Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Treated With Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: In the BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia), a prespecified secondary objective was to assess the effects of revascularization strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia were randomized to surgical bypass (Bypass) or endovascular intervention (Endo) in 2 parallel trials. Cohort 1 included patients with single-segment great saphenous vein; cohort 2 included those lacking suitable single-segment great saphenous vein. HRQoL was assessed over the trial duration using Vascular Quality-of-Life (VascuQoL), European Quality-of-Life-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), Utility Index Score (SF-6D R2), and numeric rating scales of pain. HRQoL was summarized by cohort and compared within and between groups using mixed-model linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 1193 and 335 patients in cohorts 1 and 2 with a mean follow-up of 2.9 and 2.0 years, respectively, were analyzed. In cohort 1, HRQoL significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for both groups across all measures. For example, mean (SD) VascuQoL scores were 3.0 (1.3) and 3.0 (1.2) for Bypass and Endo at baseline and 4.7 (1.4) and 4.8 (1.5) over follow-up. There were significant group differences favoring Endo when assessed with VascuQoL (difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02]; P=0.02), SF-12 MCS (difference, -1.03 [95% CI, -1.89 to -0.18]; P=0.02), SF-6D R2 (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.02 to -0.001]; P=0.03), numeric rating scale pain at present (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49]; P=0.03), usual level during previous week (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48]; P=0.02), and worst level during previous week (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.56]; P=0.04). There was no difference between treatment arms on the basis of EQ-5D (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.004]; P=0.12) or SF-12 PCS (difference, -0.41 [95% CI, -1.2 to 0.37]; P=0.31). In cohort 2, HRQoL also significantly improved from baseline to the end of follow-up for both groups based on all measures, but there were no differences between Bypass and Endo on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia deemed eligible for either Bypass or Endo, revascularization resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. In patients with an available single-segment great saphenous vein for bypass, but not among those without one, Endo was statistically superior on some HRQoL measures; however, these differences were below the threshold of clinically meaningful difference.

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

Preoperative COVID-19 Vaccination is Associated with Decreased Perioperative Mortality after Major Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of corona virus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on perioperative outcomes after major vascular surgery. BACKGROUND DATA: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with decreased mortality in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. However, the effect of vaccination on perioperative mortality after major vascular surgery is unknown. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent major vascular surgery between December 2021 through August 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of index operation or prior to hospital discharge. Multivariable models were used to examine the association between vaccination status and the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 85,424 patients included, 19161 (22.4%) were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated patients were younger compared to vaccinated patients (mean age 68.44 +/- 10.37 y vs 72.11 +/- 9.20 y, P <0.001) and less likely to have comorbid conditions, including hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dialysis. After risk factor adjustment, vaccination was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.81, P <0.0001). Stratification by procedure type demonstrated that vaccinated patients had decreased odds of mortality after open AAA (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, P =0.03), EVAR (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.43-0.83, p 0.002), CAS (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P =0.004) and infra-inguinal lower extremity bypass (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P =0.03). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with reduced perioperative mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery. This association is most pronounced for patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair, carotid stenting and infrainguinal bypass.

Infrapopliteal Endovascular Interventions for Claudication Are Associated with Poor Long-Term Outcomes in Medicare-Matched Registry Patients.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data supporting or opposing the use of infrapopliteal peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) for the treatment of claudication. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the association of infrapopliteal PVI with long-term outcomes compared with isolated femoropopliteal PVI for the treatment of claudication. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients in the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication from January 2004-December 2019 using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 14,261 patients (39.9% female; 85.6% age ≥65 years, 87.7% non-Hispanic white) who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication, 16.6% (N=2,369) received an infrapopliteal PVI. The median follow-up after index PVI was 3.7 years (IQR 2.1-6.1). Compared to patients who underwent isolated femoropopliteal PVI, patients receiving any infrapopliteal PVI had a higher 3-year cumulative incidence of conversion to CLTI (33.3% vs. 23.8%; P<0.001); repeat PVI (41.0% vs. 38.2%; P<0.01); and amputation (8.1% vs. 2.8%; P<0.001). After risk-adjustment, patients undergoing infrapopliteal PVI had a higher risk of conversion to CLTI (aHR 1.39, 95% CI, 1.25-1.53); repeat PVI (aHR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.01-1.19); and amputation (aHR 2.18, 95% CI, 1.77-2.67). Findings were consistent after adjusting for competing risk of death; in a 1:1 propensity-matched analysis; and in subgroup analyses stratified by TASC disease, diabetes, and end-stage kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Infrapopliteal PVI is associated with worse long-term outcomes than femoropopliteal PVI for claudication. These risks should be discussed with patients.

