Living in high-poverty areas is associated with reduced survival in patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have demonstrated that socioeconomic status, insurance, race, and distance impact clinical outcomes in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to assess if these factors also impact clinical outcomes in patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with TAAAs confirmed by computed tomography imaging between 2009 and 2019 at a single institution. Patients' zip codes were mapped to American Community Survey Data to obtain geographic poverty rates. We used the standard U.S. Census definition of high-poverty concentration as >20% of the population living at 100% of the poverty rate. Our primary outcome was overall survival, stratified by whether the patient underwent repair. RESULTS: Of 578 patients, 575 had zip code data and were analyzed. In both the nonoperative (N = 268) and operative (N = 307) groups, there were no significant differences in age, race, comorbidities, clinical urgency, surgery utilization, or surgery modality between patients living in high-poverty areas (N = 95, 16.4%) vs not. In the nonoperative group, patients from high-poverty areas were more likely to have aneurysm due to dissection (37.5% vs 17.6%, P = .03). In multivariate analyses, patients from high-poverty zip codes had significantly worse nonoperative survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.3, P = .03). In the repair group, high poverty was also a significant predictor of reduced postoperative survival (HR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1-2.63, P = .04). Adding the Gagne Index, these differences persisted in both groups (nonoperative: HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.01-3.70, P = .05; operative: HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.03-2.56, P = .04). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the difference in postoperative survival began approximately 1.5 years after repair. Private insurance was predictive of improved postoperative survival (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18-0.95, P = .04) but reduced nonoperative survival (HR: 2.05, 95% 1.01-4.14, P = .04). Data were insufficient to determine if race impacted survival discretely from poverty status. These results were found after adjusting for age, race, sex, maximum aortic diameter, coronary artery disease, distance from the hospital, insurance, and active smoking. Interestingly, in multivariate regression, traveling greater than 100 miles was correlated with increased surgery utilization (odds ratio: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.08-2.33, P = .02) and long-term survival (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.92, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TAAAs living in high-poverty areas had significantly more dissections and suffered a nearly doubled risk of mortality compared with patients living outside such areas. These data suggest that these disparities are attributed to the overall impacts of poverty and highlight the pressing need for research into TAAA disparities.

Carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are considered a high-risk population, and the optimal approach to the treatment of carotid disease remains unclear. Thus, we compared outcomes following carotid revascularization for patients with CKD by operative approach of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was analyzed for patients undergoing carotid revascularizations (CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with normal renal function (estimated glomular filtration rate >90 mL/min/1.72 m2) were excluded. Asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis were assessed separately. Preoperative demographics, operative details, and outcomes of 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite variable of stroke/death were compared. Multivariable analysis adjusted for differences in groups, including CKD stage. RESULTS: A total of 90,343 patients with CKD underwent revascularization (CEA, n = 66,870; TCAR, n = 13,459; and TFCAS, n = 10,014; asymptomatic, 63%; symptomatic, 37%). Composite 30-day mortality/stroke rates were: asymptomatic: CEA, 1.4%; TCAR, 1.2%; TFCAS, 1.8%; and symptomatic: CEA, 2.7%; TCAR, 2.3%; TFCAS, 3.7%. In adjusted analysis, TCAR had lower 30-day mortality compared with CEA (asymptomatic: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7; symptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), and no difference in stroke, MI, or the composite outcome of stroke/death in both symptom cohorts. TCAR had lower risk of other cardiac complications compared with CEA in asymptomatic patients (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) and had similar risk in symptomatic patients. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR patients had lower 30-day mortality (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.95; symptomatic: aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4), stroke (symptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97), and stroke/death (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97; symptomatic: aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), but no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. Patients treated with TFCAS had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and stroke risk (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.7) in symptomatic patients compared with CEA. There were no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD, TCAR and CEA showed rates of stroke/death less than 2% for asymptomatic patients and less than 3% for symptomatic patients. Given the increased risk of major morbidity and mortality, TFCAS should not be performed in patients with CKD who are otherwise anatomic candidates for TCAR or CEA.

