Size thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms warrant reconsideration.

BACKGROUND: The historical size threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is widely accepted to be 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, contemporary AAA rupture risks may be lower than historical benchmarks, which has implications for when AAAs should be repaired. Our objective was to use contemporary AAA rupture rates to inform optimal size thresholds for AAA repair. METHODS: We used a Markov chain analysis to estimate life expectancy for patients with AAA. The primary outcome was AAA-related mortality. We estimated survival using Social Security Administration life tables and published contemporary AAA rupture estimates. For those undergoing repair, we modified survival estimates using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative and Medicare on complications, late rupture, and open conversion. We used this model to estimate the AAA repair size threshold that minimizes AAA-related mortality for 60-year-old average-health men and women. We performed a sensitivity analysis of poor-health patients and 70- and 80-year-old base cases. RESULTS: The annual risk of all-cause mortality under surveillance for a 60-year-old woman presenting with a 5.0 cm AAA using repair thresholds of 5.5 cm, 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, and 7.0 cm was 1.7%, 2.3%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding risk for a man was 2.3%, 2.9%, 3.3%, and 3.4% for the same repair thresholds, respectively. For a 60-year-old average-health woman, an AAA repair size of 6.1 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 5.7 cm to 7.1 cm. For a 60-year-old average-health man, an AAA repair size of 6.9 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 6.0 cm to 7.4 cm. Women in poor health, at various age strata, had optimal AAA repair size thresholds that were >6.5 cm, whereas men in poor health, at all ages, had optimal repair size thresholds that were >8.0 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal threshold for AAA repair is more nuanced than a discrete size. Specifically, there appears to be a range of AAA sizes for which repair is reasonable to minmized AAA-related mortality. Notably, they all are greater than current guideline recommendations. These findings would suggest that contemporary AAA size thresholds for repair should be reconsidered.

Comparative outcomes of open mesenteric bypass after a failed endovascular or open mesenteric revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines have recommended an endovascular-first approach (ENDO) for the management of patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), whereas an open mesenteric bypass (OMB) is proposed for subjects deemed to be poor ENDO candidates. However, the impact of a previous failed endovascular or open mesenteric reconstruction on a subsequent OMB is unknown. Accordingly, this study was designed to examine the results of a remedial OMB (R-OMB) after a failed ENDO or a primary OMB (P-OMB) for patients with recurrent CMI. METHODS: All patients who underwent an OMB from 2002 to 2022 at the University of Florida were reviewed. Outcomes after an R-OMB (ie, history of a failed ENDO or P-OMB) and P-OMB were compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality, whereas secondary outcomes included complications, reintervention, and survival. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from reintervention and all-cause mortality, whereas multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling identified predictors of death. RESULTS: A total of 145 OMB procedures (R-OMB, n = 48 [33%]; P-OMB, n = 97 [67%]) were analyzed. A majority of R-OMB operations were performed for a failed stent (prior ENDO, n = 39 [81%]; prior OMB, n = 9 [19%]). R-OMB patients were generally younger (66 ± 9 years vs P-OMB, 69 ± 11 years; P = .09) and had lower incidence of smoking exposure (29% vs P-OMB, 48%; P = .07); however, there were no other differences in demographics or comorbidities. R-OMB was associated with less intraoperative transfusion (0.6 units vs P-OMB, 1.4 units; P = .01), but there were no differences in conduit choice or bypass configuration.The overall 30-day mortality and complication rates were 7% (n = 10/145) and 53% (n = 77/145), respectively, with no difference between the groups. Notably, R-OMB had decreased cardiac (6% vs P-OMB, 21%; P < .01) and bleeding complication rates (2% vs P-OMB, 15%; P = .01). The freedom from reintervention (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 95% ± 4%, 83% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 97% ± 2%, 93% ± 5%, respectively; log-rank P = .21) and survival (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 82% ± 6%, 68% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 84% ± 4%, 66% ± 7%; P = .91) were similar. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included new postoperative hemodialysis requirement (hazard ratio [HR], 7.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-17.3; P < .001), pulmonary (HR, 2.7, 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) and cardiac (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .04) complications, and female sex (HR, 2.1, 95% CI, 1.03-4.8; P = .04). Notably, R-OMB was not a predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative and longer-term outcomes for a remedial OMB after a failed intraluminal stent or previous open bypass appear to be comparable to a P-OMB. These findings support the recently updated clinical practice guideline recommendations for an endovascular-first approach to treating recurrent CMI due to the significant perioperative complication risk of OMB. However, among the subset of patients deemed ineligible for endoluminal reconstruction after failed mesenteric revascularization, R-OMB results appear to be acceptable and highlight the utility of this strategy in selected patients.

Arteriovenous Access for Hemodialysis: A Review.