Association between Asian race and perioperative outcomes after carotid revascularization varies with Asian procedure density.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization are understudied in Asian patients. We aimed to assess whether disease severity and postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization differ between Asian and White patients, and whether this varies with Asian procedure density. METHODS: We analyzed the Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting datasets from 2003 to 2021. Regions were divided into tertiles based on Asian procedure density. Propensity scores were used to match Asian and White patients based on patient factors and procedure type. The primary outcome variable was a collapsed composite of in-hospital ipsilateral stroke/death/myocardial infarction. χ2 tests were used to assess association between Asian race and disease severity, center and surgeon volume, and 1-year outcomes. Logistic and Cox regressions were performed between the matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1766 Asian and 159,608 White patients underwent carotid revascularization, and we identified 2704 patients (1352 Asian and 1352 White) in the matched cohorts. Among propensity matched patients, all-comer Asian patients more commonly had >80% ipsilateral stenosis (63% vs 52%; P < .001) and a moderate/severe preoperative Rankin score (7.6% vs 5.1%; P = .007). The rate of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction was higher in Asian patients (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .012), and this disparity was more pronounced in the lowest tertile of Asian procedure density (4.3% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Logistic regression in the propensity-matched cohort demonstrated Asian race was associated with lower odds of intervention at highest volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.3; P < .001) and by highest volume surgeons (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .001). Asian race was associated with higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .031), and there was a significant interaction between Asian procedure density and the relationship between Asian race and this outcome (interaction P = .001). After accounting for center and surgeon volume, the association of Asian race and the composite outcome was mitigated (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.7-3.3; P = .300). Cox regression between the matched cohorts demonstrated that Asian race was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = .001) and higher risk of 1-year reintervention (hazard ratio, 16; 95% CI, 1.8-142; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Asian patients are more likely to present with a higher degree of carotid stenosis, higher preoperative risk, and experience worse perioperative outcomes. The association of Asian race with perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction varies with Asian procedure density and is also confounded by center and surgeon volume. These results highlight the importance of understanding referral patterns and cultural effects on outcomes disparities in Asian patients.

Characterization of long-term survival in Medicare patients undergoing arteriovenous hemodialysis access.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing arteriovenous (AV) access creation for hemodialysis often have significant comorbidities. Our goal was to quantify the long-term survival and associated risks factors for long-term mortality in these patients to aid in optimization of goals and expectations. METHODS: The Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network Vascular Quality Initiative Medicare linked data was used to assess long-term survival in the HD registry. Demographics, comorbidities, and interventions were recorded. Because the majority of hemodialysis patients are provided Medicare, Medicare linkage was used to obtain survival data. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent associations with mortality. RESULTS: There were 13,945 AV access patients analyzed including 10,872 (78%) AV fistulas and 3073 (22%) AV grafts. The median age was 67 years and 56% of patients were male. Approximately one-third had a prior AV access and 44.7% had prior tunneled dialysis catheters. Patients receiving an AV fistula, compared with AV grafts, were more often younger, male, White, obese, independently ambulatory, preoperatively living at home, and less often have a prior AV access and tunneled dialysis catheters (P < .05 for all). The 5-year mortality overall was 62.9% with 61.2% for AV fistulas and 68.8% for AV grafts (P < .001). On multivariable analysis for 5 year mortality, nonambulatory status (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-1.83; P < .001), lower extremity access (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.35-2.05; P < .001), human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.13-1.82; P < .001), White race (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.51; P < .001), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.26-1.41; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31; P < .001), and AV graft placement (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23, P = .016) were most associated with poor survival. Factors associated with improved survival were never smoking (HR, .73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79; P < .001), prior/quit smoking (HR, .78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84; P < .001), preoperative home living (HR, .75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83; P < .001), and hypertension (HR, .89; 95% CI, 0.8-0.99; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival in Medicare patients undergoing AV access creation is poor with nearly two-thirds of patients having died at 5 years. There are many modifiable risk factors that may improve survival in these patients and give an opportunity for transplantation.

