Medical center reimbursement for vascular procedures has increased over time while professional reimbursement has declined.

OBJECTIVE: The United States healthcare system uses different methods for assigning medical center reimbursement (MCR) and professional reimbursement (PR) for clinical services. We hypothesized that PR has not increased proportionately to MCR for the same vascular services. METHODS: MCR and PR were compared for commonly performed inpatient and outpatient vascular procedures between 2012 and 2021. MCR was calculated using the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and outpatient prospective payment system. MCR is based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition and criteria for comorbidities and the occurrence of complications; thus, changes in MCR were reported as a range based on the degree of comorbidities and complications using the Diagnosis Related Group. PR was calculated using the Medicare physician fee schedule, which assigns a numerical work relative value unit to each surgical service, with final compensation determined by an annually adjusted conversion factor to yield a final dollar amount. The expected reimbursement based on the observed inflation during the study period using the consumer price index was calculated and compared to the actual reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, MCR for inpatient procedures increased 20% to 26% for carotid endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoral endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoropopliteal bypass with vein, 14% to 19% for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 15% for aortobifemoral bypass. During the same period, PR increased 3.3% for carotid endarterectomy but decreased for femoral endarterectomy (-5.0%), femoropopliteal bypass (-4.6%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (-4.2%), and aortobifemoral bypass (-5.0%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 10% to 17% reduction but MCR outpaced inflation by 3.7% to 10%. For outpatient procedures, MCR increased 117% for tibial angioplasty, 24% for superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting, 62% for tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion, and 24% for iliac stenting but decreased 0.43% for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation and 7.6% for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). PR increased 0.91% for SFA stenting but decreased for tibial angioplasty (-17%), AVF creation (-6.4%), TDC insertion (-7.1%), iliac stenting (-3.8%), and RFA (-22%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 13% to 32% reduction. In contrast, MCR outpaced inflation 7.5% to 88% for tibial angioplasty, SFA stenting, TDC insertion, and iliac stenting but experienced a reduction for AVF (-13%) and RFA (-19%). CONCLUSIONS: MCR for commonly performed vascular procedures has increased and outpaced inflation. In contrast, PR for these same services has decreased across all procedure types. This decrease in PR was exacerbated when adjusted for inflation. This inequity in the reimbursement methods between MCR and PR poses a threat to the viability of the physician workforce. Either changes to the reimbursement methods or a reallocation of reimbursement to physicians are imperative to sustain physician practices.

Initial single-center experience using Fiber Optic RealShape guidance in complex endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we have described the technical success using Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) endovascular guidance and its effects on the overall procedural time and radiation usage during complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fenestrated and branched EVARs performed at a single center from 2017 to 2022 were prospectively studied. FORS-guided procedures were matched retrospectively 1:3 to non-FORS-guided procedures by the incorporated target arteries and body mass index. Technical success was defined as successful target vessel cannulation using FORS for the entirety of navigation (wire insertion to exchange for a stiff wire). The predictors of technical success were evaluated via logistic regression. The procedural times and radiation doses were compared between the matched cohorts using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A total of 21 FORS-guided procedures were matched to 61 non-FORS-guided procedures. A total of 95 FORS cannulations were attempted (87 for the visceral target artery and 8 for the bifurcate gate). Technical success was achieved in 81 cannulations (85%); 15 (16%) were completed without the use of live fluoroscopy. The univariate predictors of FORS technical success included <50% target artery stenosis, <50% target artery calcification, and the target vessel attempted (P < .05 for each). FORS failures were attributed to device material properties in six cases, device failure in two cases, and the wire/catheter combination in six. The use of FORS guidance was associated with shorter median procedural and fluoroscopy times and a lower dose area product and air kerma (P ≤ .0001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: The results from our initial experience with FORS during complex EVAR, including our learning curve, has shown promise, with acceptable technical success and reductions in procedural times and radiation usage.

