Outcomes of carotid stenting compared with endarterectomy are equivalent in asymptomatic patients and inferior in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage criteria for carotid artery stenting (CAS), consensus regarding its appropriateness in patients with carotid artery stenosis has not been reached. This is one of the first population-based studies to use a dedicated administrative convention for the endovascular procedure to address whether there is a cohort of patients in whom CAS is more beneficial than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: We analyzed in-hospital mortality, postoperative stroke, and combined postoperative stoke/mortality in 47,752 CAS or CEA hospitalizations, matched by propensity score, in discharge data sets obtained from the states of New York and California for the years 2005 to 2007. Other outcomes included postoperative complications, length of stay, and volume-outcome relationships. RESULTS: For symptomatic patients undergoing CAS, rates were significantly higher for in-hospital mortality (3.7% vs 1.3%) and combined stroke/mortality (8.3% vs 4.6%) compared with CEA. For asymptomatic patients, there was no statistical difference between mortality (0.6% vs 0.4%), stroke (2.0% vs 1.8%), or combined stroke/mortality (2.4% vs 1.9%) across the endovascular and open procedures, respectively. Postoperative respiratory and urinary complications as well as cranial neuropathy were more common after CEA, whereas postoperative complications, including device malfunction and hypotension, were more frequent after CAS. We did not find a volume-outcome relationship for CEA, but one did exist for CAS. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis, the most appropriate procedure appears to be CEA, whereas CAS appears to be a suitable minimally invasive approach for asymptomatic patients. On the basis of these results and data from recent multicenter randomized trials, the use of CAS in symptomatic patients should be approached with caution.

Trends and outcomes of endovascular and open treatment for traumatic thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVES: Traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TTAI) is associated with high mortality rates. Data supporting thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to reduce mortality and morbidity for TTAI is limited to small series and meta-analyses. In this study, we evaluated the trends and outcomes of open surgery and TEVAR for TTAI in New York State. METHODS: All cases of TTAI in New York State between 2000 and 2007 were extracted from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. A diagnosis by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision coding of TTAI was required for inclusion. RESULTS: We identified 328 patients with TTAI who underwent surgical repair in New York State between 2000 and 2007; mean age of the cohort was 39.3 years +/- 18 years; 80% were male. Open repair of TTAI was performed in 79.6% and 20.4% underwent TEVAR. Open repair was performed for all cases of TTAI until the introduction of TEVAR in 2005; TEVAR exceeded the use of open repair for TTAI in 2006 and 2007. Additional major injuries were present in 71.7% in the open repair group vs 91.0% of the TEVAR group (P = .001). The overall in-hospital mortality rate for the 8-year period was significantly increased after open repair of TTAI compared with TEVAR: 17% vs 6%, (odds ratio [OR] 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-9.23; P = .024). After controlling for the significant covariates, TEVAR independently reduced the risk of death following surgical intervention for TTAI compared with the open procedure (OR 3.8, 95% CI, 1.28-10.99; P = .010). Respiratory complications were the most common postoperative morbidity, and were significantly increased after open repair: 38% vs 24% (OR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.05-3.60; P = .032). There were no significant differences in cardiac complications, acute renal failure (ARF), paraplegia, or stroke. Endoleak and distal embolization each occurred in 9% of patients after TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a shift toward endovascular management of patients with TTAI. This change in surgical strategy has been associated with less postoperative mortality and fewer pulmonary complications in patients suffering from TTAI. TEVAR is associated with significant device-related complications.

Defining high-risk patients for endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonly used as a minimally invasive technique for repairing infrarenal aortic aneurysms. There have been recent concerns that a subset of high-risk patients experience unfavorable outcomes with this intervention. To determine whether such a high-risk cohort exists and to identify the characteristics of these patients, we analyzed the outcomes of Medicare patients treated with EVAR from 2000-2006. METHODS: We identified 66,943 patients who underwent EVAR from Inpatient Medicare database. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.6%. A risk model for perioperative mortality was developed by randomly selecting 44,630 patients; the other one third of the dataset was used to validate the model. The model was deemed reliable (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics were P = .25 for the development, P = .24 for the validation model) and accurate (c = 0.735 and c = 0.731 for the development and the validation model, respectively). RESULTS: In our scoring system, where scores ranged between 1 and 7, the following were identified as significant baseline factors that predict mortality: renal failure with dialysis (score = 7); renal failure without dialysis (score = 3); clinically significant lower extremity ischemia (score = 5); patient age >or=85 years (score = 3), 75-84 years (score = 2), 70-74 years (score = 1); heart failure (score = 3); chronic liver disease (score = 3); female gender (score = 2); neurological disorders (score = 2); chronic pulmonary disease (score = 2); surgeon experience in EVAR <3 procedures (score = 1); and hospital annual volume in EVAR <7 procedures (score = 1). The majority of Medicare patients who were treated (96.6%, n = 64,651) had a score of 9 or less, which correlated with a mortality <5%. Only 3.4% of patients had a mortality >or=5% and 0.8% of patients (n = 509) had a score of 13 or higher, which correlated with a mortality >10%. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is a high-risk cohort of patients that should not be treated with EVAR because of prohibitively high mortality; however, this cohort is small. Our scoring system, which is based on patient and institutional factors, provides criteria that can be easily used by clinicians to quantify perioperative risk for EVAR candidates.