Outcomes of octogenarians receiving aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is recommended for aneurysms greater than 5.5 cm in men and 5 cm in women. Because AAA is more common among the elderly, we sought to evaluate contemporary practices of elective AAA repair and 2-year postoperative outcomes in octogenarians. METHODS: We identified octogenarians undergoing elective AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2012 to 2019. We included patients undergoing endovascular (EVAR) and open (OAR) aortic repair. Demographics and comorbid conditions were compared between patient groups. Frailty was calculated using previously published methods. Patients with frailty scores above the 75th percentile of the operative cohort were considered high frailty. The primary outcome was 1- and 2-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Standard statistical methods were utilized. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors that affect mortality. RESULTS: The frequency of AAA repair in octogenarians has remained stable. Of all aortic operations, 21.4% were performed on octogenarians; 9735 (23.3% of 41,712) EVAR and 755 (10.3% of 7325) OARs. Among octogenarian patients, 42.0% of EVARs were under size thresholds: 48.3% males ≤5.5 cm diameter and 21.5% females ≤5.0 cm diameter compared with 18.8% OARs: 23.4% males and 10.7% females. Additionally, 25.6% had high frailty scores. Among octogenarians, 1- and 2-year mortality was 9.3% ± 0.3% and 14.8% ± 0.4% for EVAR and 15.2% ± 1.3% and 18.9% ± 1.5% for OAR patients, respectively (P < .01). In-hospital mortality rate was higher after OAR (0.87% EVAR vs 7.55% OAR; P < .01) and differed with frailty (EVAR, low frailty 0.2% vs high frailty 1.7%; OAR, low frailty 2.3% vs high frailty 15.6%). For EVAR, patient factors associated with mortality included heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25; P = .001) and dialysis (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.59; P = .012). For OAR, coronary artery disease (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.98-2.44; P = .062) was associated with mortality. Statin use was protective of mortality for all patients (EVAR: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .01): OAR: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P = .020). Among octogenarians, high frailty was independently associated with 2-year mortality (EVAR: HR, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.62-4.31; P < .01 and OAR: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.09-5.10; P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, a large portion of elective AAA repair in octogenarians is performed below recommended size thresholds, one-quarter of whom are frail with poor long-term 2-year mortality rates. High 2-year mortality following AAA repair in this age group exceeds the published risk of rupture for 5- to 5.5-cm AAA, suggesting that increase in the size threshold of elective repair among octogenarians should be explored.

Long-term functional outcomes of upper extremity civilian vascular trauma.

OBJECTIVE: Civilian analyses of long-term outcomes of upper extremity vascular trauma (UEVT) are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the management of UEVT in the civilian trauma population and explore the long-term functional consequences. METHODS: A retrospective review and analysis was performed of patients with UEVT at an urban Level 1 trauma center (2001-2022). Management and long-term functional outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 150 patients with UEVT. Mean age was 34 years, and 85% were male. There were 42% Black and 27% White patients. Mechanism was penetrating in 79%, blunt in 20%, and multifactorial in 1%. Within penetrating trauma, mechanism was from firearms in 30% of cases. Of blunt injuries, 27% were secondary to falls, 13% motorcycle collisions, 13% motor vehicle collisions, and 3% crush injuries. Injuries were isolated arterial in 62%, isolated venous in 13%, and combined in 25% of cases. Isolated arterial injuries included brachial (34%), radial (27%), ulnar (27%), axillary (8%), and subclavian (4%). The majority of arterial injuries (92%) underwent open repair with autologous vein bypass (34%), followed by primary repair (32%), vein patch (6.6%), and prosthetic graft (3.3%). There were 23% that underwent fasciotomies, 68% of which were prophylactic. Two patients were managed with endovascular interventions; one underwent covered stent placement and the other embolization. Perioperative reintervention occurred in 12% of patients. Concomitant injuries included nerves (35%), bones (17%), and ligaments (16%). Intensive care unit admission was required in 45%, with mean intensive care unit length of stay 1.6 days. Mean hospital length of stay was 6.7 days. Major amputation and in-hospital mortality rates were 1.3% and 4.6% respectively. The majority (72%) had >6-month follow-up, with a median follow-up period of 197 days. Trauma readmissions occurred in 19%. Many patients experienced chronic pain (56%), as well as motor (54%) and sensory (61%) deficits. Additionally, 41% had difficulty with activities of daily living. Of previously employed patients (57%), 39% experienced a >6-month delay in returning to work. Most patients (82%) were discharged with opioids; of these, 16% were using opioids at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: UEVT is associated with long-term functional impairments and opioid use. It is imperative to counsel patients prior to discharge and ensure appropriate follow-up and therapy.

Recent evaluation by nephrologists is associated with decreased incidence of tunneled dialysis catheter being used at the time of first arteriovenous access creation.