Successful implementation of a nurse-navigator-run program using natural language processing identifying patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are often identified incidentally on imaging studies. Patients and/or providers are frequently unaware of these AAA and the need for long-term follow-up. We sought to evaluate the outcome of a nurse-navigator-run AAA program that uses a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm applied to the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify patients with imaging report-identified AAA not being followed actively. METHODS: A commercially available AAA-specific NLP system was run on EMR data at a large, academic, tertiary hospital with an 11-year historical look back (January 1, 2010, to June 2, 2021), to identify and characterize AAA. Beginning June 3, 2021, a direct link between the NLP system and the EMR enabled for real-time review of imaging reports for new AAA cases. A nurse-navigator (1.0 full-time equivalent) used software filters to categorize AAA according to predefined metrics, including repair status and adherence to Society for Vascular Surgery imaging surveillance protocol. The nurse-navigator then interfaced with patients and providers to reestablish care for patients not being followed actively. The nurse-navigator characterized patients as case closed (eg, deceased, appropriate follow-up elsewhere, refuses follow-up), cases awaiting review, and cases reviewed and placed in ongoing surveillance using AAA-specific software. The primary outcome measures were yield of surveillance imaging performed or scheduled, new clinic visits, and AAA operations for patients not being followed actively. RESULTS: During the prospective study period (January 1, 2021, to December 30, 2021), 6,340,505 imaging reports were processed by the NLP. After filtering for studies likely to include abdominal aorta, 243,889 imaging reports were evaluated, resulting in the identification of 6495 patients with AAA. Of these, 2937 cases were reviewed and closed, 1183 were reviewed and placed in ongoing surveillance, and 2375 are awaiting review. When stratifying those reviewed and placed in ongoing surveillance by maximum aortic diameter, 258 were 2.5 to 3.4 cm, 163 were 3.5 to 3.9 cm, 213 were 4 to 5 cm, and 49 were larger than 5 cm; 36 were saccular, 86 previously underwent open repair, 274 previously underwent endovascular repair, and 104 were other. This process yielded 29 new patient clinic visits, 40 finalized imaging studies, 29 scheduled imaging studies, and 4 AAA operations in 3 patients among patients not being followed actively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of an AAA program leveraging NLP successfully identifies patients with AAA not receiving appropriate surveillance or counseling and repair. This program offers an opportunity to improve best practice-based care across a large health system.

Preoperative functional status predicts 2-year mortality in patients undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) is a minimally invasive alternative for patients at high risk of open repair of complex aortic aneurysms. Nearly all investigative study protocols evaluating F/BEVAR have required a predicted life expectancy of >2 years for study inclusion. However, accurate risk models for predicting 2-year survival in this patient population are lacking. We sought to identify the preoperative predictors of 2-year survival for patients undergoing F/BEVAR. METHODS: The prospectively collected data for all consecutive F/BEVAR procedures, performed in an institutional review board-approved registry and/or a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (IDE) trial (IDE no. G130210), were reviewed (November 2010 to February 2019). We assessed 44 preoperative patient characteristics, including comorbidities, preoperative functional status, aneurysm morphologies, and repair techniques. Preoperative functional status was defined as totally dependent (any impairment in activities of daily living or residing in a skilled nursing facility), partially dependent (any impairment in instrumental activities of daily living), or independent (no impairment in activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living). Using the results of univariate analysis (P < .2), a Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to identify the independent predictors of 2-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: For the 256 consecutive patients who had undergone F/BEVAR (6 common iliac [2.3%], 94 juxtarenal [41%], 35 pararenal [14%], 119 thoracoabdominal [47%], and 2 arch [0.8%] aneurysms), the 2-year mortality was 18%. On Cox modeling, the only independent preoperative predictor contributing to 2-year mortality was functional status (totally dependent: hazard ratio [HR], 5.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-16; P = .0024; partially dependent: HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.4-8.7; P < .0000019). A history of an implanted anti-arrhythmic device was protective (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.99; P = .0495). Factors such as age, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aneurysm extent, and previous aortic surgery, were not significant. The 2-year mortality for the independent (n = 176; 69%), partially dependent (n = 69; 27%), and totally dependent (n = 10; 3.9%) groups was 11%, 33%, and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing F/BEVAR, decreased preoperative functional status was the strongest predictor of 2-year mortality, with totally dependent patients experiencing poor survival. The traditional risk factors were not independently significant, perhaps reflecting the high prevalence of severe chronic illness in these high-risk patients participating in an IDE trial. For the independent patients, the 2-year F/BEVAR survival rate was 89%, equivalent to patient survival after infrarenal EVAR. Therefore, for independent patients, it would be reasonable to expand the indication for F/BEVAR to low-risk patients.

Evolution of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair complexity and outcomes at an organized center for the treatment of complex aortic disease.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) volume has increased rapidly, with favorable outcomes at centers of excellence. We evaluated changes over time in F/BEVAR complexity and associated outcomes at a single-center complex aortic disease program. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of all F/BEVAR (definition: requiring ≥1 fenestration/branch), procedures performed in an institutional review board-approved registry and/or physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial (IDE# G130210), were reviewed (11/2010-2/2019). Patients were stratified by surgery date into thirds: early experience, mid experience, and recent experience. Patient and operative characteristics, aneurysm morphology, device types, perioperative and midterm outcomes (survival, freedom from type I or III endoleak, target artery patency, freedom from reintervention), were compared across groups. RESULTS: For 252 consecutive F/BEVARs (early experience, n = 84, mid experience, n = 84, recent experience, n = 84), 194 (77%) company-manufactured custom-made devices, 11 (4.4%) company-manufactured off-the-shelf devices, and 47 (19%) physician-modified devices, were used to treat 5 (2.0%) common iliac, 97 (39%) juxtarenal, 31 (12%) pararenal, 116 (46%) thoracoabdominal, and 2 (0.8%) arch aneurysms. All patients had follow-up for 30-day events. The mean follow-up time for the entire cohort was 589 days (interquartile range, 149-813 days). On 1-year Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was 88%, freedom from type I or III endoleak was 91%, and target vessel patency was 92%. When stratified by time period, significant differences included aneurysm extent (thoracoabdominal, 33% early experience, 40% mid experience, and 64% recent experience; P < .001) and target vessels per case (four-vessel case, 31% early experience, 39% mid experience, and 67% recent experience; P < .0001). There was no difference, but a trend toward improvement, in composite 30-day events (early experience, 39%; mid experience, 23%; recent experience, 27%; P = .05). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no difference in survival (P = .19) or target artery patency (P = .6). There were differences in freedom from reintervention (P < .01) and from type I or III endoleak (P = .02), with more reinterventions in the early experience, and more endoleaks in the recent period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing repair complexity, there has been no significant change in perioperative complications, overall survival, or target artery patency, with favorable outcomes overall. Type I or III endoleaks remain a significant limitation, with increased incidence as the number of branch arteries incorporated into the repairs has increased.