Outcomes of endovascular and open treatment for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

PURPOSE: To measure contemporary practice patterns and compare outcomes of open and endovascular repair for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). METHODS: The New York State Health Department Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was queried for the ICD-9-CM codes for CMI for the years 2000 to 2006. In this time period, 6549 patients were evaluated for CMI in New York State. Of these patients, 666 received an intervention and underwent either open (n = 280) or endovascular (n = 347) repair; 39 patients underwent both treatments and were excluded. Trends in operative management and short-term outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Over the 7-year study period, there was a steady increase in the number of endovascular procedures from 28% in 2000 to 75% in 2006. The overall mortality rate for the 7-year period was significantly lower for endovascular versus open repair (11.0% versus 20.4%, respectively; p = 0.0011). Endovascular repair was associated with a significantly lower rate of mesenteric ischemic complications compared to open repair (6.92% versus 17.1%, respectively; p<0.0001). Moreover, compared with open surgery, endovascular repair resulted in significantly lower rates of cardiac, pulmonary, and infectious complications (p<0.05). Only 37% of patients having open repair were discharged home compared to 55% of patients treated with endovascular procedures (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The number of patients treated for CMI continues to increase and correlates with the increasing utilization of endovascular procedures. The patients undergoing endovascular treatment had fewer complications, lower in-hospital mortality, and a greater likelihood of being discharged home.

National trends in the repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated trends in hospitalizations, treatment, and mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) in the United States Medicare population. METHODS: The Medicare inpatient database (1995 through 2006) was reviewed for patients with rAAA and AAA by using International Classification of Disease (9th Clinical Modification) codes for rAAA and AAA. Proportions and trends were analyzed by chi(2) analysis, continuous variables by t test, and trends by the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: During the study period, hospitalizations with the diagnoses of rAAA declined from 23.2 to 12.8 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries (P < .0001), as did repairs of rAAA (15.6 to 8.4 per 100,000; P < .0001). No change was observed in AAA elective repairs. The 30-day mortality rate after open repair of rAAA decreased by 4.9% (from 39.6% to 34.7%; P = .0007 for trend) for the age group 65 to 74 and by 2.4% (from 52.9% to 50.5%, P = .0008) for the age group > or =75. Perioperative mortality after endovascular repair diminished by 13.6% (from 43.5% in 2001 to 29.9% in 2006; P = .0020). Mortality among women was higher than among men (51.1% vs 40.0% in 2006). The demographics of patients treated for rAAA changed to include a greater proportion of women and patients aged > or =75 years. CONCLUSION: A significant decrease has occurred in the number of patients who have a diagnosis of rAAA and undergo treatment, but there has been no change in repairs of AAA. The perioperative mortality rate has improved due to the introduction of endovascular repair and a small but progressive improvement in survival after open repair for patients aged 65 to 74 years.

Insurance status predicts access to care and outcomes of vascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if insurance status predicts severity of vascular disease at the time of treatment or outcomes following intervention. METHODS: Hospital discharge databases from Florida and New York from 2000-2005 were analyzed for lower extremity revascularization (LER, n = 73,532), carotid revascularization (CR, n = 116,578), or abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (AAA, n = 35,593), using ICD-9 codes for diagnosis and procedure. The indications for intervention as well as the post-operative outcomes were examined assigning insurance status as the independent variable. Patients covered under a variety of commercial insurers, as well as Medicare, were compared to those who either had no insurance or were covered by Medicaid. RESULTS: Patients without insurance or with Medicaid were at significantly greater risk of presenting with a ruptured AAA compared to insured (non-Medicaid) patients; while insurance status did not seem to impact post-operative mortality rates for elective and ruptured AAA repair. The uninsured or Medicaid recipients presented with symptomatic carotid disease nearly twice as often as the insured, but stroke rates after CR did not differ significantly based on insurance status. Patients with Medicaid or without insurance were more likely to present with limb threatening ischemia than claudication. In contrast to AAA repair and CR, the outcomes of LER were worse in the uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries who had higher rates of post-revascularization amputation compared to the insured (non-Medicaid) group. CONCLUSION: Insurance status predicts disease severity at the time of treatment, but once treated, the outcomes are similar among insurance categories, with the exception of lower extremity revascularization. This data suggests inferior access to preventative vascular care in the Medicaid and the uninsured populations.