Importance: Hemodialysis requires reliable vascular access to the patient's blood circulation, such as an arteriovenous access in the form of an autogenous arteriovenous fistula or nonautogenous arteriovenous graft. This Review addresses key issues associated with the construction and maintenance of hemodialysis arteriovenous access. Observations: All patients with kidney failure should have an individualized strategy (known as Patient Life-Plan, Access Needs, or PLAN) for kidney replacement therapy and dialysis access, including contingency plans for access failure. Patients should be referred for hemodialysis access when their estimated glomerular filtration rate progressively decreases to 15 to 20 mL/min, or when their peritoneal dialysis, kidney transplant, or current vascular access is failing. Patients with chronic kidney disease should limit or avoid vascular procedures that may complicate future arteriovenous access, such as antecubital venipuncture or peripheral insertion of central catheters. Autogenous arteriovenous fistulas require 3 to 6 months to mature, whereas standard arteriovenous grafts can be used 2 to 4 weeks after being established, and "early-cannulation" grafts can be used within 24 to 72 hours of creation. The prime pathologic lesion of flow-related complications of arteriovenous access is intimal hyperplasia within the arteriovenous access that can lead to stenosis, maturation failure (33%-62% at 6 months), or poor patency (60%-63% at 2 years) and suboptimal dialysis. Nonflow complications such as access-related hand ischemia ("steal syndrome"; 1%-8% of patients) and arteriovenous access infection require timely identification and treatment. An arteriovenous access at high risk of hemorrhaging is a surgical emergency. Conclusions and Relevance: The selection, creation, and maintenance of arteriovenous access for hemodialysis vascular access is critical for patients with kidney failure. Generalist clinicians play an important role in protecting current and future arteriovenous access; identifying arteriovenous access complications such as infection, steal syndrome, and high-output cardiac failure; and making timely referrals to facilitate arteriovenous access creation and treatment of arteriovenous access complications.

Increased Preoperative Stress Test Utilization is Not Associated With Reduced Adverse Cardiac Events in Current US Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency of preoperative stress testing and its association with perioperative cardiac events. BACKGROUND: There is persistent variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States. It remains unclear whether more testing is associated with reduced perioperative cardiac events. METHODS: We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base to study patients who underwent 1 of 8 elective major surgical procedures (general, vascular, or oncologic) from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles by frequency of stress test use. We computed a modified revised cardiac risk index (mRCRI) score for included patients. Outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), and cost, which we compared across quintiles of stress test use. RESULTS: We identified 185,612 patients from 133 centers. The mean age was 61.7 (±14.2) years, 47.5% were female, and 79.4% were White. Stress testing was performed in 9.2% of patients undergoing surgery, and varied from 1.7% at lowest quintile centers, to 22.5% at highest quintile centers, despite similar mRCRI comorbidity scores (mRCRI>1: 15.0% vs 15.8%; P =0.068). In-hospital MACE was less frequent among lowest versus highest quintile centers (8.2% vs 9.4%; P <0.001) despite a 13-fold difference in stress test use. Event rates were similar for MI (0.5% vs 0.5%; P =0.737). Mean added cost for stress testing per 1000 patients who underwent surgery was $26,996 at lowest quintile centers versus $357,300 at highest quintile centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States despite similar patient risk profiles. Increased testing was not associated with reduced perioperative MACE or MI. These data suggest that more selective stress testing may be an opportunity for cost savings through a reduction of unnecessary tests.

Assessing the quality of reporting of studies using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals. RESULTS: Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals. CONCLUSIONS: Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. METHODS: In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. RESULTS: There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Baseline modern medical management in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT. RESULTS: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses.

Presentation and Outcomes of Elective and Nonelective Complex Endovascular Repair for Thoracoabdominal and Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) and juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAA) with fenestrated and/or branched endografts (B/FEVAR) has become common. Physician modified endografts for patients presenting with symptomatic or contained ruptures has made B/FEVAR a feasible option in nonelective settings. The purpose of this study was to describe our 10-year institutional experience with endovascular interventions for TAAA in elective and nonelective cases to evaluate differences in outcomes and the clinical risk factors associated with nonelective presentation. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively queried for patients undergoing B/FEVAR for TAAA and JAA at a single tertiary care academic institution between 1/2011 and 12/2020. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, aneurysm characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Nonelective repair was defined as any patient that presented through the Emergency Department, as a hospital transfer, or as a direct admission from clinic and had aortic repair performed during the same admission. Univariate analyses were used to compare patients. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and nonhome discharge. RESULTS: Between 1/201 and 12/2020, a total of 208 patients underwent B/FEVAR for TAAA (173) and JAA (35). Nonelective repair was performed in 44 (21%) patients with 39 for TAAA (23%) and 5 for JAA (14%). Nonelective patients were younger (71 ± 11 vs. 74 ± 7 years, P = 0.03), more likely to be self-pay or have Medicaid (11% vs. 2%, P = 0.02) and had a different race distribution compared to the elective cohort (P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was 4% (n = 6) in elective repairs and 7% (n = 3) in nonelective repairs. One-year mortality was 13% (n = 22) in elective repairs and 18% (n = 8) in nonelective repairs. There were no differences between patients receiving elective versus nonelective repair in 30-day (P = 0.40) or 1-year mortality (P = 0.47). Nonelective patients had longer median duration of stay (11 interquartile range (IQR) 6-15 vs. 5 IQR 4-8, P < 0.01), postoperative length of stay (7 IQR 5-12 vs. 4 IQR 3-7, P < 0.01), and more intensive care unit days (6 IQR 3-8 vs. 3 IQR 2-5, P < 0.01). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between elective and nonelective patients including inpatient and access-related complications, re-interventions, and nonhome discharge (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). A composite "any complication" occurred more frequently in patients with nonelective repair (50% vs. 35%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair for TAAA or JAA is a good option in patients undergoing nonelective surgical intervention, with comparable 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and perioperative morbidity to that of patients undergoing elective B/FEVAR.

