Dual Antiplatelet Alternatives are Associated With Increased Stroke and Death After Transcarotid Revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: To define the risks associated with the replacement of dual antiplatelets for alternate medication regimens. BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for atherosclerotic disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from September 2016 to June 2022 were included. In all, 29,802 TCAR procedures were captured between 2016 and 2022, consisting of 24,651 (82.7%) maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 5151 (17.3%) on alternative regimens. METHODS: Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those on alternative regimens consisting of any combination of single antiplatelet monotherapy and/or anticoagulation. RESULTS: On univariable analysis, patients on alternative medications were more likely to experience in-hospital death, ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, and transient ischemic attacks compared with patients in the DAPT group. The mortality rate was higher at 1 year in the alternative cohort (4.7% vs 7.0%, P <0.01). The use of alternate medication regimens was associated with increased odds of stroke and the composite outcome of in-hospital stroke/death compared with DAPT. There was also a significant association between alternative medication use and increased odds of in-hospital transient ischemic attack, immediate stent occlusion, and return to the operating room. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke between the 2 groups. However, the use of alternate regimens was associated with higher 1-year of mortality after multivariable adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients not maintained on DAPT after TCAR experienced an increased risk of stroke and death in the perioperative and follow-up periods. Increased surgeon vigilance is required to ensure compliance with dual antiplatelets as recommended.

Regional variation in patient selection, practice patterns, and outcomes based on techniques for carotid artery revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Significant regional variation is known with multiple surgical procedures. This study describes regional variation in carotid revascularization within the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: Data from the VQI carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) databases from 2016 to 2021 were used. Nineteen geographic VQI regions were divided into three tertiles based on the average annual volume of carotid procedures performed per region (low-volume: 956 cases [range, 144-1382]; medium-volume: 1533 cases [range, 1432-1589]; and high-volume: 1845 cases [range, 1642-2059]). Patients' characteristics, indications for carotid revascularization, practice patterns, and outcomes (perioperative and 1-year stroke/death) of different revascularization techniques were compared between these regional groups. Regression models that adjust for known risk factors and allow for random effects at the center level were used. RESULTS: CEA was the most common revascularization procedure (>60%) across all regional groups. Significant regional variation was observed in the practice of CEA such as variability in the use of shunting, drain placement, stump pressure and electroencephalogram monitoring, intraoperative protamine, and patch angioplasty. For transfemoral CAS, high-volume regions had a higher proportion of asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (30.5% vs 27.8%) in addition to higher use of local/regional anesthesia (80.4% vs 76.2%), protamine (16.1% vs 11.8%), and completion angiography (81.6% vs 77.6%) during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) compared with low-volume regions. For transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), high-volume regions were less likely to intervene on asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (32.2% vs 35.8%) than low-volume regions. They also had a higher proportion of urgent/emergent procedures (13.6% vs 10.4%) and were more likely to use general anesthesia (92.0% vs 82.1%), completion angiography (67.3% vs 63.0%), and poststent ballooning (48.4% vs 36.8%). For each carotid revascularization technique, no significant differences were noted in perioperative and 1-year outcomes between low-, medium-, and high-volume regions. Finally, there were no significant differences in outcomes between TCAR and CEA across the different regional groups. In all regional groups, TCAR was associated with a 40% reduction in perioperative and 1-year stroke/death compared with TF-CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant variation in clinical practices for the management of carotid disease, no regional variation exists in the overall outcomes of carotid interventions. TCAR and CEA continue to show superior outcomes to TF-CAS across all VQI regional groups.

