Fate of Hemodialysis Patients Undergoing Transcarotid Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid revascularization in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) continues to be a controversial topic, as life expectancy is poor, thus, preventing the recouperation of cumulative stroke-risk reduction in the postoperative period. We performed this primarily descriptive analysis of the results of transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) in renal failure patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of two independent carotid revascularization databases maintained at two large health systems were performed to capture all consecutive TCAR procedures. Patients were classified as either (1) ESRD or (2) preserved renal function (PRF) and compared with standard univariate techniques, where appropriate. RESULTS: From December 2015 to April 2022, 851 consecutive TCARs were attempted at our participating facilities. Of these, 27 were performed in ESRD patients (all hemodialysis). These patients were younger and presented with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. The incidence of a high anatomic risk criterion as defined for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were similar between groups, as was the incidence of a symptomatic carotid lesion. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative characteristics and the postoperative medication management were grossly similar by renal function. In the 30-day perioperative period, there were no stroke, death, or myocardial infarction in the 27 ESRD patients treated with TCAR. The mean duration of follow-up in the ESRD cohort was 15.0 months. During this time, there was no ipsilateral stroke events, one contralateral stroke, and one MI. All 27 carotid stents remained patent during this period. Six patients perished after TCAR at a mean interval of 12.2 months after TCAR. CONCLUSION: Survival is poor after carotid revascularization via the TCAR technique on intermediate follow-up. Careful patient selection is required to identify those who will survive to collect on the cumulative stroke-risk reduction afforded by carotid intervention.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with In-Hospital Outcomes After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple studies have shown improved outcomes and higher utilization of care with the increase of insurance coverage. This study aims to assess whether Medicaid expansion (ME) has changed the utilization and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. MATERIALS: Data of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2017). METHODS: Interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was utilized to evaluate changes in annual trends of postoperative outcomes after elective AAA repair before and after 2014. We also assessed if these trend changes were significant by comparing the changes in states which adopted ME in 2014 versus nonexpansion states (NME), and conducting a difference-in-difference analysis. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and adverse events (bowel and leg ischemia, cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke and return to the OR). RESULTS: A total of 19,143 procedures were included (Endovascular: 85.8% and open: 14.2%), of which 40.9% were performed in ME States. Compared to preexpansion trends (P1), there was a 2% annual increase in elective AAA repair in ME states (P1: -1.8% versus P2: +0.2%, P< 0.01) with no significant change in NME (P1: +0.3% versus P2: +0.2%, P = 0.97). Among elective cases, annual trends in the use of EVAR increased by 2% in ME states (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.1, 4.1, P = 0.06), compared to a 3% decrease in NME States [95%CI = -5.8, -0.6, P = 0.01) (PMEversusNME < 0.01]. There was no association between ME and in-hospital mortality. Nonetheless, it was associated with a decrease in the annual trends of in-hospital complications (ME: -1.4% (-2.1,-0.8) versus NME: +0.2% (-0.2, +0.8), P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While no association between ME and increased survival was noted in states which adopted ME, there was a significant increase of elective AAA cases and EVAR utilization and a decrease in in-hospital complications in ME States.

Black patients have a higher burden of comorbidities but a lower risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in open thoracic aortic aneurysm repair have been well-documented, with Black patients reported to suffer from poor outcomes compared with their White counterparts. It is unclear whether these disparities extend to the less invasive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study aims to examine the clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and 1-year survival of Black vs White patients undergoing TEVAR in a national vascular surgery database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively queried to identify all patients who underwent TEVAR between January 2011 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival after TEVAR. Secondary outcomes included various types of major postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and perioperative complications. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 2669 patients with TEVAR were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative, of whom 648 were Black patients (24.3%). Compared with White patients, Black patients were younger and had a higher burden of comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, dialysis dependence, and anemia. Black patients were more likely to be symptomatic, present with aortic dissection, and undergo urgent or emergent repair. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between Black and White patients (3.4% vs 4.9%; P = .1). After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and operative factors, Black patients were independently associated with a 56% decrease in 30-day mortality risk compared with their White counterparts (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85; P = .01) and not associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.17; P = .42). Black patients also had a significantly better 1-year overall survival (log-rank, P = .024) and were associated with a significantly decreased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P = .01) after adjusting for multiple clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although Black patients carried a higher burden of comorbidities, the racial disparities in perioperative outcomes and 1-year survival do not persist in TEVAR.