Center volume and failure to rescue after open or endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between center volume and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes is well established; however, these effects for either endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair (OAR) of ruptured AAA (rAAA) remains unclear. Notably, the capacity to either avert or manage complications associated with postoperative mortality is an important cause of outcome disparities after elective procedures; however, there is a paucity of data surrounding nonelective presentations. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to describe the association between annual center volume, complications, and failure to rescue (FtR) after EVAR and OAR of rAAA. METHODS: All consecutive endovascular and open rAAA repairs from 2010 to 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were examined. Annual center volume (procedures/year per center) was grouped into quartiles: EVAR-Q1 (<14), 3.4%; Q2 (14-23), 12.8%; Q3 (24-37), 24.7%; and Q4 (>38), 59.1%; OAR-Q1 (<3), 5.4%; Q2 (4-6), 12.8%; Q3 (7-10), 22.7%; and Q4 (>10), 59.1%. The primary end point was FtR, defined as in-hospital death after experiencing one of six major complications (cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke, bleeding, colonic ischemia). Risk-adjusted analyses for intergroup comparisons were completed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The unadjusted in-hospital death rate was 16.5% and 28.9% for EVAR and OAR, respectively. Complications occurred in 45% of EVAR (n = 1439/3188) and 70% of OAR (n = 1366/1961) patients with corresponding FtR rates of 14% (EVAR) and 26% (OAR). For OAR, Q4-centers had a 43% lower FtR risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.9; P = .017) compared with Q1 centers. Centers performing fewer than five OARs/year had a 43% lower risk (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .001) of FtR and this decreased 4% for each additional five procedures performed annually (95% CI, 0.93-0.991; P = .013). However, there was no significant relationship between center volume and FtR after EVAR. The risk of FtR was strongly associated with a greater number of complications for both procedures (OR multiplied by 6.5 for EVAR and 1.5 for OAR for each additional complication; P < .0001). Among OAR patients with a single recorded complication, return to the operating room for bleeding had highest risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P = .034), whereas no specific type of complication increased FtR risk after EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: FtR occurs commonly after EVAR and OAR of rAAA within Vascular Quality Initiative centers. Importantly, increasing center volume was associated with decreased FtR risk after OAR, but not EVAR. Complication pattern and frequency predicted FtR after either repair strategy. For stable patients, especially those deemed anatomically ineligible for EVAR, these findings emphasize the need to improve the coordination of regional referral networks that centralize rAAAs to high-volume centers. Moreover, hospitals that treat rAAA should invest in resources that develop protocols targeting specific complications to mitigate risk of preventable postoperative death.

Implementation of the Vascular Surgery Board virtual certifying examination.

OBJECTIVE: The onset of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic mandated postponement of the in-person Vascular Surgery Board 2020 certifying examination (CE). Vascular surgery virtual CEs (VVCEs) were developed for the scheduled 2020 CEs (rescheduled to January 2021) and 2021 CEs (rescheduled to July 2021) to avoid postponing the certification testing. In the present study, we have reported the development, implementation, and outcomes of the first two VVCEs. METHODS: The VVCE was similar to the in-person format (three 30-minutes sessions, two examiners, four questions) but required a proctor and a host. In contrast to the general surgery VCEs, the VVCE also incorporated images. The candidates and examiners were instructed on the format, and technology checks were performed before the VVCE. The candidates were given the opportunity to invalidate their examination for technology-related reasons immediately after the examination. Postexamination surveys were administered to all the participants. RESULTS: The VVCEs were completed by 356 of 357 candidates (99.7%). The pass rates for the January 2021 and July 2021 examinations were 97.6% (first time, 99.4%; retake, 70%) and 94.7% (first time, 94.6%; retake, 100%), respectively. The pass rates were not significantly different from the 2019 in-person CE (χ2 = 2.30; P = .13; and χ2 = 0.01; P = .91, for the January 2021 and July 2021 examinations, respectively). None of the candidates had invalidated their examination. The candidates (162 of 356; 46%), examiners (64 of 118; 54%), proctors (25 of 27; 93%), and hosts (8 of 9; 89%) completing the survey were very satisfied with the examination (Likert score 4 or 5: candidates, 92.6%; noncandidates, 96.9%) and found the technology domains (Zoom, audio, video, viewing images) to be very good (Likert score 4 or 5), with candidate and other responder scores of 73% to 84% and >94%, respectively. Significantly more of the candidates had favored a future VVCE compared with the examiners (87% vs 32%; χ2 = 67.1; P < .001). The free text responses from all responders had commented favorably on the organization and implementation of the examination. However, some candidates had expressed concerns about image sizes, and some examiners had expressed concern about the time constraints for the question format. The candidates appreciated the convenience of an at-home examination, especially the avoidance of travel costs. CONCLUSIONS: The two Vascular Surgery Board VCEs were shown to be psychometrically sound and were overwhelmingly successful, demonstrating that image-based virtual examinations are feasible and could become the standard for the future.

Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair conversion in octogenarians treated at a high-volume aorta center.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the dominant treatment strategy for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms but has been especially preferred for octogenarian (age ≥80 years) patients because of concerns surrounding comorbidity severity and physiologic frailty. However, EVAR failure resulting in subsequent open conversion (EVAR-c) has been increasingly reported in older patients, although a paucity of literature focusing on the outcomes in this subgroup is available. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate our experience with EVAR-c for octogenarians (age ≥80 years) compared with that for younger patients (age <80 years). METHODS: A retrospective review of all nonmycotic EVAR-c procedures (2002-2020) at a single high-volume academic hospital with a dedicated aorta center (available at: https://www.uf-health-aortic-disease-center) was performed. A total of 162 patients were categorized into octogenarian (age ≥80 years; n = 43) and nonoctogenarian (age <80 years; n = 119) cohorts and compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. The secondary end points included complications, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. Cox regression was used to determine the effects of selected covariates on mortality risk. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: No differences in the preadmission EVAR reintervention rates were present (octogenarians, 42%; nonoctogenarians, 43%; P = 1.00) although the interval to the first reintervention was longer for the octogenarians (41 months) than for the nonoctogenarians (15 months; P = .01). In addition, the time to EVAR-c was significantly longer for the octogenarian patients (61 months) than for the nonoctogenarian patients (39 months; P < .01). No difference in rupture presentation was evident (14% vs 10%; P = .6). However, elective EVAR-c occurred less frequently for octogenarians (42%) than for nonoctogenarians (59%; P = .07). The abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter was significantly larger for elective octogenarian EVAR-c (7.8 ± 1.9 cm) than for nonoctogenarian EVAR-c (7.0 ± 1.5 cm; P = .02), and the presence of a type Ia endoleak was the most common indication overall (58%; n = 91). A trend toward greater 30-day mortality was evident for octogenarian patients (16%) compared with nonoctogenarian patients (7%; P = .06). Similarly, the 90-day mortality was greater for the octogenarian patients (26%) than for the nonoctogenarian patients (10%; P = .02). However, the incidence of any complication (56% vs 49%; P = .5), readmission rate (12% vs 6%; P = .3), unplanned reoperation rate (10% vs 5%; P = .5), and length of stay (11 days vs 9 days; P = .3) were not significantly different between the two groups. Age ≥80 years was predictive of short-term mortality after nonelective but not after elective surgery. However, increasing comorbidities, nonelective admission, and renal or mesenteric revascularization showed the strongest association with mortality risk. Survival at 1 and 3 years was not different between the two groups when comparing all patients after the first 90 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the unadjusted perioperative mortality was greater for octogenarian patients, the risk-adjusted elective outcomes were comparable to those for younger EVAR-c patients when treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center. This finding underscores the importance of appropriate patient selection and modulation of operative complexity when feasible to achieve optimal results. Providers caring for octogenarian patients with EVAR failure should consider timely elective referral to high-volume aorta centers to reduce resource usage and the frequency of nonelective presentations.