Anemia is associated with higher mortality and morbidity after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether preoperative anemia is independently associated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) outcomes. Using a national vascular surgery database, we evaluated the associations between preoperative anemia and 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and 1-year survival for patients undergoing TEVAR. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone TEVAR for aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, penetrating aortic ulcer, hematoma, or thrombus between January 2011 and December 2019. We excluded patients with a ruptured aneurysm, traumatic dissection, emergent repair, treated aorta distal to zone 5, polycythemia, transfusion of >4 U of packed red blood cells intraoperatively or postoperatively, and missing data on hemoglobin level or surgical indications. The final study cohort was dichotomized into two groups: normal/mild anemia (women, ≥10 g/dL; men, ≥12 g/dL) and moderate/severe anemia (women, <10 g/dL; male, <12 g/dL). Propensity scores by stratification were used to control for confounding in the analysis of the association between the outcomes of 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and 1-year survival and a binary indicator variable of moderate/severe anemia vs normal/mild anemia. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 1-year survival between the two groups. A Cox regression model was fitted to assess the associations between anemia and survival outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3391 patients were analyzed, 958 (28.3%) of whom had had moderate/severe anemia. After adjustment for multiple clinical factors using propensity score stratification, moderate/severe anemia was associated with a 141% increased odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.05; P = .019), 58% increased odds of any in-hospital complication (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17-2.13; P = .003), 281% increased odds of intraoperative transfusion (aOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.68-5.53; P < .001). In addition, moderate/severe anemia was associated with significantly worse survival within the first year after TEVAR (log-rank P < .001; 1-year survival rate using Kaplan-Meier estimates, 86.4% ± 1.3% standard error vs 92.5% ± 0.6% standard error) and with an increased risk of mortality in the first postoperative year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.82; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: We found that moderate or severe anemia is associated with significantly increased odds of mortality, postoperative complications, and worse 1-year survival after TEVAR. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anemia correction on the outcomes of TEVAR.

Propensity-score-matched analysis of dual antiplatelet treatment and alternative antiplatelet regimens after transcarotid revascularizations.

OBJECTIVE: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continues to be the preferred medication regimen after the placement of a carotid stent using the transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) technique despite a dearth of quality data. Therefore, this investigation was performed to define the risks associated with antiplatelet choice. METHODS: We queried all patients who underwent TCAR captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to June 2022, to determine the association between antiplatelet choice and outcomes. Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those receiving alternative regimens consisting of single antiplatelet, anticoagulation, or a combination of the two. A 1:1 propensity-score match was performed with respect to baseline comorbidities, functional status, anatomic/physiologic risk, medications, and intraoperative characteristics. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 29,802 procedures were included in our study population, with 24,651 (82.7%) receiving DAPT and 5151 (17.3%) receiving an alternative antiplatelet regimen. A propensity-score match with respect to 29 variables generated 4876 unique pairs. Compared with patients on DAPT, in-hospital ipsilateral stroke was significantly higher in patients receiving alternative antiplatelet regimens (1.7% vs 1.1%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.54 [1.10-2.16], P = .01), whereas no statistically significant difference was noted with respect to mortality (0.6% vs 0.5%, 1.35 [0.72-2.54], P = .35). A composite of stroke/death was also more likely in patients receiving an alternative regimen (2.4% vs 1.7%, 1.47 [1.12-1.93], P = .01). Immediate stent thrombosis (2.75 [1.16-6.51]) and a nonsignificant trend toward increased return to the operating room were more common in the alternative patients. Conversely, the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was lower in the alternative regimen group (0.4% vs 0.7%, 0.53 [0.31-0.90], P = .02). At 1 year after the procedure, we observed an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.34 [1.11-1.63], P < .01) but not stroke (0.52 [0.27-0.99], P = .06) in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This propensity-score-matched analysis demonstrates an increased risk of in-hospital stroke and 1-year mortality after TCAR in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen instead of DAPT. Further studies are needed to elucidate the drivers of DAPT failure in patients undergoing TCAR to improve outcomes for carotid stenting patients.

Predictors of 30-Day Stroke and Death After Transcarotid Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Much of the previous robust analyses of the results associated with transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) derives from industry-sponsored trials or the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). This investigation was performed to identify preoperative predictors of 30-day stroke and death using institutional databases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of carotid revascularization databases created at two high-volume TCAR centers and maintained independently of the VQI carotid module between December 2015 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of perioperative (30-day) stroke and death. Univariate regression analyses, followed by multivariate regression analyses, were performed to identify potential predictors of adverse events. RESULTS: During the study period, 750 TCAR procedures were performed at our combined health systems, resulting in 24 (3.2%) individuals who experienced either stroke and/or death in the perioperative period. Of these, we observed nine (1.2%) mortality events and 18 (2.4%) strokes. On univariate analysis, candidate protectors of stroke/death were found to be coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.01; P = 0.05) and protamine reversal (0.51; 0.21-1.21; P = 0.15). Candidate predictors of the primary outcome were anticoagulant usage (3.03; 1.26-7.24; P = 0.01), postprocedural debris in the filter (2.30; 0.97-5.43; P = 0.06), symptomatic carotid lesion (2.03; 0.90-4.50), and cardiac arrhythmia (1.98; 0.80-4.03; P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, two predictors remained, cardiac arrhythmia (4.21; 1.10-16.16; P = 0.04) and symptomatic carotid lesion (14.49; 1.80-116.94; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A symptomatic carotid lesion, and to a lesser extent cardiac arrhythmia, are strong predictors of 30-day stroke/death after TCAR. Surgeons should be cognizant of the increased risk of adverse events in the perioperative period in these patients.