Trend and Economic Burden of Intravenous Narcotic Analgesic Utilization in Major Vascular Interventions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The use of IV narcotic analgesics (IVNA) within the context of vascular procedures is not fully described. We sought to evaluate the burden of IVNA including narcotic analgesia-related adverse drug events (NARADE), associated mortality and hospitalization cost in open and endovascular vascular procedures, and to compare it with nonnarcotic analgesia (IVNNA). METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study in hospitals participating in Premier database (2009-2015). Logistic regression analysis was implemented to report the risks of NARADE and in-hospital mortality. Negative binomial regression was used to assess length of stay and generalized linear modeling was used to estimate the hospitalization cost. RESULTS: A total of 171,473 patients were identified. NARADE occurred in 6.2% of the cohort. NARADE group was similar in gender and race but was slightly older (median age 71 vs. 70; P < 0.001). After risk-adjustment, NARADE risk was higher in patients who received IVNA-alone in carotid and lower extremity revascularization (LER) [OR (odds ratio) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 1.17 (1.02-1.34) and 1.31 (1.14-1.50)] or combined with IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 1.34 (1.13-1.59) and 1.81 (1.54-2.13)], respectively. Patients receiving aortic repair benefited from the use of IVNA + IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.69-0.98)]. Occurrence of NARADE doubled the LOS, amplified mortality risk and increased cost in all domains. NARADE increased the odds of mortality by 24.3, 6.5 (4.9-8.68) and 16.6 times and added $5,368, $12,737 and $11,349 to the cost of carotid, aortic and LER interventions, respectively. In contrast, IVNNA was not associated with NARADE risk, increased LOS or cost and showed a survival benefit in patients undergoing open aortic repair [aOR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.36-0.75)]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of opioid-based narcotics had increased the risk of NARADE, resources utilization and NARADE-related mortality. Yet the use of nonopioid-based analgesic was safe, did not increase the cost and reduced mortality in open AA repair. This entices shifting the paradigm toward exploring nonopioid-based analgesia options in order to replace or minimize opioid requirements.