OBJECTIVE: Late primary care provider (PCP) or nephrologist evaluation of patients with progressive kidney disease may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Among patients undergoing initial arteriovenous (AV) access creation, we aimed to study the relationship of recent PCP and nephrologist evaluations with perioperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients from 2014 to 2022 who underwent initial AV access creation at an urban, safety-net hospital. Univariable and multivariable analyses identified associations of PCP and nephrologist evaluations <1 year and <3 months before surgery, respectively, with hemodialysis initiation via tunneled dialysis catheters (TDCs), 90-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 558 patients receiving initial AV access, mean age was 59.7 ± 14 years, 59% were female gender, and 60.6% were Black race. Recent PCP and nephrology evaluations occurred in 386 (69%) and 362 (65%) patients, respectively. On multivariable analysis, unemployed and uninsured statuses were associated with decreased likelihood of PCP evaluation (unemployment: odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.77; uninsured status: OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.45) and nephrologist evaluation (unemployment: OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91; uninsured status: OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.83) (all P < .05). Social support was associated with increased likelihood of PCP evaluation (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.08) (all P < .05). Hemodialysis was initiated with TDCs in 304 patients (55%). Older age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99), obesity (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58), and nephrologist evaluation (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.19) were independently associated with decreased hemodialysis initiation with TDCs in patients receiving an initial AV access (all P < .05). Ninety-day readmission occurred in 270 cases (48%). Cirrhosis (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.03-6.03; P = .04), coronary artery disease (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.5-3.57), prosthetic AV access (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.04-3.26), and impaired ambulation (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.15-2.66) were independently associated with increased readmission (all P < .05). Older age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), prior TDC (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94), and unemployment (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86) were associated with decreased readmission (all P < .05). Ninety-day mortality occurred in 1.6% of patients. Neither PCP nor nephrologist evaluation was associated with readmission or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Recent nephrology evaluation was associated with reduced hemodialysis initiation with TDCs among patients undergoing initial AV access creation. Unemployed and uninsured statuses posed barriers to accessing nephrology care.

Long-term outcomes of autologous vein bypass for repair of upper and lower extremity major arterial trauma.

OBJECTIVE: Autologous vein is the preferred bypass conduit for extremity arterial injuries owing to superior patency and low infection risk; however, long-term data on outcomes in civilians are limited. Our goal was to assess short- and long-term outcomes of autologous vein bypass for upper and lower extremity arterial trauma. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients with major extremity arterial injuries (2001-2019) at a level I trauma center. Demographics, injury and intervention details, and outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes were primary patency at 1 year and 3 years. Secondary outcomes were limb function at 6 months, major amputation, and mortality. Multivariable analysis determined risk factors for functional impairment. RESULTS: There were 107 extremity arterial injuries (31.8% upper and 68.2% lower) treated with autologous vein bypass. Mechanism was penetrating in 77% of cases, of which 79.3% were due to firearms. The most frequently injured vessels were the common and superficial femoral (38%), popliteal (30%), and brachial arteries (29%). For upper extremity trauma, concomitant nerve and orthopedic injuries were found in 15 (44.1%) and 11 (32.4%) cases, respectively. For lower extremities, concomitant nerve injuries were found in 10 (13.7%) cases, and orthopedic injuries in 31 (42.5%). Great saphenous vein was the conduit in 96% of cases. Immediate intraoperative bypass revision occurred in 9.3% of patients, most commonly for graft thrombosis. The in-hospital return to operating room rate was 15.9%, with graft thrombosis (47.1%) and wound infections (23.5%) being the most common reasons. The median follow-up was 3.6 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed 92% primary patency at 1 year and 90% at 3 years. At 6 months, 36.1% of patients had functional impairment. Of patients with functional impairment at 6 months, 62.9% had concomitant nerve and 60% concomitant orthopedic injuries. Of those with nerve injury, 91.7% had functional impairment, compared with 17.8% without nerve injury (P < .001). Of patients with orthopedic injuries, 51.2% had functional impairment, vs 25% of those without orthopedic injuries (P = .01). On multivariable analysis, concomitant nerve injury (odds ratio, 127.4; 95% confidence interval, 17-957; P <. 001) and immediate intraoperative revision (odds ratio, 11.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-95.55; P = .029) were associated with functional impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous vein bypass for major extremity arterial trauma is durable; however, many patients have long-term limb dysfunction associated with concomitant nerve injury and immediate intraoperative bypass revision. These factors may allow clinicians to identify patients at higher risk for functional impairment, to outline patient expectations and direct rehabilitation efforts toward improving functional outcomes.

Outcomes and predictors of amputation-free survival in patients undergoing below-knee popliteal-distal bypass.