Transcarotid revascularization in obese patients.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive hybrid surgical carotid stenting technique which utilizes cerebral flow reversal as embolic protection during carotid lesion manipulation. This investigation was performed to define the perioperative risks associated with this operation in the obese patient. METHODS: A retrospective review of tandem carotid revascularization databases maintained at two high-volume health systems was performed to capture all TCARs performed between 2015 and 2022. A threshold of body mass index of 35 kg/m2 defined the "obese" patient. Demographics, intraoperative, perioperative, and follow-up characteristics were compared using univariate analysis. RESULTS: We performed 793 TCAR procedures that qualified for study inclusion within the prespecified time. After applying our obesity definition, 129 patients qualified as obese and were compared to the remainder. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics as comparable Charlson Comorbidity Indices were noted between groups; however, obese patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. Intraoperative, case complexity in the obese patients did not seem to be increased, as measured by operative time (68.4 ± 23.0 vs 64.2 ± 25.8 min, p = 0.09), fluoroscopic time (4.9 ± 3.2 vs 4.6 ± 3.6 min, p = 0.38), and estimated blood loss (40.6 ± 49.0 vs 46.6 ± 49.4 min, p = 0.22). Similarly, no disparities were observed with respect to ipsilateral stroke (3.1 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.29), contralateral stroke (0 vs. 0.2%, p > 0.99), death (0 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.61), and stroke/death (3.1 vs. 3.0%, p > 0.99) in the 30-day perioperative period. Both cohorts were followed for approximately 1 year (12.0 ± 13.4 vs 11.6 ± 13.4 months, p = 0.76). During this period, rates of ipsilateral stroke (3.1% vs. 2.7%, p > 0.99), contralateral stroke (1.1 vs. 0.8%, p > 0.99), and death (4.7 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.68) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: TCAR performed in the obese population was not more challenging by intraoperative characteristics and did not result in a statistically higher incidence of adverse events in the perioperative phase.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Urgent, Early, or Late Revascularization for Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advancements in carotid revascularization have produced promising outcomes in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, the optimal timing of revascularization procedures after symptomatic presentation remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within different time intervals after most recent symptoms. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of United States patients in the vascular quality initiative. All carotid revascularizations performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between September 2016 and November 2019 were included. Procedures were categorized as urgent (0-2 days after most recent symptom), early (3-14 days), or late (15-180 days). The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital stroke and death. Secondary outcomes include in-hospital stroke, death, and transient ischemic attacks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 18 643 revascularizations were included: 2006 (10.8%) urgent, 7423 (39.8%) early, and 9214 (49.42%) late. Patients with TFCAS had the highest rates of stroke/death at all timing cohorts (urgent: 4.0% CEA, 6.9% TFCAS, 6.5% TCAR, P=0.018; early: 2.5% CEA, 3.8% TFCAS, 2.9% TCAR, P=0.054; late: 1.6% CEA, 2.8% TFCAS, 2.3% TCAR, P=0.003). TFCAS also had increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with CEA in all 3 groups (urgent adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.9] P=0.03; early aOR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4] P=0.01; and late aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2-3.0] P=0.01). TCAR and CEA had comparable odds of in-hospital stroke/death in all 3 groups (urgent aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-4], P=0.10), (early aOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7], P=0.66), (late aOR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.9-2.3], P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: CEA remains the safest method of revascularization within the urgent period. Among revascularization performed outside of the 48 hours, TCAR and CEA have comparable outcomes.

