9% at 5 years. KM estimated primary and secondary TA patency were 93% ± 2% and 96% ± 1% at 5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FB-EVAR for chronic PD-TAAAs was associated with high technical success and a low rate of mortality (3%) and disabling complications at 30 days. Although the procedure is effective in the prevention of ARM, patient survival was low at 5 years (65%), likely due to the significant comorbidities in this cohort of patients. Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 44%, although most procedures were minor. The significant rate of reinterventions highlights the need for continued patient surveillance.

Baseline modern medical management in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT. RESULTS: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses.

Predictors and outcomes of spinal cord injury following complex branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in the US Aortic Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a well-known complication of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair and is associated with profound morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe predictors for the development of SCI, as well as outcomes for patients who develop SCI, after branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in a large cohort of centers with adjudicated physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies. METHODS: We used a pooled dataset from nine US Aortic Research Consortium centers involved in investigational device exemption trials for treatment of suprarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. SCI was defined as new transient weakness (paraparesis) or permanent paraplegia after repair without other potential neurological etiologies. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of SCI, and life-table analysis and Kaplan-Meier methodologies were used to evaluate survival differences. RESULTS: A total of 1681 patients underwent branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020. The overall rate of SCI was 7.1% (3.0% transient and 4.1% permanent). Predictors of SCI on multivariable analysis were Crawford Extent I, II, and III distribution of aortic disease (odds ratio [OR], 4.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-4.81; P < .001), age ≥70 years (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.63-1.64; P = .029), packed red blood cell transfusion (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.99-2.00; P = .001), and a history of peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.64-1.65; P = .034). The median survival was significantly worse for patients with any degree of SCI compared with those without SCI (any SCI, 40.4 vs no SCI, 60.3 months; log-rank P < .001), and also worse in those with a permanent deficit (24.1 months) vs those with a transient deficit (62.4 months) (log-rank P < .001). The 1-year survival for patients who developed no SCI was 90.8%, compared with 73.9% in patients who developed any SCI. When stratified by degree of deficit, survival was 84.8% at 1 year for those who developed paraparesis and 66.2% for those who developed permanent deficits. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of any SCI at 7.1% and permanent deficit at 4.1% observed in this study compare favorably with those reported in contemporary literature. Our findings confirm that increased length of aortic disease is associated with SCI and those with Crawford Extent I to III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms are at highest risk. The long-term impact on patient mortality underscores the importance of preventive measures and rapid implementation of rescue protocols if and when deficits develop.

Mid-term Renal and Mesenteric Artery Outcomes During Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Complex Abdominal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the United States Aortic Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To report mid-term outcomes of renal-mesenteric target arteries (TAs) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. BACKGROUND: TA instability (TAI) is the most frequent indication for reintervention after FB-EVAR. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients enrolled in 9 prospective nonrandomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 were reviewed. TA outcomes through 5 years of follow-up were analyzed for vessels incorporated by fenestrations or directional branches (DBs), including TA patency, endoleak, integrity failure, reintervention, and instability. RESULTS: A total of 1681 patients had 6349 renal-mesenteric arteries were targeted using 3720 fenestrations (59%), 2435 DBs (38%), and 194 scallops (3%). Mean follow was 23 ± 21 months. At 5 years, TAs incorporated by fenestrations had higher primary (95 ± 1% vs 91 ± 1%, P < 0.001) and secondary patency (98 ± 1% vs 94 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and higher freedom from TAI (87 ± 2% vs 84 ± 2%, P = 0.002) compared with TAs incorporated by DBs, with no differences in other TA events. DBs targeted by balloon-expandable stent-grafts had significantly lower freedom from TAI (78 ± 4% vs 88 ± 1%, P = 0.006), TA endoleak (87 ± 3% vs 97 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and TA reintervention (83 ± 4% vs 95 ± 1%, P < 0.001) compared with those targeted by self-expandable stent-grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of renal and mesenteric TA during FB-EVAR is safe and durable with high 5-year patency rates and low freedom from TAI. DBs have lower patency rates and lower freedom from TAI than fenestrations, with better performance for self-expandable stent grafts as compared with balloon-expandable stent grafts.

Symptomatic peripheral artery disease increases risk of perioperative mortality following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with worse survival following abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, little is known about the impact of PAD and sex on outcomes following open infrarenal AAA repair (OAR). METHODS: All elective open infrarenal AAA cases were queried from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2022. PAD was defined as history of non-cardiac arterial bypass, non-coronary percutaneous vascular intervention (PVI), or non-traumatic major amputation. Cohorts were stratified by sex and history of PAD. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess the primary endpoints: 30-day and 5-year mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Of 4910 patients who underwent elective OAR, 3421 (69.7%) were men without PAD, 298 (6.1%) were men with PAD, 1098 (22.4%) were women without PAD, and 93 (1.9%) were women with PAD. Men with PAD had prior bypass (45%), PVI (62%), and amputation (6.7%). Women with PAD had prior bypass (32%), PVI (76%), and amputation (5.4%). Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in men with PAD compared with men without PAD (4.4% vs 1.7%; P = .001) and in women with PAD compared with women without PAD (7.5% vs 2.4%; P = .01). After risk adjustment, when compared with men without PAD, women with PAD had nearly four times the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 3.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-9.64; P = .004) and men with PAD had almost three times the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.42-5.40; P = .003). Five-year survival was 87.8% in men without PAD, 77.8% in men with PAD, 85% in women without PAD, and 76.2% in women with PAD (P < .001). After risk adjustment, only men with PAD had an increased hazard of death at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.17; P = .019) compared with men without PAD. CONCLUSIONS: PAD is a potent risk factor for increased perioperative mortality in both men and women following OAR. In women, this equates to nearly four times the odds of perioperative mortality compared with men without PAD. Future study evaluating risk/benefit is needed to determine if women with PAD reflect a high-risk cohort that may benefit from a more conservative OAR threshold for treatment.

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

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