Financial implications of coronavirus disease 2019 on a tertiary academic vascular surgery practice.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the healthcare system in the United States. The redistribution of resources and suspension of elective procedures and other services has resulted in financial stress across all service lines. The financial effects on the practice of vascular surgery have not yet been quantified. We hypothesized that vascular surgery divisions have experienced losses affecting the hospital and professional sides that will not be recoupable without significant productivity increases. METHODS: Administrative claims data for clinical services performed by the vascular surgery division at a tertiary medical center for March and April 2019 and for March and April 2020 were analyzed. These claims were separated into two categories: hospital claims (inpatient and outpatient) and professional claims (professional reimbursement for all services provided). Medicare reimbursement methods were used to assign financial value: diagnosis-related group for inpatient services, ambulatory payment classification for outpatient services, and the Medicare physician fee schedule for professional reimbursement and work relative value units (wRVUs). Reimbursements and productivity (wRVUs) were compared between the two periods. A financial model was created to determine the increase in future productivity over baseline required to mitigate the losses incurred during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 11,317 vascular surgery claims were reviewed. Hospital reimbursement during the pandemic decreased from $4,982,114 to $2,649,521 (-47%) overall (inpatient, from $3,505,775 to $2,128,133 [-39%]; outpatient, from $1,476,339 to $521,388 [-65%]) and professional reimbursement decreased from $933,897 to $430,967 (-54%) compared with the same period in 2019. Professional productivity as measured by wRVUs sustained a similar decline from 10,478 wRVUs to 5386 wRVUs (-51%). Modeling sensitivity analyses demonstrated that if a vascular division were able to increase inpatient and outpatient revenue to greater than prepandemic levels by 10%, 5%, or 3%, it would take 9, 19, or 31 months, respectively, for the hospital to recover their pandemic-associated losses. Similarly, professional reimbursement recovery would require 11, 20, or 36 months with corresponding increases in productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound and lasting effects on the world in terms of lives lost and financial hardships. The financial effects on vascular surgery divisions has resulted in losses ranging from 39% to 65% compared with the prepandemic period in the previous year. Because the complete mitigation of losses is not feasible in the short term, alternative and novel strategies are needed to financially sustain the vascular division and hospital during a prolonged recovery period.

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model Task Force report on opportunities for value-based reimbursement in care for patients with peripheral artery disease.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model (APM) Taskforce document explores the drivers and implications for developing objective value-based reimbursement plans for the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The APM is a payment approach that highlights high-quality and cost-efficient care and is a financially incentivized pathway for participation in the Quality Payment Program, which aims to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment method. At present, the participation of vascular specialists in APMs is hampered owing to the absence of dedicated models. The increasing prevalence of PAD diagnosis, technological advances in therapeutic devices, and the increasing cost of care of the affected patients have financial consequences on care delivery models and population health. The document summarizes the existing measurement methods of cost, care processes, and outcomes using payor data, patient-reported outcomes, and registry participation. The document also evaluates the existing challenges in the evaluation of PAD care, including intervention overuse, treatment disparities, varied clinical presentations, and the effects of multiple comorbid conditions on the cost potentially attributable to the vascular interventionalist. Medicare reimbursement data analysis also confirmed the prolonged need for additional healthcare services after vascular interventions. The Society for Vascular Surgery proposes that a PAD APM should provide patients with comprehensive care using a longitudinal approach with integration of multiple key medical and surgical services. It should maintain appropriate access to diagnostic and therapeutic advancements and eliminate unnecessary interventions. It should also decrease the variability in care but must also consider the varying complexity of the presenting PAD conditions. Enhanced quality of care and physician innovation should be rewarded. In addition, provisions should be present within an APM for high-risk patients who carry the risk of exclusion from care because of the naturally associated high costs. Although the document demonstrates clear opportunities for quality improvement and cost savings in PAD care, continued PAD APM development requires the assessment of more granular data for accurate risk adjustment, in addition to largescale testing before public release. Collaboration between payors and physician specialty societies remains key.

Vascular Surgeons Are Not Adequately Valued by Traditional Productivity Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period. METHODS: Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons.