TransCarotid Revascularization With Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TCAR with flow reversal to the gold standard CEA using data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TCAR is a novel minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients that is associated with significantly lower stroke rates compared with carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach. METHODS: Patients in the United States and Canada who underwent TCAR and CEA for carotid artery stenosis (2016-2019) were included. Propensity scores were calculated based on baseline clinical variables and used to match patients in the 2 treatment groups (n = 6384 each). The primary endpoint was the combined outcome of perioperative stroke and/or death. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between TCAR and CEA in terms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR, 1.6% vs CEA, 1.6%, RR (95% CI): 1.01 (0.77-1.33), P = 0.945], stroke [1.4% vs 1.4%, RR (95% CI): 1.02 (0.76-1.37), P = 0.881], or death [0.4% vs 0.3%, RR (95% CI): 1.14 (0.64-2.02), P = 0.662]. Compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction [0.5% vs 0.9%, RR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.35-0.83), P = 0.005], cranial nerve injury [0.4% vs 2.7%, RR (95% CI): 0.14 (0.08-0.23), P < 0.001], and post-procedural hypertension [13% vs 18.8%, RR (95% CI): 0.69 (0.63-0.76), P < 0.001]. They were also less likely to stay in the hospital for more than 1 day [26.4% vs 30.1%, RR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.82-0.94), P < 0.001]. No significant interaction was observed between procedure and symptomatic status in predicting postoperative outcomes. At 1 year, the incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death was similar between the 2 groups [HR (95% CI): 1.09 (0.87-1.36), P = 0.44]. CONCLUSIONS: This propensity-score matched analysis demonstrated significant reduction in the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury after TCAR compared to CEA, with no differences in the rates of stroke/death.

Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures. RESULTS: A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P = .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .004). At 1 year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P = .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = .027). At 1 year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR.

Anesthetic choice during transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy affects the risk of myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. METHODS: Patients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients.

Frailty as a predictor of outcomes for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: The concept of frailty has been proposed to capture the vulnerability resulting from aging and has been implemented for the prediction of perioperative outcomes. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is considered an appropriate minimally invasive procedure for patients considered to high risk to undergo carotid endarterectomy. Recently, the predictive accuracy for perioperative outcomes using the five-item modified frailty index (5mFI) has been reported to be relatively poor for cardiovascular surgery compared with other surgeries. The effects of functional status and the 5mFI on the outcomes after CAS remain unknown. Thus, in the present study, we investigated the relationship between 5mFI, functional status, and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: All the patients who had undergone CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from November 15, 2016 to December 31, 2018 were included. Good functional status was defined as the ability to perform all predisease activities without restriction using a new variable added to the Vascular Quality Initiative from November 15, 2016 onward. The 5mFI was calculated using functional status and a history of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. The perioperative outcomes included in-hospital stroke or death within 30 days after CAS, a prolonged postoperative stay (≥2 days), and nonhome discharge. The associations between functional status, 5mFI, and perioperative outcomes were examined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for sex, age, race, degree of stenosis, symptomatic status, and the usage of preoperative medications. An analysis stratified by functional status was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 7836 patients, 188 (2.4%) had experienced perioperative stroke or death, 765 (9.8%) had required a nonhome discharge, and 2584 (33.0%) had required a prolonged postoperative stay. A higher (≥0.6 vs <0.6) 5mFI score was associated with greater odds of perioperative stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-5.28; P = .003), non-home discharge (aOR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.89-3.85; P < .001), and a prolonged postoperative length of stay (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.56-2.46; P < .001). For the predictive accuracy of the perioperative outcomes, the 5mFI model had an area under the curve for in-hospital stroke or death, nonhome discharge, and prolonged postoperative length of stay of 0.714, 0.767, and 0.668, respectively. The functional status model was not inferior to the 5mFI model for any of these outcomes. In the subgroup analysis, of the asymptomatic patients, a higher 5mFI score was associated with greater odds of perioperative stroke or death (aOR, 7.08; 95% CI, 2.02-24.48; P = .002), nonhome discharge (aOR, 5.87; 95% CI, 2.45-13.90; P < .001), and a prolonged postoperative stay (aOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.82-3.71; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty, as measured using the 5mFI, and functional status were independent predictors of perioperative stroke or death, nonhome discharge, and an increased length of stay for patients undergoing CAS. These results were greatly pronounced in asymptomatic patients. The results from the present study, thus, caution against the use of CAS for asymptomatic frail patients.

