Association Between Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination and Mortality After Major Operations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare postoperative 90-day mortality between (1) fully vaccinated patients with COVID-19-positive and negative diagnosis, and (2) vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 positive diagnosis. BACKGROUND: Societal guidelines recommend postponing elective operations for at least 7 weeks in unvaccinated patients with preoperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The role of vaccination in this infection-operation time risk is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a national US multicenter retrospective, matched cohort study spanning July 2021 to October 2022. Participants were included if they underwent a high-risk general, vascular, orthopedic, neurosurgery, or genitourinary surgery. All-cause mortality occurring within 90 days of the index operation was the primary outcome. Inverse probability treatment weighted propensity scores were used to adjust logistic regression models examining the independent and interactive associations between mortality, exposure status, and infection proximity. RESULTS: Of 3401 fully vaccinated patients in the 8-week preoperative period, 437 (12.9%) were COVID-19-positive. Unadjusted mortality rates were not significantly different between vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (22, 5.0%) and vaccinated patients without COVID-19 (99, 3.3%; P = 0.07). After inverse probability treatment weighted adjustment, mortality risk was not significantly different between vaccinated COVID-19-positive patients compared to vaccinated patients without COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.70, 2.72). The proximity of COVID-19 diagnosis to the index operation did not confer added mortality risk in either comparison cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to risks observed among unvaccinated patients, postoperative mortality does not differ between patients with and without COVID-19 when vaccinated against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus and receiving a high-risk operation within 8 weeks of the diagnosis, regardless of operation timing relative to diagnosis.

In-hospital mortality risk after endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repairs for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Observational studies demonstrate reduced mortality after endovascular (EVAR) compared with open aneurysm repair (OAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). We sought to determine national trends in repair type and in-hospital mortality rates for rAAAs. METHODS: We analyzed patients with rAAAs managed with OAR or EVAR from 2002 to 2020 in the National Inpatient Sample and evaluated annual trends in volume and in-hospital mortality by repair type. Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression model was fit for patient and system-level risk adjustment. We assessed interactions between time, sex, and Elixhauser index with repair type. RESULTS: We examined 13,376 patients with rAAAs. Of these, 8357 (62.5%) underwent OAR. Patients receiving EVAR were slightly older (73.7 vs 72.5 years; P < .001) with slightly higher mean Elixhauser index (4.0 vs 3.8; P < .001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 37.4% vs 22.4% for OAR and EVAR, respectively. EVAR offered a risk-adjusted survival advantage (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.46). There was a statistically significant reduction of in-hospital mortality over time in the EVAR group (interaction OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98). The interaction between Elixhauser index and repair was not statistically significant (interaction OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates for OAR and EVAR improved over time. EVAR persistently provided a substantial survival advantage over OAR in patients with rAAAs over the past 2 decades.

Socioeconomic and regional variations in repair modality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies report that patients of racial/ethnic minorities more frequently present with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) than their counterparts. The distribution of rAAA treatment modality, whether open aneurysm repair (OAR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), by race/ethnicity classification remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate disparities, as represented by race/ethnic classification, median income, and insurance status, in the management of rAAA in a national cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients admitted with rAAA managed with either OAR or EVAR from 2002 to 2020 using the National Inpatient Sample, comparing repair type by race/ethnicity group. Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models, adjusted for patient- and system-level factors, were used to calculate difference in use of OAR or EVAR dependent on race/ethnicity classification. RESULTS: We identified 10,788 admissions for rAAA repairs, of which 9506 (88.1%) were White, 605 (5.6%) were Black, 424 (3.9%) were Hispanic, and 253 (2.4%) were Asian/Native American. Asians/Native Americans underwent the highest frequency of OAR as compared with EVAR (61.7% vs 38.3%). In the adjusted model, there was no statistically significant difference in the use of OAR vs EVAR by race/ethnicity classification. In total, primary payer and median income were also not statistically significant predictors of AAA treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no statistical evidence of disparities with respect to race, insurance, or median income and use of OAR or EVAR for the management of rAAA.