Real-world cost analysis of endovascular repair versus open repair in patients with nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to provide a nationwide, all-payer, real-world cost analysis of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) in patients with nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (non-rAAA). METHODS: All non-rAAA patients registered between July 2009 and March 2015 in the Premier Healthcare Database were analyzed. The Student t-test and the χ2 test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively; median value comparisons were done with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test. The in-hospital absolute mean total cost (sum of fixed cost and variable cost) and subcategories were analyzed after adjustment for inflation at July 2015. Fixed costs included all overhead costs while variables costs included in-hospital services including procedures, room and board, services provided by hospital staff, and pharmacy costs. Total cost was stratified based on admission type (emergency vs nonemergency), 75th percentile of length of hospital stay among individual procedures (expected vs extended stay), mortality, and complications. Student t-test and Fisher's analysis of variance were used for comparing mean cost. Year-wise comparison of mean cost was done with analysis of variance to look for a trend over time. RESULTS: Our study cohort included 38,809 non-rAAA patients (33,171 EVAR and 5638 OAR). The mean total cost of index admission was lower in EVAR in comparison with OAR ($32,052 vs $36,091; P < .001), with lower fixed costs ($11,309 vs $16,818; P < .001) and higher variable costs ($20,743 vs $19,272; P < .001). Cost of pharmacy, labor, operating room, room and board and other costs were significantly higher with OAR, whereas the supply cost was higher with EVAR. The expected hospital length of stay of patients who underwent EVAR was associated with a higher total cost ($27,271 vs $25,680; P < .001) and a higher variable cost ($18,186 vs $13,671; P < .001) than OAR patients. However, the extended hospital stay of patients who underwent EVAR had lower costs in all categories compared with the extended length of stay of those who underwent OAR. Mortality associated with EVAR was costlier than OAR associated mortality (mean $72,483 vs $59,804; P = .017). From 2009 to 2014, the mean total cost of EVAR increased significantly by 18.5% ($28,745 vs $34,049; P < .001) owing to a 7.8% increase in fixed costs ($10,931 vs $11,789; P < .001) and a 25.0% increase in variable costs ($17,804 vs $22,257; P < .001). The mean total cost OAR remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Overall hospitalization costs associated with EVAR of non-rAAA was lower than the hospitalization cost of OAR. Interestingly, we found that, among patients who had an expected hospital length of stay, the hospitalization cost after OAR was significantly lower than after EVAR. The average hospitalization cost of OAR was stable during the 5 years study period, whereas the hospitalization cost of EVAR increased significantly over time. Further studies are required to identify reasons for increased costs associated with EVAR.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion of the Affordable Care on the Outcomes of Lower Extremity Bypass for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative Database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the utilization and outcomes of surgery after Medicaid Expansion (ME) for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Recent studies have demonstrated increased insurance coverage and improved care with the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) state expansion of Medicaid. METHODS: Infrainguinal bypass procedures performed due to occlusive pathology in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2010 and 2017 were included. Primary outcomes including postoperative mortality and major adverse limb events (MALE) at 1-year of follow-up were analyzed using interrupted time-series analysis (ITS). RESULTS: Out of 26,446 infrainguinal bypass procedures, 13,955 (52.8%) were included in this analysis. ME states witnessed an annual decrease in infrainguinal surgery for acute ischemia [annual change in post vs pre-ME period (95% confidence interval): -4.3% (-7.5% to -1.0%), P = 0.02] and an increase in revascularization for claudication [3.7% (1.7%-5.6%), P = 0.01]. Among nonacute cases, elective procedures increased in ME states [3.9% (0.1%-7.7%), P = 0.05] along with a significant annual decrease in in-hospital mortality [-0.4% (-0.8 to -0.02), P = 0.04) and MALE at 1 year of follow up [-9.0% (-20.3 to 2.3), P = 0.09]. These results were statistically significant after comparing them with the annual trend changes in states which did not adopt ME. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of ME in 2014 was associated with significant increase in the use of infrainguinal bypass for nonsevere and elective cases, along with improved in-hospital mortality and MALE at 1 year. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the impact of ME on other aspects of care and longer term outcomes of PAD patients.

Association between Drug Use and In-hospital Outcomes after Infrainguinal Bypass for Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease.

BACKGROUND: Drug abuse may affect lower extremity vessels due to ischemia following intra-arterial injections, vasospasm, arterial and venous pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulae, vasculitis, and complicated abscesses. Little is known about the outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in patients with a history of drug abuse disorder. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of LEB in this patient population. METHODS: A retrospective study of the Premier Healthcare Database 2009-2015 was performed. In-hospital complications, mortality, and hospitalization costs were assessed in patients with a history of drug abuse disorder (opioids, cannabis, cocaine, sedatives/hypnotics/anxiolytics, and hallucinogens/methamphetamine/psychoactive drugs) who underwent LEB for PAD. Multivariable logistic and generalized linear models were utilized to study the association between drug use/misuse and in-hospital outcomes after LEB. RESULTS: Our cohort included 50,976 patients, of which 967 (2%) had a history of drug abuse disorder on admission. The majority of drugs were cannabis (38.5%), followed by opioids (21.5%) and cocaine (14.5%). Patients with a history of drug use/misuse were significantly at a higher risk of developing complications during their hospital stay (71.9% vs. 64.2%, P < 0.001) including acute renal failure (11.8% vs. 9.1%), stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%), respiratory complications (pneumonia and respiratory failure) (15.0% vs. 9.6%), hemorrhage/shock (36.2% vs. 31.8%), vascular or graft-related complications (29.8% vs. 26.4%), wound complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%), cellulitis (8.5% vs. 6.8%), and sepsis (2.1% vs. 1.2%, all P < 0.001). In addition, drug users were found to have higher risk of concomitant major amputations compared to nondrug users (2.0% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, no difference was noted between the 2 groups in terms of in-hospital mortality and concomitant major amputations. However, drug use/misuse was associated with 57% higher odds of overall in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.83, P < 0.001), a prolonged length of hospital stay (median: 7 days vs. 5 days in nonabusers, P < 0.001), and higher hospitalization costs compared to nonusers (adjusted mean difference: OR $3,075, 95% CI $2,096-$4,055, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Drug use/misuse is significantly associated with increased odds of in-hospital complications, longer hospital stays, and higher hospitalization costs following LEB. Vascular surgeons need to pay special attention to this patient population and explore interventions to decrease the morbidity and economic burden associated with drug use.