OBJECTIVE: The infrageniculate popliteal artery is a potential source for inflow in lower extremity bypass surgery in patients with isolated tibial artery disease. The objective of our study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of popliteal-distal bypasses using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: The VQI registry was queried between 2003 and 2021 for patients undergoing surgical revascularizations with the below-knee popliteal artery serving as inflow. Demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier models were used to estimate amputation-free survival, survival, and freedom from amputation. Cox regression analysis was conducted to determine factors associated with major amputation or death. RESULTS: A total of 1884 procedures were analyzed. The mean age of the included patients was 67.7 years. The most frequently observed preoperative comorbidities included insulin-dependent diabetes (52.3%), coronary disease (32.4%), and end-stage renal disease (14.4%). Of all the patients, 670 (35.6%) had a history of ipsilateral endovascular intervention. The procedures were performed for a variety of indications, including tissue loss (84.3%), rest pain (10.9%), and claudication (4.8%). Intraoperatively, the outflow targets were the dorsalis pedis (31.4%), the posterior tibial (24.4%), and the anterior tibial arteries (15.6%). Vein conduit was used in 92.1% of cases. The rate of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) was 2.4%, and the 30-day mortality was 1.9%. The median length of follow up was 371 days. Amputation-free survival was found to be 85.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.0%-87.2%) at 6 months and 78.6% (95% CI, 76.6%-80.4%) at 12 months. Survival was found to be 93.4% (95% CI, 92.2%-94.5%) at 6 months and 88.6% (95% CI, 87.1%-90.0%) at 12 months. Freedom from amputation was found to be 92.0% (95% CI, 90.7%-93.3%) at 6 months and 89.0% (95% CI, 87.3%-90.4%) at 12 months. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that age greater than 65 years, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and end-stage renal disease were associated with a higher risk of major amputation or death (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Below-knee popliteal-distal bypass is a safe and effective approach to treat severe tibial vessel occlusive disease in this challenging patient cohort. Patients exhibited low perioperative complication rates and good amputation-free survival at 1 year.

Aortobifemoral bypass vs covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation.

BACKGROUND: Covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) is increasingly used as a first line-treatment in patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent CERAB compared with the gold standard of aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients who underwent ABF or CERAB from 2009 to 2021. Propensity scores were generated using demographics, comorbidities, Rutherford class, and urgency. The two groups were matched using 5-to-1 nearest-neighbor match. Our primary outcomes were 1-year estimates of primary patency, major adverse limb events (MALEs), MALE-free survival, reintervention-free survival, and amputation-free survival. Standard statistical methods were used. RESULTS: A total of 3944 ABF and 281 CERAB cases were identified. Of all patients with AIOD, the proportion of CERAB increased from 0% to 17.9% between 2009 and 2021. Compared with ABF, patients who underwent CERAB were more likely to be older (64.7 vs 60.2; P < .001) and more often had diabetes (40.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and end-stage renal disease (1.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03). In the matched analysis (229 CERAB vs 929 ABF), ABF patients had improved MALE-free survival (93.2% [±0.9%] vs 83.2% [±3%]; P < .001) and lower rates of MALE (5.2% [±0.9%] vs 14.1% [±3%]; P < .001), with comparable primary patency rates (98.3% [±0.3%] vs 96.6% [±1%]; P = .6) and amputation-free survival (99.3% [±0.3%] vs 99.4% [±0.6%]; P = .9). Patients in the CERAB group had significantly lower reintervention-free survival (62.5% [±6%] vs 92.9% [±0.9%]; P < .001). Matched analysis also revealed shorter length of stay (1 vs 7 days; P < .001), as well as lower pulmonary (1.2% vs 6.6%; P = .01), renal (1.8% vs 10%; P < .001), and cardiac (1.8% vs 12.8%; P < .001) complications among CERAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: CERAB had lower perioperative morbidity compared with ABF with a similar primary patency 1-year estimates. However, patients who underwent CERAB experienced more major adverse limb events and reinterventions. Although CERAB is an effective treatment for patients with AIOD, further studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of CERAB compared with the established durability of ABF and further define the role of CEARB in the treatment of AIOD.

Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and lower extremity bypass and is associated with worse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: 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 more than one 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 the χ2 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 (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 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 < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up.

