Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation-friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients' advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients' community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017-June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants' advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.

Center-level Variation in HLA-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

Donation approval among obese living kidney donor candidates: The impact of metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The scarcity of organs available for transplantation has increased attempts to augment transplantation by utilizing obese living kidney donors. The literature has suggested that these donors have increased risks postdonation. Not surprising, the threshold for living kidney donor approval among obese persons is typically higher and the process more costly. Therefore, a screening tool to predict the likelihood of approval among obese living kidney donor candidates was created. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was performed among obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) living kidney donor candidates evaluated in clinic (January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017). Approved candidates were compared with those not approved using multivariable logistic regression, and a prediction tool was generated. RESULTS: Among 389 obese living kidney donor candidates, there were no significant differences in sex or race and ethnicity by approval status. However, nonapproved candidates had a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome. In the prediction model, glucose impairment and hypertension were most predictive of nonapproval. CONCLUSION: Among obese living kidney donor candidates, several metabolic syndrome components were associated with decreased odds of approval. This tool may serve as a useful initial screening for obese living kidney donor candidates, permitting more cost-effective evaluation processes. The tool could also be used to promote expeditious interventions in the preclinical setting, including weight management programs, to improve the likelihood of donation and postdonation outcomes.

Mitigating Racial and Sex Disparities in Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Impact of the Nation's Longest Single-center Kidney Chain.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a single-center kidney transplant waitlist, by race and sex, after implementation of an incompatible program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in access to LDKT exist among minority women and may be partially explained by antigen sensitization secondary to prior pregnancies, transplants, or blood transfusions, creating difficulty finding compatible matches. To address these and other obstacles, an incompatible LDKT program, incorporating desensitization and kidney paired donation, was created at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed among our kidney transplant waitlist candidates (n = 8895). Multivariable Cox regression was utilized, comparing likelihood of LDKT before (era 1: 01/2007-01/2013) and after (era 2: 01/2013-11/2018) implementation of the incompatible program. Candidates were stratified by race [white vs minority (nonwhite)], sex, and breadth of sensitization. RESULTS: Program implementation resulted in the nation's longest single-center kidney chain, and likelihood of LDKT increased by 70% for whites [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.99] and more than 100% for minorities (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.62). Improvement in access to LDKT was greatest among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 2.27-10.11; cPRA 50%-100%: aHR 4.09; 95% CI, 1.89-8.82]. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an incompatible program, and the resulting nation's longest single-center kidney chain, mitigated disparities in access to LDKT among minorities, specifically sensitized women. Extrapolation of this success on a national level may further serve these vulnerable populations.

Assessment of Trends in Transplantation of Liver Grafts From Older Donors and Outcomes in Recipients of Liver Grafts From Older Donors, 2003-2016.

Importance: In light of the growing population of older adults in the United States, older donors (aged ≥70 years) represent an expansion of the donor pool; however, their organs are underused. Liver grafts from older donors were historically associated with poor outcomes and higher discard rates, but clinical protocols, organ allocation, and the donor pool have changed in the past 15 years. Objective: To evaluate trends in demographics, discard rates, and outcomes among older liver donors and transplant recipients of livers from older donors in a large national cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 4127 liver grafts from older donors and 3350 liver-only recipients of older donor grafts and 78 990 liver grafts from younger donors (aged 18-69 years) and 64 907 liver-only recipients of younger donor grafts between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, in the United States. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which includes data on all transplant recipients in the United States that are submitted by members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, was used. Exposures: Year of liver transplant and age of liver donor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of graft discard and posttransplant outcomes of all-cause graft loss and mortality. Results: In this study, 4127 liver grafts from older donors were recovered for liver transplant across the study period (2003-2016); 747 liver grafts from older donors were discarded, and 3350 liver grafts from older donors were used for liver-only recipients. After adjusting for donor characteristics other than age and accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation, liver grafts from older donors were more likely to be discarded compared with liver grafts from younger donors in 2003-2006 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31), 2007-2009 (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.17-3.01), 2010-2013 (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68-2.46), and 2013-2016 (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.96-2.86) (P < .001 for all). Transplants of liver grafts from older donors represented a progressively lower proportion of all adult liver transplants, from 6.0% (n = 258 recipients) in 2003 to 3.2% (n = 211 recipients) in 2016 (P = .001). However, outcomes in recipients of grafts from older donors improved over time, with 40% lower graft loss risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .001) and 41% lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; P < .001) in 2010 through 2016 vs 2003 through 2009; these results were beyond the general temporal improvements in graft loss (interaction P = .03) and mortality risk (interaction P = .04) among recipients of liver grafts from younger donors. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings show that from 2003 to 2016, liver graft loss and mortality among recipients of liver grafts from older donors improved; however, liver graft discard from older donors remained increased and the number of transplants performed with liver grafts from older donors decreased. Expansion of the donor pool through broader use of liver grafts from older donors might be reasonable.