Modified Harborview Risk Score accurately predicts mortality for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: The modified Harborview Risk Score (HRS) is a simple measure initially derived from a single institutional dataset used to predict ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair survival preoperatively using basic labs and vital signs collected upon presentation. However, validation of this widely applicable scoring system has not been performed. This study aims to validate this scoring system using a large multi-institutional database. METHODS: All patients who underwent repair of an rAAA from 2011 to 2018 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and at a single academic medical center were included. The modified HRS was calculated by assigning 1 point for each of the following: age >76 years, creatinine >2 mg/dL, international normalized ratio >1.8, and any systolic blood pressure less than 70 mmHg. Assessment of the prediction model was then completed. Using a primary outcome measure of 30-day mortality, the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was calculated. The discrimination between datasets was compared using a Delong test. Mortality rates for each score were compared between datasets using the Pearson χ2 test. Comparative analysis for patients with a score of 4 was limited due to a small sample size. RESULTS: A total of 1536 patients were identified using NSQIP, and 163 patients were assessed in the institutional dataset. There were 518 patients with a score of 0 (455 NSQIP, 63 institutional), 676 patients with a score of 1 (617 NSQIP, 59 institutional), 391 patients with a score of 2 (364 NSQIP, 27 institutional), 106 with a score of 3 (93 NSQIP, 13 institutional), and 8 patients with a score of 4 (7 NSQIP, 1 institutional). No difference was found in the receiver operating characteristic area under the curves between datasets (P = .78). Thirty-day mortality was 10% NSQIP vs 22% institutional for a score of 0; 28% NSQIP vs 36% institutional for a score of 1; 41% NSQIP vs 44% institutional for a score of 2; 45% NSQIP vs 69% institutional for a score of 3; and 57% NSQIP vs 100% institutional for a score of 4. Score 0 was the only score with a significant mortality rate difference between datasets (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The modified HRS is confirmed to be broadly applicable as a clinical decision-making tool for patients presenting with rAAAs. Therefore, this easily applicable model should be applied for all patients presenting with rAAAs to assist with provider and patient decision-making prior to proceeding with repair.

Iliac tortuosity increases reinterventions but not adverse outcomes following repair of juxtarenal aneurysms using physician-modified endografts.

OBJECTIVE: Increased angulation of the proximal aortic neck has been associated with complications following endovascular repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms, including increased incidence of endoleaks, stent migration, secondary interventions, and conversions. However, knowledge on the impact of aortoiliac tortuosity on outcomes following fenestrated repair remains limited. This study aims to quantify the effect of aortoiliac tortuosity on outcomes following fenestrated repair. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of all patients who underwent a physician-modified endovascular repair for the treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms under a single physician-sponsored investigation device exemption study from 2011 to 2021 was performed. Center luminal lines and geometric distances were obtained using TeraRecon software (San Mateo, CA). A tortuosity index was calculated (tortuosity index = centerline distance/geometric line distance) for each iliac vessel as well as for the infrarenal aorta according to Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Aortic and iliac tortuosity were assessed independently and stratified as low and high. Demographics, comorbidities, anatomic and operative details, and outcomes were compared using univariable and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were identified. Thirty-eight patients (28%) had high aortic tortuosity, and 55 patients (42%) had high iliac tortuosity. Patients with high tortuosity were older (aortic: 78 vs 76 years; P = .04; iliac: 78 vs 75 years; P = .01) and differed by sex. Twenty-two percent of men and 50% of women had high aortic tortuosity (P = .01). Forty-seven percent of men and 20% of women had high iliac tortuosity (P = .01). There were no differences in comorbidities based on aortic tortuosity, but coronary artery disease (high: 58% vs low: 36%; P = .01) and hypertension (high: 69% vs low: 86%; P = .02) differed based on iliac tortuosity. Aneurysm diameter was larger for patients with high iliac tortuosity (72 mm vs 64 mm; P < .01), and fluoroscopy time was longer for patients with high aortic tortuosity (41 vs 31 minutes; P = .02). When outcomes were assessed, high iliac tortuosity was associated with increased rate of reinterventions (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.0) and type 1 or 3 endoleak (hazard ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-16); however, all other outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with physician-modified endovascular repair for juxtarenal aneurysms, iliac tortuosity but not aortic tortuosity, is associated with increased reinterventions and type 1 or type 3 endoleaks. Long-term follow-up is critical for patients with high iliac tortuosity to ensure that high-risk endoleaks are identified and treated early to avoid the risk of rupture.