Impact of acute kidney injury on long-term outcomes after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been identified as a common complication after fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR), occurring in 5% to 29% of patients. Predictors of AKI and its impact on long-term outcomes remain unknown. We sought to identify independent predictors of AKI and its effect on long-term survival after F/BEVAR. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of all consecutive F/BEVAR procedures was performed (November 2010-September 2018). Data were collected prospectively through an Institutional Review Board-approved registry and a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption clinical trial (G130210). AKI was defined as a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate by >30% from baseline, within 30 days postoperatively. The cohort was stratified according to whether a patient experienced AKI. Demographics, operative details, perioperative complications, and length of stay between groups were compared. The primary outcome, long-term survival, was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Independent predictors of AKI were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 219 consecutive F/BEVAR patients, AKI occurred in 41 patients (19%) and was the most common 30-day complication observed. Whereas preoperative creatinine concentration, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and target renal artery stenosis >50% did not predict AKI, the occurrence of intraoperative complications did correlate with AKI (37% vs 7.3%; P < .01). By 30 days, AKI resolved in 7 (17%) patients, persisted without need for dialysis in 26 (64%), and progressed to dialysis in 5 (12%); the remaining 3 (7%) patients died. Survival at 30 days was significantly lower in the AKI group (92.7% vs 98.9%; P = .047), and this difference persisted at 1 year (68% vs 87%; log-rank, P <.01) and 3 years (44% vs 60%; log-rank, P = .04). On multivariable modeling, AKI increased the hazard of death nearly twofold (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-3.23; P = .019). Independent predictors of AKI on multivariable logistic regression were intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.61-10.42; P < .01) and increased operating room time (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.22-2.00; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In our 8-year experience of F/BEVAR, AKI was the most common postoperative complication observed in nearly 20% of patients. AKI after F/BEVAR is associated with decreased short- and long-term survival. Whether AKI is causative or just associated with decreased survival remains to be elucidated. Further study is needed to determine whether the independent predictors of AKI, including intraoperative complications and operating room time, are generalizable across all centers performing F/BEVAR and to investigate how we might further mitigate this common and serious complication.

Assessment of the Accuracy and Reliability of Vascular Surgery Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Health care quality metrics are crucial to medical institutions, payers, and patients. Obtaining current and reliable quality data is challenging, as publicly reported databases lag by several years. Vizient Clinical Data Base (previously University Health Consortium) is utilized by over 5,000 academic and community medical centers to benchmark health care metrics with results based on predetermined Vizient service lines. We sought to assess the accuracy and reliability of vascular surgery service line metrics, as determined by Vizient. METHODS: Vizient utilizes encounter data submitted by participating medical centers and generates a diverse array of health care metrics ranging from mortality to costs. All inpatient cases captured by Vizient under the vascular surgery service line were identified at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (fiscal year 2016). Each case within the service line was reviewed and categorized as "vascular" or "nonvascular" based on care provided by UMass vascular surgery faculty: vascular = vascular surgery was integral part of care, nonvascular = vascular surgery had minimal or no involvement. Statistical analysis comparing length of stay (LOS), cost, readmission, mortality, and complication rates between vascular and nonvascular cohorts was performed. All inpatient cases discharged by a vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier number were also reviewed and categorized according to Vizient service lines. RESULTS: Vizient's vascular surgery service line identified 696 cases, of which 556 (80%) were vascular and 140 (20%) were nonvascular. When comparing these 2 cohorts, vascular cases had a significantly lower LOS (3.4 vs. 8.7 days; P < 0.0001), cost ($8,535 vs. $16,498; P < 0.0001), and complication rate (6.5% vs. 18%; P < 0.0001) than nonvascular. Mortality was also lower (1.6% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01), but after risk-adjustment, this difference was not significant. When discharging vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier was used to identify vascular surgery cases, only 69% of these cases were placed within the vascular surgery service line. CONCLUSIONS: Health care quality metrics play an important role for all stakeholders but obtaining accurate and reliable data to implement improvements is challenging. In this single institution experience, inpatient cases that were not under the direction or care of a vascular surgeon resulted in significantly negative impacts on LOS, cost, complication rate, and mortality to the vascular surgery service line, as defined by a national clinical database. Therefore, clinicians must understand the data abstracting and reporting process before implementing effective strategic plans.

Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using a Supraceliac Aortic Proximal Seal Zone Versus an Infraceliac Aortic Proximal Seal Zone.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) achieves more extensive proximal seal than conventional infrarenal devices, thereby increasing aneurysm exclusion durability. Optimal seal zone length remains undefined. We assessed relative risks and benefits of extending the proximal seal above the celiac artery. METHODS: The prospective database of all complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs at a single institution (institutional review board-approved, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial, 10/2010-6/2017) was used to classify repairs according to the number of target visceral-renal arteries incorporated: 4-vessel versus <4-vessel. Comparisons of aneurysm characteristics, perioperative details, and postoperative complications were performed, stratified by repair type. One-year survival, target artery patency, freedom from type 1 or 3 endoleak, and freedom from reintervention were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 175 F/B-EVARs, 38% (n = 67) were 4-vessel and 62% (n = 108) were <4-vessel. Intraoperatively, there was no difference in mean contrast use (76 mL vs. 74 mL, P = non significant [NS]) or dose area product (63,428 mGy cm2 vs. 96,015 mGy cm2), but there was increased median procedure time (4.8 hr, interquartile range [IQR] = 4.1-5.8 versus 3.6 hr, IQR = 2.9-4.1, P < 0.0001) and mean operating room direct costs ($52,532, standard deviation [SD] = 18,640 versus $40,128, SD = 15,135, P < 0.0001) in 4-vessel repairs. There were no differences in mortality (1.9% vs. 4.5%), paraparesis (0% vs. 3.0%), or paralysis (0.9% vs. 0%), all P = NS. There were no differences in one-year survival, target artery patency, or freedom from reintervention. There was a lower 1-year freedom from type 1 or 3 endoleak with 4-vessel repairs (82% vs. 94%, log-rank P = 0.02), driven by an increased rate of type 3 endoleaks. Endoleak resolution after treatment was equivalent in both groups (4-vessel, 10 of 12, 83% resolved; <4-vessel, 7 of 7, 100% resolved, P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: With F/B-EVAR, utilization of a supraceliac seal zone, compared with an infraceliac seal zone, is associated with statistical differences in operative characteristics/resource utilization, but with negligible clinical significance. Further innovation to eliminate type 3 endoleaks at fenestrations/branches remains an unmet need. To achieve adequate F/B-EVAR proximal seal zone length, one should have a low threshold to incorporate the celiac artery.

Carotid Duplex Velocity Criteria Recommended by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Endorsed by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Lack Predictive Ability for Identifying High-Grade Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid duplex is the first-line imaging modality for characterizing degree of carotid stenosis. The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC), in published guideline documents, has endorsed use of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) criteria to characterize ≥70% stenosis: peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥230 cm/s. We sought to perform a validation of the SRU criteria using computed tomography (CT) angiography as a gold standard imaging modality and to perform a sensitivity analysis to determine optimal velocity criteria for identifying ≥80% stenosis. METHODS: We queried all carotid duplex examinations performed at our institution between 2008 and 2017. Patients with ≥70% carotid stenosis, based on previous criteria, were identified. Of these patients, those who also had a CT angiogram of the neck within one year formed the study cohort. Patients who underwent carotid revascularization between the 2 imaging dates were excluded. Degree of stenosis, as reported from the CT angiogram, was considered the true degree of stenosis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate the SRU criteria and to identify the optimal discrimination threshold for high-grade carotid stenosis. RESULTS: Of 37,204 carotid duplex examinations, 3,478 arteries met criteria for ≥70% stenosis. Of these, 344 patients had a CT angiogram within 1 year of the carotid duplex (mean time between studies, 55 days, SD 6.5) and 240 (69.8%) were consistent with ≥80% carotid stenosis. The predictive ability of the SRU criteria to identify ≥70% stenosis was poor, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.51. A sensitivity analysis to identify ≥80% stenosis demonstrated the optimal discrimination threshold to be PSV ≥450 cm/s or end diastolic velocity (EDV) ≥120 cm/s, with an AUC of 0.66. CONCLUSIONS: In this validation study, the SRU criteria, endorsed by the IAC, to identify ≥70% carotid stenosis had no predictive value. For detection of ≥80% stenosis, the optimal criteria are a PSV ≥450 cm/s or EDV ≥120 cm/s. This study demonstrates the critical importance of carotid duplex examination validation.

Peripheral atherectomy practice patterns in the United States from the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral atherectomy has been shown to have technical success in single-arm studies, but clinical advantages over angioplasty and stenting have not been demonstrated, leaving its role unclear. We sought to describe patterns of atherectomy use in a real-world U.S. cohort to understand how it is currently being applied. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried to identify all patients who underwent peripheral vascular intervention from January 2010 to September 2016. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze demographics of the patients, comorbidities, indication, treatment modalities, and lesion characteristics. The intermittent claudication (IC) and critical limb ischemia (CLI) cohorts were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Of 85,605 limbs treated, treatment indication was IC in 51% (n = 43,506) and CLI in 49% (n = 42,099). Atherectomy was used in 15% (n = 13,092) of cases, equivalently for IC (15%; n = 6674) and CLI (15%; n = 6418). There was regional variation in use of atherectomy, ranging from a low of 0% in one region to a high of 32% in another region. During the study period, there was a significant increase in the proportion of cases that used atherectomy (11% in 2010 vs 18% in 2016; P < .0001). Compared with nonatherectomy cases, those with atherectomy use had higher incidence of prior peripheral vascular intervention (IC, 55% vs 43% [P < .0001]; CLI, 47% vs 41% [P < .0001]), greater mean number of arteries treated (IC, 1.8 vs 1.6 [P < .0001]; CLI, 2.1 vs 1.7 [P < .0001]), and lower proportion of prior leg bypass (IC, 10% vs 14% [P < .0001]; CLI, 11% vs 17% [P < .0001]). There was lower incidence of failure to cross the lesion (IC, 1% vs 4% [P < .0001]; CLI, 4% vs 7% [P < .0001]) but higher incidence of distal embolization (IC, 1.9% vs 0.8% [P < .0001]; CLI, 3.0% vs 1.4% [P < .0001]) and, in the CLI cohort, arterial perforation (1.4% vs 1.0%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of evidence for atherectomy over angioplasty and stenting, its use has increased across the United States from 2010 to 2016. It is applied equally to IC and CLI populations, with no identifiable pattern of comorbidities or lesion characteristics, suggesting that indications are not clearly delineated or agreed on. This study places impetus on further understanding of the optimal role for atherectomy and its long-term clinical benefit in the management of peripheral arterial disease.

A physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation results in improved health care documentation, case mix index, and increased contribution margin.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation is the key determinant of inpatient acuity of illness and payer reimbursement. Every inpatient hospitalization is placed into a diagnosis related group with a relative value based on documented procedures, conditions, comorbidities and complications. The Case Mix Index (CMI) is an average of these diagnosis related groups and directly impacts physician profiling, medical center profiling, reimbursement, and quality reporting. We hypothesize that a focused, physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation of vascular surgery inpatients results in increased CMI and contribution margin. METHODS: A physician-led coding initiative to educate physicians on the documentation of comorbidities and conditions was initiated with concurrent chart review sessions with coding specialists for 3 months, and then as needed, after the creation of a vascular surgery documentation guide. Clinical documentation and billing for all carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and open infrainguinal procedures (OIPs) performed between January 2013 and July 2016 were stratified into precoding and postcoding initiative groups. Age, duration of stay, direct costs, actual reimbursements, contribution margin (CM), CMI, rate of complication or comorbidity, major complication or comorbidity, severity of illness, and risk of mortality assigned to each discharge were abstracted. Data were compared over time by standardizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) values for each diagnosis related group and using a CMS base rate reimbursement. RESULTS: Among 458 CEA admissions, postcoding initiative CEA patients (n = 253) had a significantly higher CMI (1.36 vs 1.25; P = .03), CM ($7859 vs $6650; P = .048), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($8955 vs $8258; P = .03) than precoding initiative CEA patients (n = 205). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (43% vs 27%; P < .01). Among 504 OIPs, postcoding initiative patients (n = 227) had a significantly higher CMI (2.23 vs 2.05; P < .01), actual reimbursement ($23,203 vs $19,909; P < .01), CM ($12,165 vs $8840; P < .01), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($14,649 vs $13,496; P < .01) than precoding initiative patients (n = 277). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (61% vs 43%; P < .01). For both CEA and OIPs, there were no differences in age, duration of stay, total direct costs, or primary insurance status between the precoding and postcoding patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and detailed clinical documentation is required for key stakeholders to characterize the acuity of inpatient admissions and ensure appropriate reimbursement; it is also a key component of risk-adjustment methods for assessing quality of care. A physician-led documentation initiative significantly increased CMI and CM.

Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using physician-modified endovascular grafts versus company-manufactured devices.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endografts are customized, patient-specific endovascular devices with potential to reduce morbidity and mortality of complex aortic aneurysm repair. With approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, our center began performing fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair through a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (IDE #G130210), using both physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) and company-manufactured devices (CMDs). Because these techniques are associated with specific advantages and disadvantages, we sought to investigate differences in outcomes between PMEG and CMD cases. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of all fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repairs was performed. The cohort was analyzed by device type (PMEG or CMD) after matching of cases on the basis of (1) number of target vessels intended for treatment, (2) extent of aneurysm, (3) aneurysm diameter, (4) device configuration, and (5) date of operation. Outcomes of ruptures, common iliac artery aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms were excluded. Demographics, operative details, perioperative complications, length of stay, and reinterventions were compared. For patients with >1 year of follow-up time, survival, type I or type III endoleak rate, target artery patency, and reintervention rate were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Between November 30, 2010, and July 30, 2016, 82 patients were identified and matched. The cohort included 41 PMEG and 41 CMD patients who underwent repair of 38 juxtarenal (PMEG, 17; CMD, 21; P = .38), 14 pararenal (PMEG, 6; CMD, 8; P = .56), and 30 thoracoabdominal type I to type IV (PMEG, 18; CMD, 12; P = .17) aneurysms. There were significant differences in presentation requiring urgent aneurysm repair (PMEG, 9; CMD, 0; P = .002), total fluoroscopy time (PMEG, 76 minutes; CMD, 61 minutes; P = .02), volume of contrast material used (PMEG, 88 mL; CMD, 70 mL; P = .02), in-operating room to out-of-operating room time (PMEG, 391 minutes; CMD, 319 minutes; P = .001), incision to surgery end time (PMEG, 276 minutes; CMD, 224 minutes; P = .002), and 1-year reintervention rate (PMEG, 37%; CMD, 13%; log-rank P = .04). No differences in perioperative complications, overall length of stay, type I or type III endoleak, or survival were observed between PMEG and CMD. For the entire cohort including both PMEG and CMD, the overall rate of any 30-day postoperative complication was 39%, and the Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at 1 year was 86%. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-institution experience of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair, the primary differences between PMEG and CMD related only to operative metrics and the need for postoperative reinterventions. No statistically significant advantage was found for one approach over the other; we therefore cannot conclude that one approach is better than the other. Both remain viable options that may compare favorably with open repair of complex aortic aneurysms. Further studies are necessary to determine whether this relative equivalence represents a type II error or lack of long-term durability data or whether true equivalence between PMEG and CMD approaches exists.