Sex-based differences in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute complicated type B dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Sex-based differences in outcomes for patients undergoing degenerative aortic aneurysm repair have been well described, with female patients having worse early and long-term outcomes compared with male patients. However, differences between men and women after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of acute complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) have not been well characterized. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess the sex-based differences in clinical presentation, time to repair, morbidity, and mortality for patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures performed for acute complicated TBAD from a single academic medical center from August 2005 to January 2020 were analyzed. The clinical presentation, time to repair, and outcomes were compared by sex. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications, reintervention, aorta-related death, and out of hospital survival. The predictors of mortality, including sex, were determined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients (38 women [24%]) were included in the analysis. No sex-based differences were found in clinical presentation or comorbidity prevalence between the female and male patients. The female patients had had a longer overall time from initial symptom onset to TEVAR (female patients: median, 3.5 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-10 days]; male patients: median, 1 day [IQR, 1-3]; P = .007). However, no differences were found in the time to repair after admission to the academic medical center (female patients: median, 1 day [IQR, 0-5 days]; male patients: median, 1 day [IQR, 0-3]; P = .176). No differences were found in the unadjusted aortic-related, in-hospital, or 30-day death between the female and male patients. Similarly, the risk-adjusted analysis revealed that sex was not associated with adverse outcomes. The 1- and 5-year freedom from aortic-related mortality were 82% ± 4% and 87% ± 6% and 79% ± 4% and 80% ± 8% for the men and women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences between the female and male patients with acute complicated TBAD who had undergone TEVAR in the clinical presentation or comorbidities. The female patients had undergone TEVAR after a longer duration of symptoms, but this was not associated with sex-based differences in early or late morbidity or mortality.

The vascular surgery in-training examination predicts performance on qualifying examination.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgery trainees participate in the vascular surgery in-training examination (VSITE) during each year of their training. Although the VSITE was developed as a low-stakes, formative examination, performance on that examination might correlate with the pass rates for the Vascular Surgery Board written qualifying examination (VQE) and oral certifying examination (VCE) and might, therefore, guide both trainees and program directors. The present study was designed to examine the ability of the VSITE to predict trainees' performance on the VQE and VCE. METHODS: All first-time candidates of the Vascular Surgery Board VQE and VCE were analyzed from 2016 to 2020, including those from both the integrated and independent training pathways. VSITE scores from the final year of training were associated with the VQE scores and the probability of passing the VQE and VCE both. Linear and logistic regression models were used to determine the ability of VSITE results to predict the VQE scores and the probability of passing each board examination. RESULTS: VSITE scores available for the 559 candidates (69.3% male; 30.7% female) who had completed the VQE and 369 candidates (66.7% male; 33.3% female) who had completed both the VQE and the VCE. The linear regression model results for the final year of training showed that the VSITE scores explained 34% of the variance in the VQE scores (29% for the integrated and 37% for the independent trainees). Logistic regression demonstrated that the final year VSITE scores were a significant predictor of passing the VQE for both integrated and independent trainees (P < .001). A VSITE score of 500 during the final year of training predicted a VQE passing probability of >90% for each group of candidates. The probability of passing the VQE decreased to 73% for candidates from integrated programs, 61% for candidates from independent programs, and 64% for the whole cohort when the score was 400. The VSITE scores were a significant predictor of passing the VCE only for the candidates from independent programs (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.02; P < .01), for whom a VSITE score of 400 correlated with an 82% probability of passing the VCE. CONCLUSIONS: VSITE performance is predictive of passing the VQE for trainees from both integrated and independent training paradigms. Vascular surgery trainees and training programs should optimize their preparation and educational efforts to maximize performance on the VSITE during their final year of training to improve the likelihood of passing the VQE. Further analysis of the predictive value of VSITE scores during the earlier years of training might allow the board certification examinations to be administered earlier in the final year of training.

Non-guideline-compliant endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in women is associated with increased mortality and reintervention compared with men.

OBJECTIVE: Sex-based disparities in surgical outcomes have emerged as an important focus in contemporary healthcare delivery. Likewise, the appropriate usage of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the United States remains a subject of ongoing controversy, with a significant number of U.S. EVARs failing to adhere to the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guideline (CPG) diameter thresholds. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of sex among patients undergoing EVAR that was not compliant with the SVS CPGs. METHODS: All elective EVAR procedures for abdominal aortic aneurysms without a concomitant iliac aneurysm (≥3.0 cm) in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed (2015-2019; n = 25,112). SVS CPG noncompliant repairs were defined as a size of <5.5 cm for men and <5.0 cm for women. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. The secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, complications, and reintervention. Logistic regression was performed to control for surgeon- and patient-level factors. Freedom from the endpoints was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Noncompliant EVAR was performed in 9675 patients (38.5%). Although men were significantly more likely to undergo such procedures (90% vs 10%; odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-3.4; P < .0001), the 30-day mortality was greater for the women than the men (1.8% vs 0.5%; P = .0003). Women also experienced significantly higher rates of multiple complications, including postoperative myocardial infarction (1% vs 0.3%; P = .006), respiratory failure (1.4% vs 0.6%; P = .01), intestinal ischemia (0.7% vs 0.2%; P = .003), access vessel hematoma (3% vs 1.2%; P = .0006), and iliac access vessel injury (2.4% vs 0.8%; P < .0001). Additionally, women experienced increased overall 1-year reintervention rates (11.5% vs 5.8%; P < .0001). In the adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality and any in-hospital complication risk remained significantly greater for the women (30-day death: OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.6-5.8; P = .0005; in-hospital complication: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; P < .0001). Women also experienced increased reintervention rates over time compared with men (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Although men were more likely to undergo non-CPG compliant EVAR, women experienced increased short-term morbidity and 30-day mortality and higher rates of reintervention when undergoing non-CPG compliant EVAR. These unanticipated findings necessitate increased scrutiny of current U.S. sex-based EVAR practice and should caution against the use of non-CPG compliant EVAR for women.