Modified Harborview Risk Score improves ease in predicting mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The Harborview Risk Score (HRS) is a simple, accurate 4-point preoperative risk scoring system used to predict 30-day mortality following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair. The HRS assigns 1 point for each of the following: age >76 years, pH <7.2, creatinine >2 mg/dL, and any episode of severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure <70 mmHg). One potential limitation of this risk scoring system is that arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis is required to determine arterial pH. Because ABG analysis is not routinely performed prior to patient transfer or rAAA repair, we sought to determine if the HRS could be modified by replacing pH with the international normalized ratio (INR), a factor that has been previously shown to have a strong and independent association with 30-day death after rAAA repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of all rAAA repairs done at a single academic medical center between January 2002 and December 2018 was performed. Our traditional HRS was compared with a modified score, in which pH <7.2 was replaced with INR >1.8. Patients were included if they underwent rAAA repair (open or endovascular), and if they had preoperative laboratory values available to calculate both the traditional and modified HRS. RESULTS: During the 17-year study period, 360 of 391 repairs met inclusion criteria. Observed 30-day mortality using the modified scoring system was 17% (18/106) for a score of 0 points, 43% (53/122) for 1 point, 54% (52/96) for 2 points, 84% (27/32) for 3 points, and 100% (4/4) for 4 points. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed similar ability of the two scoring systems to predict 30-day death: there was no significant difference in the area under the curve (AUC) comparing the traditional (AUC = 0.74) and modified (AUC = 0.72) HRS (P = .3). CONCLUSIONS: Although previously validated among a modern cohort of patients with rAAA, our traditional 4-point risk score is limited in real-world use by the need for an ABG. Substituting INR for pH improves the usefulness of our risk scoring system without compromising accuracy in predicting 30-day mortality after rAAA repair.

Early outcomes of endovascular repairs of the aortic arch using thoracic branch endoprosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The only commercially available thoracic branched endoprosthesis (TBE) for treatment of the aortic arch was released in 2022. Limited data outside of clinical trial results have been reported. This study describes the demographics, anatomic details, and outcomes for patients treated for zone 0 to 2 using TBEs outside of a clinical trial. METHODS: All patients treated using TBEs for zone 0 to 2 were included. Patients treated as part of the clinical trial for zone 0 to 1 (n = 6) were excluded. Patient demographics, comorbidities, anatomic and operative details, and outcomes were reported. Outcomes and survival were then compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 40 patients, six patients underwent repair of zone 0, three of zone 1, and 31 of zone 2. There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, or operative details by zone of treatment; however, the frequency of genetic aortopathy differed (zone 0: 0%; zone 1: 67%; and zone 2: 6.4%; P < .01). Seventy-three percent of patients were treated for dissection vs 27% with isolated aneurysms. Of the patients, 2.5% were treated for rupture, 22% were treated for symptomatic aneurysms, and 75% were treated electively. Forty-eight percent of repairs included a proximal cuff, and 83% received distal extension. Technical success was achieved in 100% of patients. Mean fluoroscopy time was 18 minutes, and median fluoroscopy dose was 416 mGy. Sixty percent of patients had prior aortic ascending/arch repair. TBE was planned as part of a complete thoracoabdominal repair in 45% of patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.5% overall, with a single death in a zone 0 patient that occurred at day 1 due to a myocardial infarction. There were no reinterventions within 30 days. All other outcomes were similar. The 30-day stroke rate was 5.0%. The strokes occurred at day 6 (zone 1) and day 15 (zone 2); however, both were due to occlusion of a prior proximal surgical bypass and unrelated to the TBE side branch or embolization. Specifically, both patients had occlusion of a branch of their prior zone 1 or zone 2 arch replacement. An endoleak occurred in 7.5% of patients at 30-day follow-up (type II: 5.0%; unknown: 2.5%). At a mean follow-up of 6.6 months, 100% of side branches were patent. CONCLUSIONS: Repair of the aortic arch including TBE can be performed electively and urgently with acceptable stroke and death rates. TBE provides a valuable tool for patients requiring complete repair of a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. Continued investigation is underway to assess long-term safety and efficacy outside of the clinical trial.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is. METHODS: We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends. RESULTS: A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Editor's Choice - An Endovascular Approach to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture is Associated With Improved Outcomes for Patients With Prior Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether outcomes of rupture repair differ by aortic repair history and determine the ideal approach for rupture repair in patients with previous aortic repair. METHODS: This retrospective review included all patients who underwent repair of a ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm from 2003 - 2021 recorded in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry. Pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes and long term survival were compared between patients with and without prior aortic repair. To assess the impact of open and endovascular approaches to rupture, a subgroup analysis was then performed among patients who ruptured after a prior infrarenal aortic repair. Univariable and adjusted analyses were performed to account for differences in patient characteristics and operative details. RESULTS: A total of 6 197 patients underwent rupture repair during the study period, including 337 (5.4%) with prior aortic repairs. Univariable analysis demonstrated an increased 30 day mortality rate in patients with prior repairs vs. without (42 vs. 36%; p = .034), and prior repair was associated with increased post-operative renal failure (35 vs. 21%; p < .001), respiratory complications (32 vs. 24%; p < .001), and wound complications (9 vs. 4%; p < .001). Following adjustment, all outcomes were similar with the exception of bowel ischaemia, which was decreased among patients with prior repair (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 - 0.9). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with a prior aortic repair history who underwent open rupture repair had increased odds for 30 day death (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 - 1.7) and adverse secondary outcomes compared with those managed endovascularly. CONCLUSION: Prior infrarenal aortic repair was not independently associated with increased morbidity or mortality following rupture repair. Patients with a prior aortic repair history demonstrated statistically significantly higher mortality and morbidity when treated with an open repair compared with an endovascular approach. An endovascular first approach to rupture should be strongly encouraged whenever feasible in patients with prior aortic repair.