Aortic Surgery Outcomes of Marfan Syndrome and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Patients at Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in prevention and management, aortic aneurysm repair remains a high-risk operation for patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS). The goal of this study was to examine differences in characteristics and outcomes of patients with MFS or EDS undergoing aortic aneurysm repair at teaching versus nonteaching hospitals. METHODS: We used the National Inpatient Sample to study patients with MFS or EDS undergoing open or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair from 2000 to 2014. RESULTS: Of 3487 patients (MFS = 3375, EDS = 112), 2974 (85%) had repair at a teaching hospital. Patients who underwent repair at a teaching hospital were slightly younger than those who underwent repair at a nonteaching hospital (38 vs. 43 years, P < 0.01) but otherwise were similar in gender (29% vs. 28% female), race (70% vs. 78% white), and connective tissue disorder diagnosis (97% vs. 97% MFS, all P ≥ 0.1). There were no differences in anatomy (17% vs. 19% abdominal, 67% vs. 66% thoracic, and 15% vs. 15% thoracoabdominal, all P ≥ 0.1) or type of repair (5% vs. 5% endovascular), but patients at nonteaching hospitals were more likely to have a dissection (49% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). There was no difference in perioperative mortality (4% vs. 6%, P = 0.5) or length of stay (median 8 days vs. 7 days, P = 0.3) between teaching and nonteaching hospitals. There was also no difference in hemorrhagic (47% vs. 43%), pulmonary (9% vs. 16%), renal (12% vs. 14%), or neurologic (5% vs. 6%) complications between teaching and nonteaching hospitals, respectively (all P ≥ 0.05). In analysis stratified by anatomic extent of repair, there was a lower prevalence of pulmonary complications in thoracic aorta repairs at teaching hospitals (8.1% vs. 18.4%, P = 0.01) but a higher prevalence of hemorrhage in abdominal aortic repairs at teaching hospitals (45.6% vs. 20.6%, P = 0.04) as compared with nonteaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MFS and EDS who undergo aortic aneurysm repair have their operations predominantly at teaching hospitals, but those patients who undergo repair at nonteaching hospitals do not have worse mortality or morbidity despite a higher incidence of dissection.

Outcomes and cost of fenestrated versus standard endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has expanded the indications of this minimally invasive procedure to include patients with pararenal aneurysms. The actual cost of this relatively newer technology compared with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has not been studied before. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze in-hospital costs and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing FEVAR vs EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare Database (2012-2015), we identified all patients who underwent elective EVAR and FEVAR. Univariable (χ2 test, Student t-test, median test) and multivariable (logistic regression and generalized linear modeling) analyses were implemented to examine in-hospital cost and adverse outcomes adjusting for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 17,689 elective endovascular AAA repairs were performed; 1641 patients underwent FEVAR (9%), and the remaining 16,048 patients underwent standard EVAR (91%). Patients undergoing FEVAR were more likely to be white (86.3% vs 84.3%; P = .03). Both groups had similar comorbidities except for cerebrovascular disease, which was higher among patients undergoing FEVAR (8.4% vs 6.7%; P = .01). The total length of hospital stay was slightly higher in patients undergoing FEVAR compared with EVAR (mean [standard deviation], 2.40 [3.39] days vs 2.23 [3.10] days; P = .03). The rates of any complication (11.3% vs 9.6%), renal injury (5.8% vs 4.3%), and neurologic injury (0.7% vs 0.4%) were significantly higher in the FEVAR group (all P < .05). No differences were seen in mortality (0.8% vs 0.5%) or cardiac (4.9% vs 4.4%), pulmonary (2.4% vs 2.2%), and bowel (1.5% vs 1.2%) complications between the two groups (all P > .05). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, FEVAR was associated with 40% increased odds of renal failure (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.76; P = .004) and 91% increased odds of neurologic injury (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.57; P = .04). The median total cost of the treatment was also significantly higher among patients undergoing FEVAR ($28,227 vs $26,781; P < .001). After adjustment, generalized linear modeling analysis showed that the cost of FEVAR was on average $1612 higher than the cost of EVAR (adjusted cost, $1612; 95% CI, $1123-$2101; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of elective endovascular AAA repairs, compared with standard EVAR, FEVAR is associated with significantly increased odds of renal and neurologic injury. In addition, despite adjusting for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and major complications, total cost of FEVAR was significantly higher compared with standard EVAR. This is likely driven by the additional cost of fenestrated endografts and by the increased rate of complications related to FEVAR.