The effect of an organ procurement experience on preclinical medical student perceptions of transplant surgery.

Transplant surgery is a predominantly male specialty with high burnout rates. There are currently limited data regarding how programs can attract a diverse applicant pool to the field of transplant surgery. This study evaluated the effect of an Organ Procurement Experience elective on preclinical medical students' perceptions of transplant surgery in a prospective, longitudinal study. Preclinical medical students were anonymously surveyed before and after attending a deceased donor organ procurement. Questions focused on the following themes: Personal Beliefs, Personal/Professional Life, Diversity, and Gender Equality. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Ninety-nine and 45 students completed pre/post-procurement survey, respectively. Post-procurement responses demonstrated increased education about the field (2.1/5 vs 3.89/5, P < 0.001) and perceptions of the personalities and collegiality between surgeons (3.06/5 vs 3.73/5, P = 0.005). Post-procurement, women were less likely to feel that female transplant surgeons are treated differently (3.98/5 vs. 3.45/5, P < 0.017). Post-procurement, 19% agreed that transplant surgeons have a high quality of life. One percent of respondents felt the current gender distribution in transplant surgery is satisfactory. The Organ Procurement Experience significantly improved preclinical students' perceptions of the field. However, there remains a strong concern about quality of life and gender diversity within the field.

Utilization, patency, and complications associated with vascular access for hemodialysis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the utilization and outcomes of vascular access for long-term hemodialysis in the United States and describes the impact of temporizing catheter use on outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence, patency, and associated patient survival for pre-emptively placed autogenous fistulas and prosthetic grafts; for autogenous fistulas and prosthetic grafts placed after a temporizing catheter; and for hemodialysis catheters that remained in use. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who initiated hemodialysis in the United States during a 5-year period (2007-2011). The United States Renal Data System-Medicare matched national database was used to compare outcomes after pre-emptive autogenous fistulas, preemptive prosthetic grafts, autogenous fistula after temporizing catheter, prosthetic graft after temporizing catheter, and persistent catheter use. Outcomes were primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, maturation, catheter-free dialysis, severe access infection, and mortality. RESULTS: There were 73,884 (16%) patients who initiated hemodialysis with autogenous fistula, 16,533 (3%) who initiated hemodialysis with prosthetic grafts, 106,797 (22%) who temporized with hemodialysis catheter prior to autogenous fistula use, 32,890 (7%) who temporized with catheter prior to prosthetic graft use, and 246,822 (52%) patients who remained on the catheter. Maturation rate and median time to maturation were 79% vs 84% and 47 days vs 29 days for pre-emptively placed autogenous fistulas vs prosthetic grafts. Primary patency (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.28; P < .001) and primary assisted patency (aHR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.35-1.38; P < .001) were significantly higher for autogenous fistula compared with prosthetic grafts. Secondary patency was higher for autogenous fistulas beyond 2 months (aHR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.32-1.40; P < .001). Severe infection (aHR, 9.6; 95% CI, 8.86-10.36; P < .001) and mortality (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.27-1.31; P < .001) were higher for prosthetic grafts compared with autogenous fistulas. Temporizing with a catheter was associated with a 51% increase in mortality (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.53; P < .001), 69% decrease in primary patency (aHR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32; P < .001), and 130% increase in severe infection (aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.5; P < .001) compared to initiation with autogenous fistulas or prosthetic grafts. Mortality was 2.2 times higher for patients who remained on catheters compared to those who initiated hemodialysis with autogenous fistulas (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 2.21-2.28; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporizing catheter use was associated with higher mortality, higher infection, and lower patency, thus undermining the highly prevalent approach of electively using catheters as a bridge to permanent access. Autogenous fistulas are associated with longer time to catheter-free dialysis but better patency, lower infection risk, and lower mortality compared with prosthetic grafts in the general population.