Outcomes of intact thoracic endovascular aortic repair in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a suitable alternative to open aortic surgery especially for older patients with poor general health and functional status. However, data on the benefit of TEVAR in elderly patients are limited. The aim of this study was to use a large national database to compare the outcomes of TEVAR in octogenarians vs nonoctogenarians in the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection. METHODS: All patients who underwent TEVAR for nonruptured thoracic aneurysms or dissection (zones 1-5) between January 2014 and February 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiac adverse events; neurologic events; respiratory complications; new-onset dialysis; leg compartment syndrome; postoperative hematoma in addition to spinal, bowel, arm, and leg emboli/ischemia; and return to the operating room. Outcomes were compared between octogenarians (age ≥80 years) and nonoctogenarians (age <80 years) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 2042 patients were identified, including 390 octogenarians (19.1%). Compared with nonoctogenarians, octogenarians had higher percentages of females (49.5% vs 40.4%; P < .01) and White patients (75.9% vs 68.6%; P < .01) and were more likely to present with thoracic aneurysms (86.2% vs 64.3%; P < .001). They also had larger aortic diameters (maximum diameter, 60.3 ± 15.8 mm vs 53.4 ± 17.4 mm), less proximal disease zones (zone 1, 3.3% vs 5.5%; zone 2, 13.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo the procedure under local/regional anesthesia (5.4% vs 2.4%; P < .01) compared with patients less than 80 years of age. No association was observed between octogenarians and in-hospital mortality after TEVAR for aneurysms (5.1% vs 3.3%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-2.61; P = .33) or dissection (5.6% vs 4.9%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.14-3.32; P = .63). However, for thoracic aneurysm repair, octogenarians had a 44% higher adjusted odds of in-hospital complications (27.4% vs 20.7%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-1.98; P = .03) compared with their younger counterparts. In-hospital complications (27.8% vs 26.2%; P = .79; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.50-2.11; P = .95) were similar in octogenarians undergoing endovascular repair for dissections of the thoracic aorta. Octogenarians were also associated with 1.74 times the mortality hazard compared with nonoctogenarians (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.18-2.58; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is an acceptable treatment option for octogenarians who have aortic arch and descending aortic aneurysms or dissections (zones 1-5). However, in case of aneurysms, they might be at a higher risk of in-hospital complications. Octogenarians also had increased hazard of 1-year mortality; however, the exact cause of this mortality could not be deciphered. Our findings suggest that elderly patients should not be denied TEVAR based on age if they are medically and anatomically fit for this procedure.

Comparison of open- and closed-cell stent design outcomes after carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The association between stent design and outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) has remained controversial. The available data are conflicting regarding the superiority of any specific stent design. The present study investigated the association between cell design and outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) in a real world setting. METHODS: Patients who had undergone CAS with distal embolic protection in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database from 2016 to 2018 were included in the present study. Patients undergoing CAS for trauma or dissection or more than two treated lesions were excluded. We also excluded lesions for which more than two carotid stents had been used and lesions confined to the common or external carotid artery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to compare the outcomes after CAS between the open- and closed-cell stent designs. RESULTS: Of the 2671 CAS procedures included in the present analysis, 1384 (51.8%) had used closed-cell stents and 1287 (48.2%) had used open-cell stents. On univariable analysis, no significant differences were noted between the closed- and open-cell stents in in-hospital mortality (1.8% vs 1.4%; P = .40), stroke (1.8% vs 2.4%; P = .28), and stroke/death (3.3% vs 3.5%; P = .81). After adjusting for potential confounders (ie, age, symptomatic status, previous major amputation, statin and antiplatelet use, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, elective procedures, approach, and post-stent dilatation), no difference was noted in in-hospital stroke/death between the two stent designs (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.74; P = .74). However, the interaction between stent design (open vs closed) and lesion location (bifurcation vs internal carotid artery [ICA]) was statistically significant (P = .02). Closed-cell stents were associated with five times the odds of in-hospital stroke/death when used in carotid artery bifurcation (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.3-22.2; P = .02). However, when the stent was limited to the ICA, no differences were noted (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45; P = .62). One-year follow-up data were available for 19% of patients. No differences in ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year were noted between the open- and closed-cell stents, except when the lesion was located in the carotid bifurcation (hazard ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.4-31.4; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Closed-cell stents were associated with an increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death for carotid bifurcation lesions, which might be related to the relatively lower conformability of closed-cell stents in the tortuous and diameter-mismatched bifurcation anatomy vs the relatively linear uniform diameter of the ICA. Improved follow-up and in-depth analysis of lesion-specific characteristics that might influence the outcomes of these two designs are needed to validate these results.

Outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization with dynamic flow reversal in patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO) are controversial. CCO has been defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a high-risk criterion and is used as an indication for transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the promising outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we aimed to study the perioperative outcomes of TCAR in patients with CCO and to assess the feasibility of TCAR in these high-risk patients. METHODS: All patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent TCAR with flow reversal between September 2016 and May 2019 were included. Patients with trauma, dissection, or more than two treated lesions were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were used to compare the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke or death after TCAR in patients with CCO and those without CCO (patent and <99% stenosis). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative neurologic changes and the individual outcomes of in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction as well as 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 5485 TCAR cases were included, of which 593 (10.8%) had CCO. In patients with CCO, mean flow reversal time was shorter (10.1 ± 6.7 minutes vs 11.1 ± 7.8 minutes; P < .01); intraoperative neurologic changes occurred in 1% of these patients compared with 0.7% of those with patent contralateral carotid arteries (P = .43). On univariable analysis, no significant difference in in-hospital stroke or death was shown between patients with and patients without CCO (1.7% vs 1.5%; P = .65). Similarly, no significant differences were noted between the groups in terms of in-hospital death (0.7% vs 0.4%; P = .27), stroke (1.7% vs 1.2%; P = .32), and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.2% vs 1.8%; P = .53) as well as 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.6%; P = .55). The results remained statistically nonsignificant after adjustment for baseline differences between the groups; the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of in-hospital stroke/death in patients with CCO compared with those with patent contralateral carotid arteries was not significant (OR, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-3.0; P = .40). In symptomatic patients presenting with prior stroke, CCO was associated with significantly higher odds of stroke or death (OR, 4.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-15.4; P = .01) compared with no CCO. On the other hand, in asymptomatic patients, no significant difference in outcomes was observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, TCAR seems to be safe in patients with CCO. Caution should be taken in symptomatic patients with CCO and a history of prior stroke as they might have worse outcomes compared with patients with patent contralateral carotid arteries. Studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to assess the perioperative and long-term outcomes of TCAR in patients with CCO in comparison to other procedures.

Practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoperative completion imaging (completion carotid duplex ultrasound or angiography) to confirm the technical adequacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study was to describe vascular surgeons' practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after CEA and to study the association between completion imaging and postoperative stroke/death and high-grade restenosis (>70%). METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA without concomitant procedures in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018 were included. Surgeons' practice patterns were defined on the basis of the distribution of completion imaging use among annual CEA cases per surgeon. Multivariable and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the association between different practice patterns of completion imaging and perioperative and 1-year outcomes after CEA. RESULTS: Of 98,055 CEA cases, 26,716 (27.3%) were performed with completion imaging. Compared with cases in which completion imaging was not performed, completion imaging was associated with increased rates of immediate re-exploration (3.5% vs 0.9%; odds ratio [OR], 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74-5.38; P < .001), overall return to the operating room (RTOR; 1.6% vs 1.2%; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P < .01), and longer operative time (median [interquartile range], 105 minutes [82-132] vs 119 minutes [92-148]; P < .001). Of 1920 surgeons in our cohort, 45% never performed completion imaging, whereas 26% rarely performed completion imaging (for ≤20% of annual CEA cases), 9.5% performed it selectively (21%-79% of annual CEAs), and 19.6% used completion imaging routinely (≥80% of annual CEAs). Rarely performing completion imaging had higher rates of immediate re-exploration (6.5% vs 0.9%; OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 5.7-9.2; P < .001), in-hospital stroke (4.0% vs 1.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6; P < .001), RTOR for bleeding (1.9% vs 0.9%; aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-2.9; P < .001), and neurologic events (1.5% vs 0.4%; aOR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001) compared with not performing completion imaging. It was also associated with increased stroke/death and repeated revascularization at 30 days and significant restenosis at 1 year. On the other hand, performance of selective and routine completion imaging was associated with increased immediate re-exploration (selective: aOR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.9-5.5; P < .001]; routine: aOR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.5-5.6; P < .001]) without any increase in in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year adverse outcomes compared with cases performed without completion imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of selective or routine completion imaging during CEA is safe and is not associated with increased adverse events compared with not using intraoperative completion imaging. However, rarely performing completion imaging is associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative stroke/death and RTOR, possibly because of unnecessary re-exploration for minor defects. The operator's experience and establishing a criterion for fixing residual defects are important to avoid unnecessary re-exploration.