Comparison of the Cost of Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare Metal Stents in the Treatment of Critical Limb Ischemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant technical advancement in the last decade, the durability of endovascular management of critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains highly debatable. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are being popularized for the management of CLI after its precedent success in coronary intervention. Initial reports on the durability of DES are promising. However, little is known on the additional cost of this relatively newer technology. The aim of this study is to compare the cost of the traditional bare metal stents (BMSs) to the newly introduced DES in a large cohort of CLI patients. METHODS: Using the Premier database (2009-2015), we identified all patients with CLI undergoing DES and BMS. A multivariable generalized linear model was implemented to examine in-hospital cost adjusting for patients' characteristics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 20,702 patients with CLI underwent peripheral artery revascularization using BMS (18,924 [91.41%]) or DES (1,778 [8.6%]). Majority of patients were males (53%) and whites (71%). Patients undergoing BMS were slightly younger (median age [interquartile range]: 70 [62-79] versus 71 [63-80]) and were more likely to be smokers (46% vs. 39%) and have a history of cerebrovascular disease (10% vs. 8%) and chronic pulmonary disease (24.5% vs. 20.9%) as compared with those undergoing DES (all P < 0.05). On the other hand, DES patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (4% vs. 3%) and renal disease (25% vs. 22%) (both P < 0.05). There was also a significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing DES and a corresponding decrease in BMS (P < 0.001) over the study period. Median total in-hospitalization cost (BMS: $13,342 [8,574 to 21,166], DES: $13,243 [8,560-20,232], P = 0.76) was similar for both approaches. After adjusting for potential confounders, DES was associated with $407 higher cost than BMS (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 407 [17 to 798], P = 0.04). In addition, the cost was $672 higher in teaching hospitals, $1,153 higher in Rural areas, and increased in all regions compared with the Midwest (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]-South: $293 [31 to 555], Northeast: $2,006 [1,517 to 2,495], West: $3,312 [2,930 to 3,695], all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of CLI patients, after controlling for potential confounders, we demonstrated that the cost of endovascular revascularization is significantly higher in patients undergoing DES than those undergoing BMS. Regional disparities in cost were also observed. Further studies looking at the long-term durability and costs of DES versus BMS are needed.

Complication-Specific In-Hospital Costs After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Artery Stenting.

PURPOSE: To quantify and compare the incremental cost associated with in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 100,185 patients (mean age 70.7±9.5 years; 58.3% men) who underwent CEA (n=86,035) or CAS (n=14,150) between 2009 and 2015 and were entered into the Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariate logistic models and generalized linear models were used to analyze binary outcomes and hospitalization costs, respectively. Outcomes are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: CAS was associated with 1.6 times higher adjusted odds of stroke [aOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.77), p<0.001] and with 2.6 times higher odds of death [aOR 2.60 (95% CI 2.14 to 3.17), p<0.001] compared with CEA. There was no significant difference in MI risk between the 2 procedures. The adjusted incremental cost of death and MI were similar between the 2 procedures. However, the adjusted incremental cost of stroke was significantly higher in CEA compared with CAS by an estimated $2000. When stratified with respect to symptomatic status, the increased adjusted incremental cost of stroke in CEA was mainly seen in asymptomatic patients ($5284 vs $2932, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: The incremental cost of in-hospital stroke is relatively higher in CEA compared to CAS. However, CEA remains a more cost-effective carotid intervention due to lower complication rates and baseline costs compared with CAS. Long-term cost-effectiveness studies are needed before definite conclusions are made.