Editor's Choice -- Age Stratified Midterm Survival Following Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Age stratified mortality was examined following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) vs. open repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) METHODS: All patients undergoing first time elective F-EVAR and complex open aneurysm repair (c-OAR) for juxtarenal AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Open repairs were compared with commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Patients were stratified into three age groups (< 65, 65 - 75, > 75 years). Primary outcomes were peri-operative and five year mortality, and inverse probability weighted risk adjustment was performed to account for baseline differences. RESULTS: Overall, 1 961 patients underwent F-EVAR (82% commercial F-EVAR, 18% PMEG) and 3 385 patients underwent c-OAR. Across age groups, the distribution of F-EVAR (vs. c-OAR) was: < 65 years: 23%, 65 - 75 years: 33%, > 75 years: 52%. After adjustment, among patients < 65 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with similar peri-operative mortality (0.9% vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 - 1.44], p = .22), and five year mortality (13% vs. 9.5%; HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.71 - 2.90, p = .31). Among patients aged 65 - 75 years, between juxtarenal AAA repair modalities, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with a significantly lower risk of peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 5.0%; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 - 0.79, p = .004), and five year mortality (13% vs. 13%; HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 - 1.36, p = .74). Similarly, among patients > 75 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with lower peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 6.5%; HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.47, p < .001), but with similar five year mortality (18% vs. 21%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.20, p = .31). CONCLUSION: Among patients with a juxtarenal AAA, F-EVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative mortality compared with c-OAR in patients ≥ 65 years, but was similar in those < 65 years. At five years, F-EVAR was associated with similar mortality in all age groups, though there was a non-significant trend for a higher mortality rate in younger patients.

Patterns in Complex Aortic Vascular Surgery Training and Early Career Practice.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has suggested a decreasing experience with open aortic surgery among recent vascular surgery graduates. While trainees have a wide exposure to endovascular aortic repair, experience with both endovascular and open management of thoracoabdominal aneurysms, as well as the early career surgeon comfort with these procedures, remains unknown. Thus, we sought to evaluate early practice patterns in the surgical treatment of complex aortic surgery among recent US vascular surgery graduates. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed among all vascular surgeons who completed vascular surgery residency or fellowship in 2020. Self-reported data assessed the number and type of cases performed in training, surgeon experience in early practice, and surgeon desire for additional training in these areas. RESULTS: A total of 62 surgeons completed the survey with a response rate of 35%. Seventy-nine percent of respondents completed fellowship training (as compared to integrated residency), and 87% self-described as training in an academic environment. Sixty-six percent performed less than 5 open thoracoabdominal aortic surgeries and 58% performed less than 5 4-vessel branched/fenestrated aortic repairs (F/BEVARs), including 56% who completed less than 5 physician modified endovascular grafts repairs. Only 11% of respondents felt adequately prepared to perform open thoracoabdominal operations following training. For both open and F/BEVAR procedures, more than 80% respondents plan to perform such procedures with a partner in their current practice, and the majority desired additional open (61%) and endovascular (59%) training for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms. CONCLUSIONS: The reported infrequency in open thoracoabdominal and multivessel F/BEVAR training highlights a desire and utility for an advanced aortic training paradigm for surgeons wishing to focus on this area of vascular surgery. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal way to provide such training, whether through advanced fellowships, junior faculty apprenticeship models, or regionalization of this highly complex patient care. The creation of these programs may provide pivotal opportunity, as vascular surgery and the management of complex aortic pathology continues to evolve.