Black patients have a higher burden of comorbidities but a lower risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in open thoracic aortic aneurysm repair have been well-documented, with Black patients reported to suffer from poor outcomes compared with their White counterparts. It is unclear whether these disparities extend to the less invasive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study aims to examine the clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and 1-year survival of Black vs White patients undergoing TEVAR in a national vascular surgery database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively queried to identify all patients who underwent TEVAR between January 2011 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival after TEVAR. Secondary outcomes included various types of major postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and perioperative complications. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 2669 patients with TEVAR were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative, of whom 648 were Black patients (24.3%). Compared with White patients, Black patients were younger and had a higher burden of comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, dialysis dependence, and anemia. Black patients were more likely to be symptomatic, present with aortic dissection, and undergo urgent or emergent repair. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between Black and White patients (3.4% vs 4.9%; P = .1). After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and operative factors, Black patients were independently associated with a 56% decrease in 30-day mortality risk compared with their White counterparts (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85; P = .01) and not associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.17; P = .42). Black patients also had a significantly better 1-year overall survival (log-rank, P = .024) and were associated with a significantly decreased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P = .01) after adjusting for multiple clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although Black patients carried a higher burden of comorbidities, the racial disparities in perioperative outcomes and 1-year survival do not persist in TEVAR.

Primary mechanism of stroke reduction in transcarotid artery revascularization is dynamic flow reversal.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have suggested that the low risk of stroke and death associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is partially attributable to a robust dynamic flow reversal system and the avoidance of the atherosclerotic aortic arch during stenting. However, the benefits of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection (DEP) in reducing stroke or death in TCAR have not been studied. METHODS: All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) via the transcarotid route with either dynamic flow reversal (TCAR) or DEP (TCAS-DEP) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to November 2019 were analyzed. Both multivariable logistic regression and nearest neighbor propensity score-matched analysis were performed to explore the differences in outcomes between the two procedures. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. The secondary outcomes were stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite of stroke, death, and MI. A secondary analysis was performed to compare transcarotid stenting with DEP vs transfemoral CAS with DEP to evaluate the effects of crossing the aortic arch. RESULTS: A total of 8426 patients were identified (TCAS-DEP, n = 287; 3.4%). TCAR was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 5.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.64; P = .001), stroke (1.4% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P = .002), and stroke/death/MI (2.0% vs 5.2%; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.71; P = .001) compared with TCAS-DEP. Among the 274 pairs of patients identified with propensity score matching, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of stroke/death (1.1% vs 4.7%; risk ratio [RR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .021) and stroke (0.4% vs 4.0%; RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70; P = .006) compared with TCAS-DEP but no differences in stroke/death/MI (1.8% vs 4.7%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-1.02; P = .077). The secondary analysis found no differences in stroke between TCAS-DEP and transfemoral CAS with DEP (4.9% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.36-1.63; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TCAS-DEP, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke or death and stroke. This finding implies that dynamic flow reversal might provide better neuroprotection than does a distal embolic filter in reducing the perioperative risk of stroke. Avoiding the aortic arch did not confer any reduction in the stroke rate. The present findings serve to separate the clinical benefit of dynamic flow reversal from that of avoiding the aortic arch during TCAR.

Effects of timing on in-hospital and one-year outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The current recommendations are to perform carotid endarterectomy within 2 weeks of symptoms for maximum long-term stroke prevention, although urgent carotid endarterectomy within 48 hours has been associated with increased perioperative stroke. With the development and rapid adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we decided to study the effect of timing on the outcomes after TCAR. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was searched for symptomatic patients who had undergone TCAR from September 2016 to November 2019. These patients were stratified by the interval to TCAR after symptom onset: urgent, within 48 hours; early, 3 to 14 days; and late, >14 days. The primary outcome was the in-hospital rate of combined stroke and death (stroke/death), evaluated using logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcome was the 1-year rate of recurrent ipsilateral stroke and mortality, evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2608 symptomatic patients who had undergone TCAR were included. The timing was urgent for 144 patients (5.52%), early for 928 patients (35.58%), and late for 1536 patients (58.90%). Patients undergoing urgent intervention had an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death, which was driven primarily by an increased risk of stroke. No differences were seen for in-hospital death. On adjusted analysis, urgent intervention resulted in a threefold increased risk of stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-6.2; P = .01) and a threefold increased risk of stroke/death (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.4; P = .01) compared with late intervention. Patients undergoing early intervention had comparable risks of stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3; P = .40) and stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.1; P = .48) compared with late intervention. On subset analysis, the type of presenting symptoms was an effect modifier. Patients presenting with stroke and those presenting with transient ischemic attack or amaurosis fugax both had an increased risk of stroke/death when undergoing urgent compared with late TCAR (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.6; P = .04; and OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .03, respectively). However only patients presenting with transient ischemic attack or amaurosis fugax had experienced an increased risk of stroke with urgent compared with late TCAR (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.4-17.5; P < .01). At 1 year of follow-up, no differences were seen in the incidence of recurrent ipsilateral stroke (urgent, 0.7%; early, 0.2%; late, 0.1%; P = .13) or postdischarge mortality (urgent, 0.7%; early, 1.6%; late, 1.8%; P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: We found that TCAR had a reduced incidence of stroke when performed 48 hours after symptom onset. Urgent TCAR within 48 hours of the onset of stroke was associated with a threefold increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death, with no added benefit for ≤1 year after intervention. Further studies are needed on long-term outcomes of TCAR stratified by the timing of the procedure.