National outcomes for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: comparison of open versus endovascular repairs.

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) has been shown to acutely decrease procedural mortality compared to open aortic repair (OAR). However, little is known about the effect of choice of procedure; EVAR vs OAR, or the impact of physician and institution volume on long-term survival and outcome. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with rAAA who underwent either OAR or EVAR, were derived from the Medicare inpatient dataset (1995-2004) using ICD9 codes. We evaluated long-term survival after OAR and EVAR in the entire fee-for-service Medicare population, and then in patients matched by propensity score to create two similar cohorts for comparison with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Annual surgeon and hospital volumes of EVAR (elective and ruptured), OAR (elective and ruptured), and rAAA (EVAR and OAR) were divided into quintiles to determine if increasing volumes correlate with decreasing mortality. Predictors of survival were determined by Cox modeling. RESULTS: A total of 43,033 Medicare beneficiaries had rAAA repair: 41,969 had OAR and 1,064 had EVAR. The proportions of patients with diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal disease, hyperlipidemia, and cancer were statistically higher in the EVAR than in the OAR group, whereas lower extremity vascular disease was higher in the OAR group. The initial evaluation of EVAR vs OAR, prior to propensity matching, showed no statistical advantage in EVAR-survival after 90 days. The survival analysis of patients matched by propensity score showed a benefit of EVAR over OAR that persisted throughout the 4 years of follow-up (P = .0042). Perioperative and long-term survival after rAAA repair correlated with increasing annual surgeon and hospital volume in OAR and EVAR and also with rAAA experience. EVAR repair had a protective effect (HR = 0.857, P = .0061) on long-term survival controlling for comorbidities, demographics, and hospital and surgeon volume. CONCLUSION: When EVAR and OAR patients are compared using a reliable statistical technique such as propensity analysis, the perioperative survival advantage of rAAA repaired endovascularly is maintained over the long term. Institutional experience with rAAA is critical for survival after either OAR or EVAR.

Disparities in the treatment and outcomes of vascular disease in Hispanic patients.

BACKGROUND: The Hispanic population represents the fastest growing minority in the United States. As the population grows and ages, the vascular surgery community will be providing increasing amounts of care to this diverse group. To appropriately administer preventive and therapeutic care, it is important to understand the incidence, risk factors, and natural history of vascular disease in Hispanic patients. METHODS: We analyzed hospital discharge databases from New York and Florida to determine the rate of lower extremity revascularization (LER), carotid revascularization (CR), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in Hispanics relative to the general population. The rates of common comorbidities, the indications for the procedures, and outcomes during the same hospitalization as the index procedure were determined. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the differences between Hispanics and white non-Hispanics with respect to rate of procedure, symptoms at presentation, and outcome after procedure. Demographic variables and length of stay were also analyzed. RESULTS: The rate of LER, CR, and AAA repair was significantly lower in Hispanic patients than in white non-Hispanics. Despite this lower rate of intervention, Hispanics were significantly more likely than whites to present with limb-threatening lower extremity ischemia (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91 to 2.29), symptomatic carotid artery disease (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.75), and ruptured AAA (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) than white non-Hispanics These differences were maintained after controlling for the presence of diabetes mellitus and other comorbidities. Hispanic patients had higher rates of amputation during the same hospitalization after LER (6.2% vs 3.4%, P < .0001) and higher mortality after elective AAA repair (5% vs 3.4%, P = .0032). Length of stay after LER, CR, and AAA repair was longer for Hispanic patients than white non-Hispanics. CONCLUSION: Significant disparities in the rate of utilization of three common vascular surgical procedures exist between Hispanic patients and the general population. In addition, Hispanics appear to present with more advanced disease and have worse outcomes in some cases. Reasons for these disparities must be determined to improve these results in the fastest growing segment of our society.