Outcomes of Staged Repairs of Complex Endovascular Repairs of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment allows for the staging of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (eTAAAs) in an effort to decrease the risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), but data are limited. METHODS: We studied all eTAAAs in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2021. Inverse probability weighting was used to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of staged and single-stage repairs. Thoracoabdominal life-altering events (TALEs) are the composite endpoint consisting of death/stroke/permanent SCI/permanent dialysis. RESULTS: There were 3,258 total operations during the study period. In total, 841 cases (26%) were staged repairs, and 2,417 (74%) were completed in a single stage, but in the cohort of patients with extensive aneurysms, 44% were staged. Staging methods included thoracic endograft (78%), branch (23%), and iliac (5%). Staged repairs were more often employed by high-volume surgeons at high-volume centers; for larger, more extensive aneurysms, with higher rates of prior aortic surgery. After adjustment, staged repair and single-stage treatment were associated with similar odds of all perioperative outcomes and including mortality, TALE, acute kidney injury, stroke, dialysis, and SCI, as well as long-term survival. This was consistent in the subgroups of patients with extensive aneurysms undergoing elective procedures. Of note, first-stage thoracic endografts were associated with 2.6% mortality, 7.3% TALE, 1.5% dialysis, and 4.1% SCI, and 25% of patients did not undergo a second stage. First-stage procedures accounted for one-third of perioperative complications including half of the deaths in the staged cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Staged eTAAA repairs were associated with similar perioperative and long-term complications to single-stage treatments. However, first stage procedures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and one-quarter of patients never complete their repairs. These data demonstrate the necessity of evaluating the outcomes of all patients planned for staged procedures, not only those who make it to the final stage. More data are needed as to the optimal method of spinal cord protection for these challenging aneurysms.

Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). BACKGROUND: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006-2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. RESULTS: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P <0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P <0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7-37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50-2.44; P <0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.62; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

Reinterventions after physician-modified endovascular grafts for treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms are non-detrimental to long-term survival.

OBJECTIVE: Reintervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is common. However, their frequency and impact on mortality after physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) is unknown. This study aims to describe reinterventions after PMEG for treatment of juxtarenal aneurysms and their effect on survival. METHODS: Data from a prospective investigational device exemption clinical trial (Identifier #NCT01538056) from 2011 to 2022 were used. Reinterventions after PMEG were categorized as open or percutaneous and major or minor by Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards and as high or low magnitude based on physiologic impact. Reinterventions were also categorized by timing, based on whether they occurred within 30 days of PMEG as well as within 1 week of PMEG. Survival was compared between patients who did and did not undergo reintervention and between reintervention subcategories. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients underwent PMEG, 50 (29%) of whom underwent a total of 91 reinterventions (mean reinterventions/patient, 1.8). Freedom from reintervention was 84% at 1 year and 60% at 5 years. Reinterventions were most often percutaneous (80%), minor (55%), and low magnitude (77%), and the most common reintervention was renal stenting (26%). There were 10 early reinterventions within 1 week of PMEG. Two aortic-related mortalities occurred after reintervention. There were no differences in survival between patients who underwent reintervention and those who did not. However, survival differed based on the timing of reintervention. After adjusted analysis, reintervention within one week of PMEG was associated with an increased risk of mortality both compared with late reintervention (hazard ratio, 11.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-46.5) and no reintervention (hazard ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-16.8). CONCLUSIONS: Reinterventions after PMEG were most commonly percutaneous, minor, and low magnitude procedures, and non-detrimental to long-term survival. However, early reinterventions were associated with increased mortality risk. These data suggest that a modest frequency of reinterventions should be expected after PMEG, emphasizing the critical importance of lifelong surveillance.