Reinterventions after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Reinterventions after fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) are sometimes necessary to maintain aneurysm exclusion or endograft and target artery patency. These reinterventions are nontrivial, potentially associated with morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. Whereas rates, types, and outcomes of reintervention after infrarenal EVAR have been well described, they have not been well described for F/B-EVAR. We sought to characterize the morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization due to reinterventions after F/B-EVAR. METHODS: All F/B-EVAR variables collected prospectively through a single-institution, Institutional Review Board-approved registry, which included patients enrolled in a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial (G130210), were reviewed (November 2010-December 2016). Reinterventions were defined as any procedure that was aneurysm related, device related, or target artery related. For patients with more than one reintervention, each intervention occurrence was treated as a discrete event. Reintervention type, indication, timing (perioperative, days 0-30; short term, days 31-180; midterm, >180 days), inpatient/outpatient, length of stay, and morbidity/mortality were recorded. Reintervention success was defined as resolution of the indication. RESULTS: Among 123 consecutive F/B-EVARs (mean follow-up, 25 months), 32 patients (25%) underwent 54 reinterventions (one reintervention, 20 (63%) patients; two reinterventions, 6 (19%) patients; three reinterventions, 4 (13%) patients; four reinterventions, 1 (3.1%) patient; and six reinterventions, 1 (3.1%) patient). The most frequent indications were type III endoleaks (n = 15 [28%]), target artery occlusions (n = 7 [13%]), and stenoses (n = 6 [11%]). These were performed in the perioperative, short-term, and midterm time frames 17%, 41%, and 43% of the time, respectively. Reinterventions were percutaneous (67%), inpatient procedures (61%), with median length of stay of 5 days. Of the 32 reintervention patients, 4 experienced access site complications and 4 died <30 days after reintervention (3 were adjudicated as not aneurysm related/not reintervention related). In 31 of 32 (97%) patients, reintervention success was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Reinterventions after F/B-EVAR were necessary in 26% of patients, most commonly for type III endoleaks and target artery complications. Whereas all but one reintervention was successful, many of these required complex procedures with significant morbidity and mortality. Development of strategies to eliminate type III endoleaks by improving component junction integrity and to ensure target artery primary patency are key next steps in the evolution of F/B-EVAR.

Increasing the number of integrated vascular surgery residency positions is important to address the impending shortage of vascular surgeons in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for vascular surgeons is expected to far exceed the current supply. In an attempt to decrease the training duration and to address the impending shortage, integrated vascular surgery residencies were approved and have expanded nationally. Meanwhile, vascular fellowships have continued to matriculate approximately 120 trainees annually. We sought to evaluate the supply and demand for integrated vascular residency positions as well as changes in the quality of applicants. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of national data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program regarding integrated vascular surgery residency programs (2008-2015) and fellowships (2007-2016). Variables reviewed included the total number of applicants, sex, U.S. vs international medical school enrollment, applications per program, and applicants per position. In addition, we conducted a retrospective review of applicants to the University of Massachusetts Medical School integrated vascular surgery residency program from 2008 to 2015 to examine these variables and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores over time. RESULTS: The number of vascular surgery integrated residency positions increased from 4 in 2008 to 56 in 2015. Concurrently, the number of integrated residency applicants grew from 112 in 2008 to 434 in 2015. This increase has been predominantly driven by a 575% increase in U.S. graduate applicants and a 170% increase in women applicants. The percentage of international medical graduates has decreased by 17% during the study period. The total number of applicants per residency position increased from 5.9 to 7.8. Meanwhile, the number of vascular surgery fellowship positions remained stable with an applicant to position ratio near 1:1. At the University of Massachusetts Medical School, the mean United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 (226 to 235) and Step 2 CK (237 to 243) scores among integrated residency applicants have improved annually and typically exceed the national average among U.S. applicants who have matched in their preferred specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Since the approval of a primary certificate in vascular surgery and the subsequent rollout of integrated vascular residency programs, the number of residency programs and the quality of residency applicants have continued to increase. Demand from medical school applicants vastly outweighs the current supply of training positions by eightfold. In contrast, demand from fellowship applicants matches the supply of fellowship positions. The matriculation of additional trainees must be met with continued expansion of the integrated vascular surgery residency pathway to manage future public health needs.

Outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of infrarenal aortic aneurysms are treated by endovascular repair. However, adoption of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair for complex aortic aneurysms has been limited, despite high morbidity and mortality associated with open repair. There are few published reports of consecutive outcomes, inclusive of all fenestrated and branched endovascular repairs, starting from the inception of a complex aortic aneurysm program. Therefore, we examined a single center's consecutive experience of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study evaluating 30-day and 1-year outcomes in all consecutive patients who underwent fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (definition: requiring one or more fenestrations or branches). Data were collected prospectively through an Institutional Review Board-approved registry and a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption clinical trial (G130210). RESULTS: We performed 100 consecutive complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (November 2010 to March 2016) using 58 (58%) commercially manufactured custom-made devices and 42 (42%) physician-modified devices to treat 4 (4%) common iliac, 42 (42%) juxtarenal, 18 (18%) pararenal, and 36 (36%) thoracoabdominal aneurysms (type I, n = 1; type II, n = 4; type III, n = 12; type IV, n = 18; arch, n = 1). The repairs included 309 fenestrations, branches, and scallops (average of 3.1 branch arteries/case). All patients had 30-day follow-up for 30-day event rates: three (3%) deaths; six (6%) target artery occlusions; five (5%) progressions to dialysis; eight (8%) access complications; one (1%) paraparesis; one (1%) bowel ischemia; and no instances of myocardial infarction, paralysis, or stroke. Of 10 type I or type III endoleaks, 8 resolved (7 with secondary intervention, 1 without intervention). Mean follow-up time was 563 days (interquartile range, 156-862), with three (3%) patients lost to follow-up. On 1-year Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was 87%, freedom from type I or type III endoleak was 97%, target vessel patency was 92%, and freedom from aortic rupture was 100%. Average lengths of intensive care unit stay and inpatient stay were 1.4 days (standard deviation, 3.3) and 3.6 days (standard deviation, 3.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that complex aortic aneurysms can now be treated with minimally invasive fenestrated and branched endovascular repair. Endovascular technologies will likely continue to play an increasingly important role in the management of patients with complex aortic aneurysm disease.

Trends in use of the only Food and Drug Administration-approved commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair device in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endografts are customized, patient-specific, endovascular devices with potential to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality of short-neck infrarenal and juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft (ZFEN) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), Food and Drug Administration-approved in 2012, remains the only fenestrated device available in the United States. This technology is among the most technically complex catheter-based procedures and, therefore, inherently associated with serious risk for device-related complications. We sought to define patterns of physician and hospital adoption of ZFEN. METHODS: Deidentified datasets containing numbers of physicians trained, orders by physicians and hospitals, and designs (fenestration/scallop configuration) was provided for U.S. ZFEN devices ordered (April 2012-August 2015). We evaluated the number of physicians trained, the number of devices ordered, hospital characteristics, and fenestration/scallop design configurations. Cook Medical assembled the datasets but played no role in study design, analysis, or interpretation of data. RESULTS: Between April 2012 and August 2015, 553 physicians attended formal ZFEN training sessions, 388 (70%) of whom ordered a total of 2669 devices. An increase in orders per month (nine in June 2012 and 91 in August 2015, 911% growth; P < .001) and in number of physicians ordering per month (eight in June 2012 and 62 in August 2015, 675% growth; P < .001) was observed. Teaching hospitals, representing all U.S. regions (Midwest 927, 35%; South 799, 30%; Northeast 547, 20%; West 396, 15%), accounted for 1703 (64%) ZFEN orders. Of 553 trained physicians, 165 (30%) ordered no devices, 116 (21%) ordered 1 device, 144 (26%) ordered 2-5 devices, 61 (11%) ordered 6-10 devices, 39 (7%) ordered 11-20, and 28 (5%) ordered >20 devices. For physicians contributing >6 months of data (n = 336), the average number of devices ordered per year was three (standard deviation, 4); 272 (81%) ordered ≤ 5 devices/year, 15 (4.5%) ordered 11-20 devices/year, and 3 (0.9%) ordered >20 devices/year. Of devices with design details available (2618 of 2669; 98%), most common designs were 2 small fenestrations/1 scallop (1443; 55%), 2 small fenestrations/1 large fenestration (568; 22%), 1 small fenestration/1 scallop (173, 6.6%), and 2 small fenestrations (169; 6.5%). The average number of target vessels incorporated in each design was 2.7/device; 2071 (79%) incorporated three, 398 (15%) incorporated two. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2012, ZFEN has demonstrated a ninefold increase in monthly orders, with 553 physicians trained. Unlike the experience of rapid dissemination seen with infrarenal endografts, only 28 (5%) physicians have ordered >20, whereas 165 (30%) have ordered none, and 272 (81%) ordered ≤ 5 devices/year. Assuming that volume, in general, correlates with outcomes, this adoption pattern raises questions whether fenestrated technology should be regionalized to high-volume centers.