Surgical approach, cost, and complications of appendectomy in kidney transplant recipients.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have greater morbidity and length of stay (LOS) following certain surgical procedures than non-KTR. Given that appendectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures, we investigated differences in outcomes between 1336 KTR and 2 640 247 non-KTR postappendectomy at transplant and nontransplant centers in the United States from 2000 to 2011, using NIS data and adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level factors. Postoperative complications were identified using ICD-9 codes. Among KTR, there were no post-appendectomy in-hospital deaths, compared to a 0.2% in non-KTR (P = .5). Overall complications were similar among KTR and non-KTR (17.0% vs 11.6%; aOR:0.77 1.121.61 ). LOS and costs were greater for KTR compared to non-KTR (LOS ratio 1.19 1.311.45 ; cost ratio 1.11 1.171.26 ). Only 44.8% of KTR had laparoscopic approach compared to 54.5% of non-KTR, but had similar complication rates (10.6 vs 8.7%, P = .5). When treated at transplant centers, KTR had similar complications (aOR 0.44 0.791.43 ), but longer LOS (ratio 1.21 1.371.55 ) and greater hospital-associated costs (ratio 1.19 1.291.41 ) than non-KTR. Conversely, at nontransplant centers, KTR and non-KTR had similar complications (aOR 0.75 1.232.0 ), LOS (ratio 0.84 0.961.09 ), and cost (ratio 0.93 1.011.10 ). Contrary to other procedures, KTR did not constitute a high-risk group for patients undergoing appendectomy.

The Dawn of Transparency: Insights from the Physician Payment Sunshine Act in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PSSA) is a government initiative that requires all biomedical companies to publicly disclose payments to physicians through the Open Payments Program (OPP). The goal of this study was to use the OPP database and evaluate all nonresearch-related financial transactions between plastic surgeons and biomedical companies. METHODS: Using the first wave of OPP data published on September 30, 2014, we studied the national distribution of industry payments made to plastic surgeons during a 5-month period. We explored whether a plastic surgeon's scientific productivity (as determined by their h-index), practice setting (private versus academic), geographic location, and subspecialty were associated with payment amount. RESULTS: Plastic surgeons (N = 4195) received a total of US $5,278,613. The median (IQR) payment to a plastic surgeon was US $115 (US $35-298); mean, US $158. The largest payment to an individual was US $341,384. The largest payment category was non-CEP speaker fees (US $1,709,930) followed by consulting fees (US $1,403,770). Plastic surgeons in private practice received higher payments per surgeon compared with surgeons in academic practice (median [IQR], US $165 [US $81-$441] vs median [IQR], US $112 [US $33-$291], rank-sum P < 0.001). Among academic plastic surgeons, a higher h-index was associated with 77% greater chance of receiving at least US $1000 in total payments (RR/10 unit h-index increase = 1.47 1.772.11, P < 0.001). This association was not seen among plastic surgeons in private practice (RR = 0.89 1.091.32, P < 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons in private practice receive higher payments from industry. Among academic plastic surgeons, higher payments were associated with higher h-indices.