Characterization of cardiovascular serious adverse events after bypass or endovascular revascularization for limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular complications after revascularization to treat chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are a major concern that guides treatment. Our goal was to assess periprocedural cardiac and vascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing surgical (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization for patients with CLTI. Thirty-day SAEs, classified as cardiac or vascular, were analyzed. Adverse events are defined as serious when they affect safety in the trial, require prolonged hospitalization, result in significant disability or incapacitation, are life-threatening, or result in death. Interventions were analyzed in a per protocol fashion. RESULTS: In the BEST-CLI trial, 850 OPEN and 896 ENDO interventions were evaluated. Forty (4.7%) and 34 (3.8%) patients experienced at least one cardiac SAE after OPEN and ENDO intervention, respectively (P = .35). Overall, there were 53 cardiac SAEs (0.06 per patient) after OPEN and 40 (0.045 per patient) after ENDO interventions. Cardiac SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as related to ischemia (50.9%), arrhythmias (17%), heart failure (15.1%), arrest (13.2%), and heart block (3.8%); in the ENDO arm, they were classified as ischemia (47.5%), heart failure (17.5%), arrhythmias (15%), arrest (15%), and heart block (5%). Approximately half of SAEs were classified as severe for both OPEN and ENDO. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 30.2% and 25% in the OPEN and ENDO arms, respectively (P = .2). Vascular SAEs occurred in 58 (6.8%) and 86 (9.6%) of patients after OPEN and ENDO revascularization, respectively (P = .19). In total, there were 59 (0.07 per patient) and 87 (0.097 per patient) vascular SAEs after OPEN and ENDO procedures. Vascular SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as distal ischemia/infection (44.1%), bleeding (16.9%), occlusive (15.3%), thromboembolic (15.3%), cerebrovascular (5.1%), and other (3.4%); in the ENDO arm, they were distal ischemia/infection (40.2%), occlusive (31%), bleeding (12.6%), thromboembolic (8%), cerebrovascular (1.1%), and other (4.6%). SAEs were classified as severe for OPEN in 45.8% and ENDO in 46%. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 23.7% and 35.6% in the OPEN and ENDO arms (P = .35), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing OPEN and ENDO revascularization experienced similar degrees of cardiac and vascular SAEs. The majority were not related to the index intervention, but approximately half were severe.

Investigator attitudes on equipoise and practice patterns in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant variability in practice patterns and equipoise regarding treatment approach for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We aimed to assess treatment preferences of Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) investigators prior to and following the trial. METHODS: An electronic 60-question survey was sent to 1180 BEST-CLI investigators in 2022, after trial conclusion and before announcement of results. Investigators' preferences were assessed across clinical scenarios for both open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies. Vascular surgeon (VS) surgical and ENDO preferences were compared with a 2010 survey administered to prospective investigators before trial funding. RESULTS: For the 2022 survey, the response rate was 20.2% and was comprised of VSs (76.3%), interventional cardiologists (11.4%) and interventional radiologists (11.6%). The majority (72.6%) were in academic practice and 39.1% were in practice for >20 years. During initial CLTI work-up, 65.8%, 42.6%, and 55.9% of respondents always or usually ordered an arterial duplex, computed tomography angiography, and vein mapping, respectively. The most common practice distribution between ENDO and OPEN procedures was 70/30. Postoperatively, a majority reported performing routine duplex surveillance of vein bypass (99%), prosthetic bypass (81.9%), and ENDO interventions (86%). A minority reported always or usually using the wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) criteria (25.8%), GLASS (8.3%), and a risk calculator (14.8%). More than one-half (52.9%) agreed that the statement "no bridges are burned with an ENDO-first approach" was false. Intervention choice was influenced by availability of the operating room or ENDO suite, personal schedule, and personal skill set in 30.1%, 18.0%, and 45.9% of respondents, respectively. Most respondents reported routinely using paclitaxel-coated balloons (88.1%) and stents (67.5%); however, 73.3% altered practice when safety concerns were raised. Among surgeons, 17.8%, 2.9%, and 10.3% reported performing >10 annual alternative autogenous vein bypasses, composite vein composite vein bypasses, and bypasses to pedal targets, respectively. Among all interventionalists, 8%, 24%, and 8% reported performing >10 annual radial access procedures, pedal or tibial access procedures, and pedal loop revascularizations. The majority (89.1%) of respondents felt that CLTI teams improved care; however, only 23.2% had a defined team. The effectiveness of the teamwork at institutions was characterized as highly effective in 42.5%. When comparing responses by VSs to the 2010 survey, there were no changes in preferred treatment based on Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II classification or conduit preference. In 2022, OPEN surgery was preferred more for a popliteal occlusion. For clinical scenarios, there were no differences except a decreased proportion of respondents who felt there was equipoise for major tissue loss for major tissue loss (43.8% vs 31.2%) and increased ENDO choice for minor tissue loss (17.6% vs 30.8%) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of practice patterns among vascular specialists treating CLTI. The majority of investigators in BEST-CLI had experience in both advanced OPEN and ENDO techniques and represent a real-world sample of technical expertise. Over the course of the decade of the BEST-CLI trial, there was overall similar equipoise among VSs.