Poststent ballooning during transcarotid artery revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Poststent ballooning/angioplasty (post-SB) have been shown to increase the risk of stroke risk after transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the advancement of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic cerebral blood flow reversal, we aimed to study the impact of post-SB during TCAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between September 2016 and May 2019 were included and were divided into three groups: those who received prestent deployment angioplasty only (pre-SB, reference group), those who received poststent deployment ballooning only (post-SB), and those who received both prestent and poststent deployment ballooning (prepost-SB). Patients who did not receive any angioplasty during their procedure (n = 367 [6.7%]) were excluded because these represent a different group of patients with less complex lesions than those requiring angioplasty. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Analysis was performed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 5161 patients undergoing TCAR, 34.7% had pre-SB only, 25% had post-SB only, and 40.3% had both (prepost-SB). No differences in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death were observed among the three groups; in-hospital stroke/death in the pre-SB group was 1.4% (n = 25), post-SB 1.2% (n = 16), and prepost-SB 1.4% (n = 29; P = .92). However, patients undergoing post-SB and prepost-SB had higher rates of in-hospital transient ischemic attacks (TIA) (post-SB, 0.9%; prepost-SB, 1% vs pre-SB, 0.2%, P < .01) and postprocedural hypotension (16.6% and 16.8% vs 13.1%, respectively; P < .001). Post-SB also had longer operative times, as well as flow reversal and fluoroscopy times. On multivariable analysis, no association was seen between post-SB and the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke/death (post-SB odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.73; prepost-SB OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.57-1.70). Similarly, no significant differences were noted in terms of postprocedural hemodynamic instability and 30-day outcomes. However, post-SB and prepost-SB were associated with four times the odds of in-hospital TIA compared with pre-SB alone (post-SB OR, 4.24 [95% CI, 1.51-11.8]; prepost-SB OR, 4.76 [95% CI, 1.53-14.79]; P = .01). Symptomatic patients had higher rates of in-hospital stroke/death compared with their asymptomatic counterparts; however, there was no significant interaction between symptomatic status and ballooning in predicting the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Post-SB was used in 65.3% of TCAR patients. This maneuver seems to be safe without an increase in the odds of postoperative in-hospital stroke/death. However, the increased rates of TIA associated with post-SB requires further investigation.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with In-Hospital Outcomes After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple studies have shown improved outcomes and higher utilization of care with the increase of insurance coverage. This study aims to assess whether Medicaid expansion (ME) has changed the utilization and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. MATERIALS: Data of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2017). METHODS: Interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was utilized to evaluate changes in annual trends of postoperative outcomes after elective AAA repair before and after 2014. We also assessed if these trend changes were significant by comparing the changes in states which adopted ME in 2014 versus nonexpansion states (NME), and conducting a difference-in-difference analysis. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and adverse events (bowel and leg ischemia, cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke and return to the OR). RESULTS: A total of 19,143 procedures were included (Endovascular: 85.8% and open: 14.2%), of which 40.9% were performed in ME States. Compared to preexpansion trends (P1), there was a 2% annual increase in elective AAA repair in ME states (P1: -1.8% versus P2: +0.2%, P< 0.01) with no significant change in NME (P1: +0.3% versus P2: +0.2%, P = 0.97). Among elective cases, annual trends in the use of EVAR increased by 2% in ME states (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.1, 4.1, P = 0.06), compared to a 3% decrease in NME States [95%CI = -5.8, -0.6, P = 0.01) (PMEversusNME < 0.01]. There was no association between ME and in-hospital mortality. Nonetheless, it was associated with a decrease in the annual trends of in-hospital complications (ME: -1.4% (-2.1,-0.8) versus NME: +0.2% (-0.2, +0.8), P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While no association between ME and increased survival was noted in states which adopted ME, there was a significant increase of elective AAA cases and EVAR utilization and a decrease in in-hospital complications in ME States.