Improved perioperative mortality after secondary aortoenteric fistula repair and lessons learned from a 20-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Secondary aortoenteric fistulas (SAEFs) are rare but represent one of the most challenging and devastating problems for vascular surgeons. Several issues surrounding SAEF treatment remain unresolved, including optimal surgical reconstruction and conduit choice. We performed an audit of our experience with SAEFs and highlight aspects of care that have affected outcomes over time with the intent to identify factors associated with best outcomes. METHODS: We performed a single center, retrospective review of all consecutive SAEF repairs (1999-2019), defined as presence of a false communication between an enteric structure and pre-existing aortic graft. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included incidence of complications and overall survival. Time-dependent outcome comparison was performed. Cox proportional hazards modeling and life-table analysis estimated risk and freedom from endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients (63% male; n = 36) presented with SAEF (median age, 69 years; interquartile range [IQR], 61-74 years). Median follow-up time was 10 months (interquartile range, 3-21 months. The most common presenting symptoms were gastrointestinal bleeding (60%; n = 34) and abdominal pain (56%; n= 3 2). For the overall cohort, 30% (n = 17) underwent extra-anatomic bypass with aortic ligation, 30% (n = 17) rifampin-soaked Dacron graft, 26% (n = 15) femoral vein (eg, neoaortoiliac system), and 14% (n = 8) cryopreserved aortic allograft. The enteric communication involved the duodenum in 85% (n = 48), and a double-layer hand-sewn primary repair was most commonly employed (61%; n = 35). Thirty-day mortality was 35% (n = 20) with no significant difference between 90 days (39%; n = 22) and 180 days (42%; n = 24). Morbidity was 70% (n = 40), with gastrointestinal (30%; n = 17; leak [9%]), pulmonary (25%; n = 14), and renal (21%) complications being most common. Incidence of reoperation for any vascular and/or gastrointestinal-related complication was 56% (n = 32). One-year and 3-year survival was 54% ± 6% and 48% ± 8%, respectively. Over time, 30- and 90-day mortality improved (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.5; P = .002) despite no change in patient factors, operative strategy, conduit choice, or morbidity rate. Prehospital history of gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.9; P = .06); however, reconstruction strategy (in-situ vs extra-anatomic bypass), postoperative gastrointestinal and/or vascular complication, omental flap use, and preoperative endovascular aneurysm repair history were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we observed improved short-term mortality despite no significant change in patient presentation or postoperative complications. This highlights increasing institutional experience in selecting the optimal surgical strategy and improved ability to rescue patients experiencing adverse postoperative events. An individualized approach to reconstruction and conduit choice can lead to best outcomes after SAEF management when patients are treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center.

Endovascular aneurysm repair conversion is an increasingly common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reintervention is common, conversion to open repair (EVAR-c) occurs less frequently but can be associated with significant technical complexity and perioperative risk. There is a paucity of data highlighting the evolution of periprocedural results surrounding EVAR-c and change in practice patterns, especially for referral centers that increasingly manage EVAR failures. The purpose of this analysis was to perform a temporal analysis of our EVAR-c experience and describe changes in patient selection, operative details, and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-center review of all open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs was performed (2002-2019), and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed. EVAR-c patients (n = 184) were categorized into two different eras (2002-2009, n = 21; 2010-2019, n = 163) for comparison. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used for risk-adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: A significant increase in EVAR-c as an indication for any type of open aneurysm repair was detected (9% to 27%; P < .001). Among EVAR-c patients, no change in age or individual comorbidities was evident (mean age, 71 ± 9 years); however, the proportion of female patients (P = .01) and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification >3 declined (P = .05). There was no difference in prevalence (50% vs 43%; P = .6) or number (median, 1.5 [interquartile range (IQR), 0-5]) of preadmission EVAR reinterventions; however, time to reintervention decreased (median, 23 [IQR, 6-34] months vs 0 [IQR, 0-22] months; P = .005). In contrast, time to EVAR-c significantly increased (median, 16 [IQR, 9-39] months vs 48 [IQR, 20-83] months; P = .008). No difference in frequency of nonelective presentation (mean, 52%; P = .9] or indication was identified, but a trend toward increasing mycotic EVAR-c was observed (5% vs 15%; P = .09). Use of retroperitoneal exposure (14% vs 77%; P < .0001), suprarenal cross-clamp application (6286%; P = .04), and visceral-ischemia time (median, 0 [IQR, 0-11] minutes vs 5 [IQR, 0-20] minutes; P = .05) all increased. In contrast, estimated blood loss (P trend = .03) and procedure time (P = .008) decreased. The unadjusted elective 30-day mortality rate improved but did not reach statistical significance (elective, 10% vs 5%; P = .5) with no change for non-elective operations (18% vs 16%; P = .9). However, a significantly decreased risk of complications was evident (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, .8-.9; P = .01). One- and 3-year survival was similar over time. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR-c is now a common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Patients frequently present nonelectively and at increasingly later intervals after their index EVAR. Despite increasing technical complexity, decreased complication risk and comparable survival can be anticipated when patients are managed at a high-volume aortic referral center.