Medicare billing and utilization trends in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Within the past decade, Medicare Part B reimbursements for various surgical procedures have been declining, whereas health care expenses continue to increase. As a result, hospitals may increase service charges to offset losses in revenue, which may disproportionately affect underinsured patients. Our analysis aimed to characterize Medicare billing and utilization trends across common vascular surgical procedures. METHODS: The 2017 to 2021 Medicare Physician and Other Practitioners by Provider and Service dataset was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for common vascular surgery procedures. The average charges, reimbursements, charge-to-reimbursement ratios, and service counts were calculated for the most common interventions performed by vascular surgeons. Data was stratified by care setting, facility (inpatient and outpatient hospital) vs non-facility locations. All monetary values were adjusted to the 2021 United States dollars to account for inflation. RESULTS: For facility settings, the mean charge billed to Medicare Part B increased from $3708 to $3952 (6.6%) from 2017 to 2021, with the average charge-to-reimbursement ratio increasing from 7.2 to 8.6. There were 17 of the 19 facility procedures that had a decline in reimbursements, decreasing from an average of $558 to $499 (-10.4%). Stab phlebectomy had the largest individual decrease in facility reimbursement (-53.5%), followed by above-knee amputation (-11.3%) and below-knee amputation (-11.0%). Both non-facility charges (-10.8%) and reimbursements (-12.2%) declined over the study period. Procedural utilization remained stable from 2017 to 2019. Tibial and femoral-popliteal atherectomy had increases of 45.9% and 33.7%, respectively, in overall procedural utilization when performed in non-facility settings from 2017 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of vascular surgery procedures billed to Medicare Part B from 2017 to 2021 demonstrates an increase in charges, a decline in reimbursements, and a resultant increase in charge-to-reimbursement ratios for facility care settings. In contrast, non-facility charges have decreased in the face of declining reimbursements. These markups in submitted charges in facility locations may serve as an additional barrier to accessing care for patients who are underinsured.

Higher stroke risk after carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with relative surgeon volume ratio.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) by surgeons has been variable, with some still performing traditional carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas others have shifted to mostly TCAR. Our goal was to evaluate the association of relative surgeon volume of CEA to TCAR with perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA and carotid artery stent registries were analyzed from 2021 to 2023 for symptomatic and asymptomatic interventions. Surgeons participating in both registries were categorized in the following CEA to CEA+TCAR volume percentage ratios: 0.25 (majority TCAR), 0.26 to 0.50 (more TCAR), 0.51 to 0.75 (more CEA), and 0.76 to 1.00 (majority CEA). Primary outcomes were rates of perioperative ipsilateral stroke, death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding. RESULTS: There were 50,189 patients who underwent primary carotid revascularization (64.3% CEA and 35.7% TCAR). CEA patients were younger (71.1 vs 73.5 years, P < .001), with more symptomatic cases, less coronary artery disease, diabetes, and lower antiplatelet and statin use (all P < .001). TCAR patients had lower rates of smoking, obesity, and dialysis or renal transplant (all P < .001). Postoperative stroke after CEA was significantly impacted by the operator CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .04), with surgeons who perform majority TCAR and more TCAR having higher postoperative ipsilateral stroke (majority TCAR odds ratio [OR]: 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.96, P = .01; more TCAR OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.96, P = .04), as compared with those who perform majority CEA. Similarly, postoperative stroke after TCAR was significantly impacted by the CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .02), with surgeons who perform majority CEA and more CEA having higher stroke (majority CEA OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.27, P = .05; more CEA OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-2.00, P = .004), as compared with those who perform majority TCAR. There was no association between surgeon ratio and perioperative death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding for either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The relative surgeon CEA to TCAR ratio is significantly associated with perioperative stroke rate. Surgeons who perform a majority of one procedure have a higher stroke rate in the other. Surgeons offering both operations should maintain a balanced practice and have a low threshold to collaborate as needed.