Here Comes the Sunshine: Industry's Payments to Cardiothoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Payment Sunshine Act was implemented to provide transparency to financial transactions between industry and physicians. Under this law, the Open Payments Program (OPP) was created to publicly disclose all transactions and inform patients of potential conflicts of interest. Collaboration between industry and cardiothoracic surgeon-scientists is essential in developing new approaches to treating patients with cardiac disease. The objective of this study is to characterize industry payments to cardiothoracic surgeons as reported by the OPP. METHODS: We used the first wave of Physician Payment Sunshine Act data (August 2013 to December 2013) to assess industry payments made to cardiothoracic surgeons. RESULTS: Cardiothoracic surgeons (n = 2,495) received a total of $4,417,545 during a 5-month period. Cardiothoracic surgeons comprised 0.5% of all persons in the OPP and received 0.9% of total disclosed industry funding. Among cardiothoracic surgeons receiving funding, 34% received payments less than $100, 43% received payments of $100 to $999, 19% received payments of $1,000 to $9,999, 4% received payments of $10,000 to $99,999, and 0.2% received payments of more than $100,000. The median was $181 (interquartile range [IQR]: $60 to $843) and the mean ± SD was $1,771 ± $7,664. The largest payment to an individual surgeon was $159,444. The three largest median payments made to cardiothoracic surgeons by expense category were royalty fees $8,398 (IQR: $536 to $12,316), speaker fees $3,600 (IQR: $1,500 to $8,000), and honoraria $3,344 (IQR: $1,563 to $7,350). CONCLUSIONS: Among cardiothoracic surgeons who are listed as recipients of nonresearch industry payments, 50% of cardiothoracic surgeons received less than $181. Awareness of the OPP data is critical for cardiothoracic surgeons, as it provides a means to prevent potential public misconceptions about industry payments within the specialty that may affect patient trust.

Choosing the order of deceased donor and living donor kidney transplantation in pediatric recipients: a Markov decision process model.

BACKGROUND: Most pediatric kidney transplant recipients eventually require retransplantation, and the most advantageous timing strategy regarding deceased and living donor transplantation in candidates with only 1 living donor remains unclear. METHODS: A patient-oriented Markov decision process model was designed to compare, for a given patient with 1 living donor, living-donor-first followed if necessary by deceased donor retransplantation versus deceased-donor-first followed if necessary by living donor (if still able to donate) or deceased donor (if not) retransplantation. Based on Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, the model was designed to account for waitlist, graft, and patient survival, sensitization, increased risk of graft failure seen during late adolescence, and differential deceased donor waiting times based on pediatric priority allocation policies. Based on national cohort data, the model was also designed to account for aging or disease development, leading to ineligibility of the living donor over time. RESULTS: Given a set of candidate and living donor characteristics, the Markov model provides the expected patient survival over a time horizon of 20 years. For the most highly sensitized patients (panel reactive antibody > 80%), a deceased-donor-first strategy was advantageous, but for all other patients (panel reactive antibody < 80%), a living-donor-first strategy was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This Markov model illustrates how patients, families, and providers can be provided information and predictions regarding the most advantageous use of deceased donor versus living donor transplantation for pediatric recipients.

Assessment of resident and fellow knowledge of the organ donor referral process.

Maximizing deceased donation rates can decrease the organ shortage. Non-transplant physicians play a critical role in facilitating conversion of potential deceased donors to actual donors, but studies suggest that physicians lack knowledge about the organ donation process. As residency and fellowship are often the last opportunities for formal medical training, we hypothesized that deficiencies in knowledge might originate in residency and fellowship. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess knowledge about organ donation, experience in donor conversion, and opinions of the process among residents and fellows after their intensive care unit rotations at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Of 40 participants, 50% had previously facilitated donor conversion, 25% were familiar with the guidelines of the organ procurement organization (OPO), and 10% had received formal instruction from the OPO. The median score on the knowledge assessment was five of 10; higher knowledge score was not associated with level of medical training, prior training in or experience with donor conversion, or with favorable opinions about the OPO. We identified a pervasive deficit in knowledge among residents and fellows at an academic medical center with an active transplant program that may help explain attending-level deficits in knowledge about the organ donation process.