Outcomes and cost of open versus endovascular repair of intact thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Many previous studies have evaluated the outcomes of open and endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, little is known about the differences in cost of these procedures and the potential factors driving these differences. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and cost of open aortic repair (OAR) vs endovascular repair of intact TAAA. METHODS: All patients undergoing repair for intact TAAA were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database (July 2009-March 2015). Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the χ2 test, Student t-test, and median test as appropriate. A multivariable generalized linear model was used to examine total in-hospital cost. RESULTS: A total of 879 TAAA repairs were identified (481 [55%) endovascular repairs vs 398 [45%] OARs). Patients undergoing endovascular repair were on average 5 years older (71.2 [±10.0] years vs 66.5 [±10.9] years; P < .001) and more likely to be female (48% vs 42%; P = .05) and hypertensive (87% vs 80%; P = .009). Otherwise, there were no significant differences in comorbidities between the two groups. Patients undergoing OAR were more likely to stay longer in the hospital (median [interquartile range], 11 [7-20] days vs 5 [2-9] days; P < .001). In-hospital mortality (15% vs 5%; P < .001) and all major complications were two to three times higher after OAR. The median total cost of OAR was significantly higher compared with endovascular repair (cost [interquartile range], $44,355 [$32,177-$54,824] vs $36,612 [$24,395-$53,554]; P = .004). The majority of the cost attributed to TAAA repair was also higher in patients undergoing open repair: room and board ($11,561 vs $4720), operating room ($9230 vs $4929), pharmacy ($2309 vs $900), blood bank ($1189 vs $195), rehabilitation/physical therapy ($378 vs $236), and respiratory therapy ($875 vs $168; all P < .001). Only the cost of central supplies, which includes endovascular grafts and stents, was the highest among patients undergoing endovascular repair ($17,472 vs $5501; P < .001). The cost of diagnostic imaging ($625 vs $595) and anesthesia ($479 vs $478) was similar in both approaches. In a multivariable analysis, the adjusted total hospitalization cost for OAR was $5974 (95% confidence interval, $1828-$10,120; P = .005) higher compared with endovascular repair. However, after adjusting for in-hospital complications, no difference was seen between the two approaches (-$460; 95% confidence interval, -$4390 to $3470; P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of intact TAAAs, we showed a significantly higher adjusted total hospitalization cost of open compared with endovascular repair despite the additional cost of endografts. This is likely driven by longer length of stay and higher morbidity after OAR.

Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set.

OBJECTIVE: Open aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. METHODS: Patients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2%) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5% after OAR (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.9%-84.1%) vs 21.3% after EVAR (95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%; P < .001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24; P = .44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Although EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.

Regional variation in the cost of infrainguinal lower extremity bypass surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity bypass (LEB) remains the gold standard revascularization procedure in patients with peripheral arterial disease. The cost of LEB substantially varies based on patient's characteristics and comorbidities. The aim of this study was to assess regional variation in infrainguinal LEB cost and to identify the specific health care expenditures per service that are associated with the highest cost in each region. METHODS: We identified adult patients who underwent infrainguinal LEB in the Premier database between June 2009 and March 2015. Generalized linear regression models were used to report differences between regions in total in-hospital cost and service-specific cost adjusting for patient's demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital factors. RESULTS: A total of 50,131 patients were identified. The median in-hospital cost was $13,259 (interquartile range, $9308-$19,590). The cost of LEB was significantly higher in West and Northeast regions with a median cost of nearly $16,000. The high cost in the Northeast region was driven by the fixed (indirect) cost, whereas the driver of the high cost in the West region was the variable (direct) cost. The adjusted total in-hospital cost was significantly higher in all regions compared with the South (mean difference, West, $3752 [95% confidence interval (CI), 3477-4027]; Northeast, $2959 [95% CI, 2703-3216]; Midwest, 1586 [95% CI, 1364-1808]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show the marked regional variability in LEB costs. This disparity was independent from patient clinical condition and hospital factors. Cost inequality across the US represents a financial burden on both the patient and the health system.