Malpractice allegations against vascular surgeons: Prevalence, risk factors, and impact on surgeon wellness.

OBJECTIVE: The contemporary medicolegal environment has been linked to procedure overuse, health care variation, and higher costs. For physicians accused of malpractice, there is also a personal toll. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of and risk factors for involvement in medical malpractice lawsuits among United States vascular surgeons, and to examine the association between these allegations with surgeon wellness. METHODS: In 2018, the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) Wellness Task Force conducted a confidential survey of active members using a validated burnout assessment (Maslach Burnout Index) embedded into a questionnaire. This survey included questions related to medical errors and malpractice litigation. De-identified demographic, personal, and practice-related characteristics were assessed in respondents who reported malpractice allegations in the preceding 2 years, then compared with those without recent medicolegal litigation. Risk factors for malpractice allegations were identified (χ2, Kruskal-Wallis tests), and the association between malpractice allegations with wellness was examined. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to identify independent risk factors for malpractice accusations. RESULTS: Of 2905 active SVS members, 871 responses from practicing vascular surgeons were analyzed. A total of 161 (18.5%) were named in a malpractice lawsuit within 2 years. Malpractice allegations were significantly associated with surgeon burnout (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.15; P = .041), but not with self-reported depression or suicidal ideation. The nature of malpractice claims included procedural errors (23.1%), failure to treat (18.8%), and error/delay in diagnosis (16.9%). Twenty percent of claims were settled prior to trial, and 19% were dismissed. Defendant vascular surgeons reported a "fair" resolution in 26.4% of closed cases. By unadjusted analysis, factors significantly associated with recent malpractice claims included mean age (51.7 ± 10.0 vs 49.3 ± 11.2 years; P = .0044) and mean years in practice (18.0 ± 10.7 vs 15.2 ± 11.8; P = .0007). Multivariate analysis revealed independent variables associated with malpractice allegations, including on-call frequency (P = .0178), recent medical errors (P = .0189), and male surgeons (P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice allegations are common for vascular surgeons and are significantly associated with surgeon burnout. Nearly 20% of survey respondents reported being named in a lawsuit within the preceding 2 years. Our findings underscore the need for SVS initiatives to provide counseling and peer support for vascular surgeons facing litigation.

A significant proportion of current endovascular aortic aneurysm repair practice fails to meet Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guideline recommended abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter treatment thresholds in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting controversy surrounding the appropriate use of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in contemporary practice. Persistent debate hinges on durability, cost, and survival. Accordingly, guidelines have attempted to clarify appropriate EVAR indications. The purpose of this analysis was to examine trends in EVAR practice throughout the United States and measure compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice diameter guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: We analyzed all elective repairs in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) EVAR registry from 2015 to 2019 (n = 25,112) and included patients with aneurysms confined to the infrarenal abdominal aorta. Center and surgeon variation with CPG diameter compliance was examined. Using a previously validated logistic regression model for risk adjustment, patients were stratified into predicted 1-year mortality risk tertiles and comparisons were made between patients meeting diameter guidelines (men ≥5.5;women ≥5.0 cm) and those who did not. RESULTS: Non-diameter-compliant EVAR occurred in 38.5% (n = 9675; diameter compliant, 61.5% [n = 15,437]). There was significant variation in CPG diameter compliance when stratified by VQI participating centers (range, 21%-95%; median, 61%; P < .001). This observation was amplified when categorized at the surgeon level (range, 0-100%; median, 63%; P < .0001). Notably, 82% of VQI surgeons (n = 852 of 1048) were non-diameter-compliant in more than 20% of their repairs. Moreover, among the 38.5% of patients failing to meet CPG diameter thresholds, 22.4% (n = 2171) were at high physiologic risk as determined by the validated SVS-VQI 1-year mortality calculator. Notably, the 1-year survival for the high-physiologic risk patients receiving non-guideline-compliant EVAR was worse compared with low- to intermediate-risk patients who were treated within recommended CPGs (92 ± 2% vs 97 ± 1%; log-rank P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of current US EVAR practice fails to adhere to the SVS diameter guidelines, as highlighted by the tremendous variation among VQI centers and surgeons. Furthermore, as noted by the 22% of patients undergoing noncompliant repair deemed to be at high physiologic risk, patient selection for EVAR seems to be suboptimal. Surprisingly, these findings are observed among the majority of VQI surgeons performing EVAR. In light of issues surrounding durability and cost, efforts to constrain observed deviation from recommended therapeutic size threshold guidelines would likely serve to improve abdominal aortic aneurysm care throughout the United States.