Overhead arm support reduces radiation exposure during complex endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Complex endovascular aortic surgery has been associated with increased fluoroscopic radiation exposure. The radiation dosage necessary for visualization is dependent on the amount of tissue penetration required. Elevation of a patient's arms above their head during endovascular surgery could improve visualization by removing the arms from the field of view. Furthermore, it might reduce the radiation dose required. In the present study, we sought to determine the effect of arm elevation on radiation exposure during endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms. METHODS: All patients enrolled in a single-institution, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study for endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair [F/BEVAR]) from 2012 to 2022 were assessed. The first 30 patients treated were excluded to account for the learning curve required with treatment. Patients treated after December 2020 were positioned with their arms elevated above their head using an overhead arm support (OAS). These patients were compared with those who had undergone F/BEVAR before the practice change. The radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume used were compared. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect for patients with brachial access. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were included in the present study, of whom 43 (30%) had undergone F/BEVAR with their arms supported overhead. No differences were identified in age, body mass index, aneurysm size, or prior aortic intervention between the groups with and without the use of the OAS. A history of dissection (23% vs 7.8%; P = .01) was more frequent for the patients treated with their arms elevated. Arm elevation was associated with a significant reduction in the mean radiation exposure (2261 vs 3100 mGy; P = .01). No differences were observed in the fluoroscopy time or contrast volume used between the two groups. In addition, no patient experienced palsy of the brachial plexus. Of the 145 patients, 55 (38%) had required brachial arterial access, limiting their ability to elevate both arms. In the subgroup analysis, the patients without brachial access continued to show a significant reduction in radiation exposure with arm elevation (2159 vs 3179 mGy; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Elevation of a patient's arms above their head using an OAS during F/BEVAR offered a low-cost, simple strategy that resulted in a 30% reduction in radiation exposure without added complications. This technique improved visualization and reduced radiation exposure for patients and physicians and should be included in abdominal aortic and visceral procedures work to improve patient and surgeon safety.

Racial disparities in treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery has recommended immediate transfer of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) to a regional center when feasible. However, Black patients might be less likely to be transferred and more likely to be turned down for repair. We, therefore, examined the transfer rates, turndown rates, and outcomes for Black vs White patients presenting with rAAAs in two large databases. METHODS: We examined all rAAA repairs in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2020 to evaluate the transfer rates and outcomes for Black vs White patients. We used the National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2015 to examine the turndown rates. Mixed effects logistic regression, Cox regression, and marginal effects modeling were used to study the interaction between race, insurance status, surgery type (open repair vs endovascular aortic aneurysm repair), and hospital volume. RESULTS: We identified 4935 patients with rAAAs in the Vascular Quality Initiative (6.2% Black) and 48,489 in the National Inpatient Sample (6.0% Black). The rates of transfer were high; however, Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo transfer before repair compared with White patients (49% Black vs 62% White; P = .002). The result was consistent in both crude and adjusted analyses when considering only stable patients and was not modified by insurance status, surgery type, or hospital volume. No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality (22% vs 26%; P = .098) or complications (52% vs 52%; P = .64). However, Black patients were significantly more likely to be turned down for repair (37% vs 28%; odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.9; P < .001). A significant interaction was found between race and insurance status with respect to turndown. Patients with private insurance had undergone surgery at a similar rate, regardless of race. However, among patients with Medicare or Medicaid/self-pay, Black patients were less likely than were White patients to undergo repair (Medicare, 64% vs 72%; P = .001; Medicaid/self-pay, 43% vs 61%; P = .031). Patients with Medicaid/self-pay were also less likely to undergo repair than were patients of the same race with either Medicare or private insurance (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: We found that Black patients with rAAAs are poorly served by the current systems of interhospital transfer in the United States, because they less often undergo transfer before repair. Although the postoperative outcomes appeared similar, this finding could be falsely optimistic, because Black patients, especially the underinsured, were turned down for repair more often even after adjustment. Significant work is needed to better understand the reasons underlying these disparities and identify the targets to improve the care of Black patients with rAAAs.