Ethics and the law: is there common ground on informed consent for disparities in hospital outcomes?

The association between procedure volume at institutions and outcomes of cancer surgeries has been widely published in the medical literature; discussed in the lay press; and, during the past 15 years, incorporated into quality improvement endeavors. In certain cases, institutional volume has become a proxy for quality. Despite the vast amount of retrospective data on this topic, physicians generally have been unsure how to approach the information and interpret it for their patients. Even more challenging to some physicians has been deciding whether the data oblige them to either direct patients with cancer to high-volume centers for care or discuss the data with these patients as part of informed consent. An additional challenge is that physicians must understand laws related to these issues and that these laws are unclear. This article reviews the ethical arguments for including disparities in hospital outcomes as part of informed consent and examines whether legal precedent can shed light on this debate.

Surgical mentors' and mentees' productivity from 1993 to 2006.

BACKGROUND: Mentorship in academic surgery is reflected in part by senior surgeon support of younger individuals with their scholarly contributions to the literature. Scholarship is also reflected in the procurement of extramural funding. This study sought to quantify this process in recent years. STUDY DESIGN: All active American Surgical Association and Society of University Surgeons members in the following 2 eras were defined as being mentors (N = 559): 1993 to 1999 (I) and 2000 to 2006 (II). Mentees (N = 7,037) were defined as a primary author associated with the mentor. MEDLINE-cited papers of mentors and mentees were abstracted. Randomly selected mentees from era I and II were examined for academic productivity. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects database was queried for federal research funding for the mentors and mentees. Continuous categoric and logistical regression was used as appropriate. RESULTS: Combining both eras, mentors published a total of 23,558 articles, of which 3,854 were primary and 9,881 were senior authored. Mentor primary-authored papers were more common in era I than era II (mean = 8 vs 6 articles, P < .01), whereas the number of senior-authored papers was similar in both eras (mean = 18 vs 17 papers, P = .09). Fewer mentors had federal funding in era I compared with era II (42% vs 51%, P = .04). More mentees per mentor existed in era I compared with era II (15 ± 5 vs 9 ± 4, P < .001). Era I mentees examined in era II (n = 187) were primary and senior author of a mean of 2.5 and 5 articles, respectively. Of this group, 14 (7.5%) had federal funding. The number of primary- and senior-authored articles from the mentee but not their prior mentor correlated with federal funding (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The number of mentees per mentor has decreased in recent years as has primary-authored authors, whereas federal funding has increased for mentors. Overall NIH funding for mentees was low but is related to their productivity with the mentor.

A population-based analysis of endovascular versus open thoracic aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The perioperative outcomes of open surgical and endovascular repair of intact thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) during the last 3 months of 2005 were compared using a national administrative database. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients undergoing open aneurysm repair (OAR) or endovascular TAA repair (TEVAR) from October 1 to December 31, 2005. Patient demographic data, length of stay, hospital charges, patient disposition, and mortality were examined. Where appropriate, univariate tests of association used the chi(2) test, and multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of in-hospital mortality, complications, and discharge status. RESULTS: A total of 1030 patients underwent open TAA repair and 267 underwent TEVAR. There was no significant difference in mortality between OAR and TEVAR (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-2.12), although OAR patients were more likely to have cardiac, respiratory, and hemorrhagic complications. Patients undergoing TEVAR were more likely to be discharged to home (adjusted OR, 6.37; 95% CI, 2.93-13.70) and had a decreased length of stay (5.7 days vs 9.9 days; P = .0015). The differences in hospital charges and costs were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although further study is warranted, this study of a national sample suggests that endovascular TAA repair is safe in the short-term, associated with fewer cardiac, respiratory, and hemorrhagic complications, and requires a shorter hospital stay.