Psoas Muscle Area as a Prognostic Factor for Survival in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Conversion.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair conversion (EVAR-c) is increasingly reported and known to be technically complex and physiologically demanding. It has been proposed that pragmatic anthropomorphic measures such as psoas muscle area (PMA) may reliably quantify levels of preoperative frailty and be used to inform point of care clinical decision-making and patient discussions for a variety of complex operations. To date, there is mixed data supporting use of PMA as a prognostic factor in fenestrated endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) repairs; however, no literature exists evaluating the impact of preoperative PMA on EVAR-c results. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review our EVAR-c experience and evaluate the association of PMA with perioperative and long-term mortality outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-center review of all AAA repairs was performed (2002-2019) and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed (n = 153). Cross-sectional PMA at the mid-body of the L3 vertebrae was measured. The lowest PMA tertile was used as a threshold value to designate patients as having "low" PMA (n = 51) and this cohort was subsequently compared to subjects with "normal" PMA (n = 102). Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate covariate association with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Patients with low PMA were older (77 vs. 72 years; P = 0.002), more likely to be female (27% vs. 5%; P < 0.001), and had reduced body mass index (26 vs. 29 kg/m2; P = 0.002). Time to conversion, total number of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reinterventions prior to conversion and elective EVAR-c presentation incidence were similar; however, patients with low PMA had larger aneurysms (8.3 vs. 7.5 cm; P = 0.01) and increased post-EVAR sac growth (2.3 vs. 1 cm; P = 0.005). Unadjusted inpatient mortality was significantly greater for low PMA patients (16% vs. normal PMA, 5%, P = 0.02). Similarly, the total number of complications was higher among low PMA subjects (1.5 ± 1.9 vs. normal PMA, 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.02). Although frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events and new onset inpatient hemodialysis were similar, low PMA patients had a more than four-fold increased likelihood of having persistent requirement of hemodialysis at discharge (18% vs. 4%,P = 0.01). The low PMA group had decreased survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively (77 ± 5%, 65 ± 6% vs. normal PMA, 86 ± 3%, 82% ± 5%; log-rank P = 0.03). Low PMA was an independent predictor of mortality with every 100 mm2 increase in PMA being associated with a 15% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio: 0.85,95% confidence interval:, 0.74-0.97; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among EVAR-c patients, subjects with low preoperative PMA had higher rates of postoperative complications and worse overall survival. PMA assessments may be a useful adjunct to supplement traditional risk-stratification strategies when patients are being considered for EVAR-c.

Chronic mesenteric ischemia: Clinical practice guidelines from the Society for Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) results from the inability to achieve adequate postprandial intestinal blood flow, usually from atherosclerotic occlusive disease at the origins of the mesenteric vessels. Patients typically present with postprandial pain, food fear, and weight loss, although they can present with acute mesenteric ischemia and bowel infarction. The diagnosis requires a combination of the appropriate clinical symptoms and significant mesenteric artery occlusive disease, although it is often delayed given the spectrum of gastrointestinal disorders associated with abdominal pain and weight loss. The treatment goals include relieving the presenting symptoms, preventing progression to acute mesenteric ischemia, and improving overall quality of life. These practice guidelines were developed to provide the best possible evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CMI from atherosclerosis. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery established a committee composed of vascular surgeons and individuals experienced with evidence-based reviews. The committee focused on six specific areas, including the diagnostic evaluation, indications for treatment, choice of treatment, perioperative evaluation, endovascular/open revascularization, and surveillance/remediation. A formal systematic review was performed by the evidence team to identify the optimal technique for revascularization. Specific practice recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system based on review of literature, the strength of the data, and consensus. RESULTS: Patients with symptoms consistent with CMI should undergo an expedited workup, including a computed tomography arteriogram, to exclude other potential causes. The diagnosis is supported by significant arterial occlusive disease in the mesenteric vessels, particularly the superior mesenteric artery. Treatment requires revascularization with the primary target being the superior mesenteric artery. Endovascular revascularization with a balloon-expandable covered intraluminal stent is the recommended initial treatment with open repair reserved for select younger patients and those who are not endovascular candidates. Long-term follow-up and surveillance are recommended after revascularization and for asymptomatic patients with severe mesenteric occlusive disease. Patient with recurrent symptoms after revascularization owing to recurrent stenoses should be treated with an endovascular-first approach, similar to the de novo lesion. CONCLUSIONS: These practice guidelines were developed based on the best available evidence. They should help to optimize the care of patients with CMI. Multiple areas for future research were identified.