Practice Patterns of Peripheral Vascular Interventions for Peripheral Artery Disease in the Office-Based Laboratory Setting versus Outpatient Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy exists regarding the value and limitations of different sites of service for peripheral artery disease (PAD) treatment. We aimed to examine practice patterns associated with peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) performed in the office-based laboratory (OBL) vs. outpatient hospital site of service using a nationally representative database. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data, we identified all patients undergoing PVI for claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) between 01/2017 and 12/2022. We evaluated the associations of patient and procedure characteristics with site of service using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression. We used multinomial regression models to estimate the relative risk ratios (RRR) of site of service and intervention type (angioplasty, stent, atherectomy) and intervention level (iliac, femoropopliteal, tibial) after adjusting for baseline patient characteristics and clustering by physician. RESULTS: Of 848,526 PVI, 485,942 (57.3%) were performed in an OBL. OBL use increased significantly over time from 48.3% in 2017 to 65.5% in 2022 (P<0.001). Patients treated in OBLs were more likely to be Black (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.11-1.18) or other non-white race (aOR 1.13, 95%CI 1.08-1.18), have fewer comorbidities, and receive treatment for claudication vs. CLTI (aOR 1.30, 95%CI 1.26-1.33) compared to patients treated in outpatient hospital settings. Physicians with majority practice (>50% procedures) in an OBL were more likely to practice in urban settings (aOR 21.58, 95%CI 9.31-50.02), specialize in radiology (aOR 18.15, 95%CI 8.92- 36.92), and have high-volume PVI practices (aOR 2.15, 95%CI 2.10-2.29). The median time from diagnosis to treatment was shorter in OBLs, particularly for patients with CLTI (29 vs. 39 days, P<0.001). The OBL setting was the strongest predictor of patients receiving an atherectomy alone (aRRR 6.67, 95%CI 6.59-6.76) or atherectomy+stent (aRRR 10.84, 95%CI 10.64-11.05), and these findings were consistent in subgroup analyses stratified by PVI indication. OBL setting was also associated with higher risk of tibial interventions for both claudication (aRRR 3.18, 95%CI 3.11-3.25) and CLTI (aRRR 1.89, 95%CI 1.86-1.92). Average reimbursement (including procedure and facility fees) was slightly higher for OBLs compared to the hospital ($8,742/case vs. $8,459/case; P<0.001). However, in a simulated cohort resetting the OBL's intervention type distribution to that of the hospital, OBLs were associated with a hypothetical cost savings of $221,219,803 overall and $2,602 per case. CONCLUSION: The OBL site of service was associated with greater access to care for non-white patients and shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, but more frequently performed high-cost interventions compared to the outpatient hospital setting. The benefit to patients from improved access to PAD care in OBL settings must be balanced with the potential limitations of receiving differential care.

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Patients with Chronic Limb-threatening Ischemia Requiring Infrapopliteal Interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The recent publication of randomized trials comparing open bypass surgery to endovascular therapy in chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients, BEST-CLI and BASIL-2, has resulted in potentially contradictory findings. The trials differed significantly with respect to anatomic disease patterns and primary endpoints. We performed an analysis of BEST-CLI patients with significant infrapopliteal disease undergoing open tibial bypass or endovascular tibial interventions to formulate a relevant comparator to the outcomes reported from BASIL-2. METHODS: The study population consisted of BEST-CLI patients with adequate single segment saphenous vein conduit randomized to open bypass or endovascular intervention (Cohort 1) who additionally had significant infrapopliteal disease and underwent tibial level intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse limb event (MALE) or all-cause death. MALE included any major limb amputation or major re-intervention. Outcomes were evaluated using Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: The analyzed subgroup included a total of 665 patients with 326 in the open tibial bypass group and 339 in the tibial endovascular intervention group. The primary outcome of MALE or all cause death at 3 years was significantly lower in the surgical group at 48.5% compared to 56.7% in the endovascular group (p=0.0018). Mortality was similar between groups (35.5% open vs. 35.8% endovascular; p=0.94 whereas MALE events were lower in the surgical group (23.3% vs. 35.0%; p<0.0001). This included a lower rate of major reinterventions in the surgical group (10.9%) compared to the endovascular group (20.2%; p=0.0006). Freedom from above ankle amputation or all-cause death was similar between treatment arms at 43.6% in the surgical group compared to 45.3% the endovascular group (p=0.30) however there were fewer above ankle amputations in the surgical group (13.5%) compared to the endovascular group (19.3%; p=0.0205). Perioperative (30-day) death was similar between treatment groups (2.5% open vs 2.4% endovascular; p=0.93) as was 30-day MACE (5.3% open vs 2.7% endovascular; p=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for CLTI, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and less major amputation compared to endovascular intervention. Amputation free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomic extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 reported outcomes.

Contemporary Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease.

The treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has undergone many advancements and management continues to evolve. These changes include techniques, adjunctive therapies, medical management, and site of service. However, despite these advances, there still continues to be much debate about the best treatment. This Annals of Vascular Surgery special issue on PAD seeks to highlight current available evidence and expert views on treatment of PAD.