Males and females have similar mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has demonstrated worse outcomes for female patients after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Also, prior studies in the context of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysms have reported conflicting results regarding sex-related outcomes. Because the influence of sex on the outcomes after TEVAR for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) remains understudied, we evaluated the association between sex and outcomes after TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: We identified patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2013 to 2022 and included those who had undergone TEVAR within zones 2 to 5 of the thoracic aorta. Patients with missing information regarding the aortic injury grade (Society for Vascular Surgery aortic injury grading system) were excluded. We performed multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression to determine the influence of sex on the perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 1311 patients, of whom 27% were female. The female patients were significantly older (female, 47 years [interquartile range (IQR), 30-63 years]; male, 38 years [IQR, 28-55 years]; P < .001) with higher rates of comorbidities. Although the female patients had had higher Glasgow coma scale scores (median, 15 [IQR, 11-15]; vs 14 [IQR, 8-15]; P = .028), no differences were found in the aortic injury grade or other coexisting traumatic injuries between the sexes. Apart from the longer procedure duration for the female patients (median, 79 minutes [IQR, 52-119 minutes]; vs 69 minutes [IQR, 48-106 minutes]; P = .008), the procedural characteristics were comparable. After adjustment, no significant association was found between female sex and perioperative mortality (7.1% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.3; P = .34). The male and female patients had had comparable rates of postoperative complications (26% vs 29%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.52-1.5]; P = .26) including access-related complications (0.5% vs 0.8%; P=.83). However, females had a significantly higher risk for reintervention during the index admission (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .024). No significant difference was found between the male and female patients with respect to 5-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.35; P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike the sex-based outcome disparities observed after thoracic aortic aneurysm repair, we found no significant association between sex and perioperative outcomes or long-term mortality after TEVAR for BTAIs. This contrast in the sex-related outcomes after other vascular pathologies might be explained by differences in the pathology, demographics, and anatomic factors in these patients.

The effect of supraceliac versus infraceliac landing zone on outcomes following fenestrated endovascular repair of juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing experience in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) over time, devices designed to treat juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms have evolved in complexity to extend to more proximal landing zones and incorporate more target vessels. We assessed perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent juxta-/pararenal FEVAR with supraceliac vs infraceliac sealing in the Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent elective FEVAR (commercially available FEVAR and physician-modified endografts) for juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021. Supraceliac sealing was defined as proximal sealing in aortic zone 5, or zone 6 with a celiac scallop/fenestration/branch or celiac occlusion. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 3-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included completion endoleaks, in-hospital complications, and factors associated with 3-year mortality. We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression and logistic regression modeling to assess outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1486 patients identified, 1246 patients (84%) underwent infraceliac sealing, and 240 patients (16%) underwent supraceliac sealing. Of the supraceliac patients, 74 (31%) had a celiac scallop, 144 (60%) had a celiac fenestration/branch, and 22 (9.2%) had a celiac occlusion (intentional or unintentional). After risk-adjusted analyses, there were no differences in perioperative mortality following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (2.3% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.8; P = .42), or 3-year mortality (12% vs 15%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53-1.5; P = .67). Compared with infraceliac sealing, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower odds of type-IA completion endoleaks (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67), but higher odds of any complication (12% vs 6.9%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.01-2.5) including cardiac complications (5.5% vs 1.9%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1), lower extremity ischemia (3.0% vs 0.9%; OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.02-9.5), and acute kidney injury (16% vs 11%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.05-2.3). Though non-significant, there was a trend towards higher risk of spinal cord ischemia following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (1.7% vs 0.8%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.70-6.4). There were no differences in bowel ischemia between groups (1.7% vs 1.5%; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.24-1.23). A more proximal aneurysm disease extent was associated with higher 3-year mortality (HR zone 8 vs 9, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), whereas procedural characteristics had no influence. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sealing at an infraceliac level, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower risk of type IA endoleaks and similar mortality. However, clinicians should be aware that supraceliac sealing was associated with higher perioperative morbidity. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to adequately assess durability differences to comprehensively weigh the risks and benefits of utilizing a higher sealing zone within the visceral aorta for juxta-/pararenal FEVAR.