Indications, risk factors, and outcomes of 30-day readmission after infrarenal abdominal aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing readmissions is an important target for improving patient care and enhancing health care quality and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess rates, risk factors, and indications of 30-day readmission after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database from 2009 to 2015 was performed. Indications for readmission after the index procedure, risk factors, and outcomes of the index admission and rehospitalization were evaluated. Multivariate logistic models were used to assess the association between 30-day readmission and different patient and hospital factors. RESULTS: A total of 33,332 AAA repair procedures were identified: 27,483 (82.5%) EVAR and 5849 (17.5%) OAR. The overall rate of 30-day readmission was 8.1%, and it was greater after OAR (12.9% vs 7.1% in EVAR; P < .001). In general, the most common specific readmission diagnoses were infectious complications (16.1%), followed by respiratory and cardiac complications (11.8% and 11.3%, respectively). After multivariate adjustment, OAR was associated with higher 30-day readmission compared with EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.2; P = .04). Other risk factors of 30-day readmission included female gender, emergency and urgent procedures, certain patient comorbidities (dyslipidemia, congestive heart failure, history of transient ischemic attack, previous cardiac surgery, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and history of malignant disease), and hemorrhage/shock/bleeding occurring during the index admission as well as nonhome discharge. Readmitted patients had an overall in-hospital mortality of 3.6% and paid a median rehospitalization cost of $7757. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that around 8.1% of patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repair were readmitted within 30 days. Because many readmissions are unrelated to the index procedure or caused by factors that are nonmodifiable or nonidentifiable at discharge, efforts should focus on discharge planning and improving the decision process regarding discharge destination as well as postdischarge coordination of care for high-risk patients.

Comparison of 30-day readmission rates and risk factors between carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the rates, reasons, and risk factors of 30-day readmission, both planned and unplanned, after carotid revascularization as well as to evaluate major outcomes associated with those readmissions. METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare database, we retrospectively identified patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) between 2009 and 2015. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission. Secondary outcomes included mortality and overall cost associated with readmissions. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used and further validated using coarsened exact matching on baseline differences between CEA and CAS patients. RESULTS: A total of 95,687 patients underwent carotid revascularization, 13.5% of whom underwent CAS. Crude 30-day readmission rates were 6.5% after CEA vs 6.1% after CAS (P = .10). Stroke, bleeding, pneumonia, and respiratory failure were the most common reasons for readmission after both CEA and CAS (6.7% vs 8.3%, 6.9% vs 5.3%, 3.4% vs 2.4%, and 4.4% vs 3.9%; all P > .05). Myocardial infarction and wound complications were more likely to be an indication for readmission after CEA (4.1% vs 2.5% and 4.1% vs 1.5%, respectively; P < .05). On the other hand, readmissions due to vascular or stent-related complications were more likely after CAS compared with CEA (5.8% vs 3.8%; P = .003). On multivariate analysis, CEA was found to be associated with 41% higher odds of readmission than CAS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.54; P < .001). Age, female gender, emergency/urgent procedures, concomitant cardiac procedures, rural hospitals, and Midwest region were significantly associated with 30-day readmission. Other risk factors included major preoperative comorbidities (diabetes, congestive heart failure, renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, and history of cancer) as well as the occurrence of postoperative stroke and renal complications during the index admission and nonhome discharge. Coarsened exact matching between CEA and CAS patients also yielded higher adjusted rates of readmission after CEA (6.2% vs 4.9%; P < .001). On the other hand, patients readmitted after CAS had a longer length of hospital stay (5 days vs 4 days; P = .001), increased readmission mortality (6.2% vs 2.8%; P < .001), and higher rehospitalization costs ($8903 vs $7629; P = .01) compared with those readmitted after CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that CAS is associated with lower 30-day readmission rates compared with CEA. However, CAS readmissions are more complex and are associated with higher mortality and costs. We have also identified patients who are at high risk of readmissions, which can help focus attention on interventions that can improve the management of these patients and reduce readmission rates.