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

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

Long-term value in open and endovascular repair of chronic mesenteric ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend open revascularization (OR) over endovascular revascularization (ER) for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) for younger, healthier patients. However, little is known about the long-term costs of these recommendations with respect to patients' overall life expectancy. This study investigated whether 5-year value differs between these treatment modalities. METHODS: Patient data were extracted from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, the New York statewide all-payor database containing demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and charges. The database was queried for patients with an International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, code for CMI, with the specific exclusion of acute ischemia cases. A propensity score match was performed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, race, renal status, and pulmonary disease for the final cohort of patients. Multiple linear regression and mixed effects linear regression were used to determine factors associated with 5-year value, calculated as life-years/$100k in charges. Charges were gathered from the index admission and subsequent admissions for acute or CMI, mesenteric angiography, or follow-up reintervention. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for survival and reintervention-free survival. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2014, 875 patients underwent intervention for CMI. Of those meeting inclusion criteria, 209 (28.1%) underwent OR and 535 (71.9%) ER. After propensity score matching (n = 209 in each group), the ER group showed higher value at 5 years after the procedure (8.04 ± 11.42 life-years/$100k charges vs 4.89 ± 5.28 life-years/$100k charges; P < .01). More patients underwent reintervention in the ER group (37 patients vs 17 patients; P < .01), with 55 reinterventions in the ER group and 19 in the OR group (P < .01). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia, cancer, and days spent in the intensive care unit were negatively associated with value at 5 years, whereas ER was positively associated. Survival was 59.6 ± 3.76% vs 62.3% ± 3.49% at 5 years (P = .91), and reintervention-free survival was 43.7 ± 3.86% vs 58.1 ± 3.53% (P = .04), for ER and OR respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased reinterventions and lower reintervention-free survival, the value for patients with CMI was higher in those who underwent ER in the largest propensity score-matched cohort to date looking at long-term value. Factors negatively associated with value were OR, age, days in intensive care, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia, and cancer. In patients with amenable anatomy, ER is validated as the first-choice treatment for CMI based on the superior procedural value.

Implementation of a vascular acute care surgery service model is associated with decreased surgeon burnout.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgeons have one of the highest rates of burnout among surgical specialties, often attributed to high patient acuity and clinical workload. Acute Care Surgery models are a potential solution used among general and trauma surgeons. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education survey results from faculty and residents before and after implementation of a vascular Acute Care Surgery (VACS) model. The VACS model assigns a weekly rotation of an attending surgeon with no elective cases or clinic responsibilities and a monthly rotating resident team. Residents and attendings are in-house to cover all urgent and emergent vascular daytime consultations and procedures, whereas nights and weekend coverage remain a typical rotating schedule. Survey question results were binned into domains consistent with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Both residents and faculty reported an increase in median scores in Maslach Burnout Inventory domains of emotional exhaustion (Faculty: 2.9 vs 3.4; P < .001; Residents: 3.1 vs 3.6; P < .001) and faculty reported higher personal accomplishment scores (Faculty: 3.3 vs 3.8; P = .005) after the VACS model implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A VACS model is a tangible practice change that can address a major problem for current vascular surgeons, as it is associated with decreased burnout for faculty and residents through improvement in both emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment. Improved longitudinal assessment of resident and faculty burnout is needed and future work should identify specific practice patterns related to decreased burnout.

Implementation of a vascular acute care surgery model is associated with improved surgeon efficiency and 2-year mortality after lower extremity intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgeons work long, unpredictable hours with repeated exposure to high-stress situations. Inspired by general surgery acute care surgery models, we sought to organize the care of vascular emergencies with the implementation of a vascular acute care surgery (VACS) model. Within this model, a surgeon is in-house without elective cases and assigned for consultations and urgent operative cases on a weekly basis. This study examined the impact of a VACS model on postoperative mortality and surgeon efficiency. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of institutional Vascular Quality Initiative data from July 2014 to July 2023. Patients undergoing lower extremity bypass, peripheral vascular intervention, or amputation were included. There was a washout period from January 2020 to January 2022 to account for COVID-19 pandemic practice abnormalities. Patients were separated into pre- or post-VACS groups. The primary clinical outcomes were 30-day and 2-year mortality. Secondary clinical outcomes included 30-day complications and 30-day and 1-year major adverse limb events (MALE). Separate analyses of operating room data from July 2017 to February 2024 and fiscal data from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2024 were conducted. A washout period from January 2020 to January 2022 was applied. Efficiency outcomes included monthly relative value units (RVUs) per clinical fraction full-time equivalent (cFTE) and daytime (0730-1700, Monday-Friday) operating room minutes. Patient factors and operative efficiency were compared using appropriate statistical tests. Regression modeling was performed for the primary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 972 and 257 patients in the pre- and post-VACS groups, respectively. Pre-VACS patients were younger (66.8 ± 12.0 vs 68.7 ± 12.7 years; P = .03) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (34.6% vs 14.8%; P < .01), hypertension (88.4% vs 82.2%; P = .01), and tobacco history (84.4% vs 78.2%; P = .02). Thirty-day mortality (2.4% pre-vs 0.8% post-VACS; P = .18) and Kaplan-Meier estimation of 2-year mortality remained stable after VACS (P = .07). VACS implementation was not associated with 30-day mortality but was associated with lower 2-year mortality hazard on multivariable Cox regression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.9; P = .01). Operative efficiency improved post-VACS (median, 850.0; interquartile range [IQR], 765.7-916.3 vs median, 918.0; IQR, 881.0-951.1 RVU/cFTE-month; P = .03). Daytime operating minutes increased (469.1 ± 287.5 vs 908.2 ± 386.2 minutes; P < .01), whereas non-daytime minutes (420.0; IQR, 266.0-654.0 vs 469.5; IQR, 242.0-738.3 minutes; P = .40) and weekend minutes (129.0; IQR, 0.0-298.0 vs 113.5; IQR, 0.0-279.5 minutes; P = .59) remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: A VACS model leads to improvement in surgeon operative efficiency while maintaining patient safety. The adoption of a vascular acute care model has a positive impact on the delivery of comprehensive vascular care.

Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM). RESULTS: Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

TREO Aortic Endograft Demonstrates Superior Aneurysmal Sac Regression Over Mid-Term Follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Aneurysmal sac regression is a predictor of long-term outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aimed to compare a large cohort of TREO and non-TREO endografts over a mid-term follow-up and compare abdominal aortic aneurysm sac regression. The hypothesis was that TREO endografts have an increased sac regression by 24 mo. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of all EVARs completed at a single institution between 2015 and 2024. Clinical and imaging data were collected from an institutional database and patients' records. The analysis included all TREO and age, sex, anticoagulation use and current smoking-matched non-TREO endografts that satisfied anatomic indications for use of the TREO graft. The primary outcomes were sac regression at 12 and 24 mo, and secondary outcomes were rates of mortality, endoleak, and reintervention. RESULTS: Twenty-one TREO grafts were matched to 68 non-TREO grafts. The groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative anatomy. Preoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm sac size was larger in the TREO cohort. The mean reduction in sac size in mm was greater in the TREO cohort compared to the non-TREO cohort (-12.6 ± 8.95 versus -7.83 ± 7.74 mm, P = 0.039) over the study period. Cox regression analysis identified the TREO stent graft to be associated with 1-y sac regression (hazard ratio = 2.42, P = 0.019). The incidence of all-cause endoleaks, reintervention, and mortality were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the TREO endograft offers better mid-term outcomes with respect to sac regression with no differences in the incidence of endoleak, mortality, or reintervention.

Locoregional Anesthesia's Association With Reduced Intensive Care Unit Stay After Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Impact of Temporal Changes in Practice Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed via local anesthetics and/or regional (epidural or spinal) anesthesia (locoregional [LR]), versus general anesthesia (GA), conferring reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. Current analyses fail to account for temporal changes in vascular practice. Therefore, this study aimed to confirm reductions in ICU and hospital stays among LR patients while accounting for changes in practice patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Quality Initiative, elective EVARs from August 2003 to June 2021 were grouped into LR or GA. Outcomes included ICU admission and prolonged hospital stay (>2 d). Procedures were stratified into groups of 2 y periods, and outcomes were analyzed within each time period. Univariable and multivariate analyses were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: LR was associated with reduced ICU admissions (22.3% versus 32.1%, P < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stays (14.3% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001) overall. When stratified by year, LR maintained its association with reduced ICU admissions in 2014-2015 (21.8% versus 34.0%, P < 0.001), 2016-2017 (23.6% versus 31.6%, P < 0.001), 2018-2019 (18.5% versus 30.2%, P < 0.001), and 2020-2021 (15.8% versus 28.8%, P < 0.001), although this was highly facility dependent. LR was associated with fewer prolonged hospital stays in 2014-2015 (15.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.001) and 2016-2017 (13.3% versus 16.6%, P = 0.006) but not after 2017. CONCLUSIONS: GA and LR have similar rates of prolonged hospital stays after 2017, while LR anesthesia was associated with reduced rates of ICU admissions, although this is facility-dependent, providing a potential avenue for resource preservation in patients suitable for LR.

Locoregional anesthesia is associated with reduced hospital stay and need for intensive care unit care of elective endovascular aneurysm repair patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: It has been shown local or regional anesthetic techniques are a feasible alternative to general anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, studies to date have shown controversial findings with respect to the benefit of locoregional anesthesia (LR) in the elective setting. The objective of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes between LR and general anesthesia (GA) in the setting of elective EVAR, using a large, multicenter database. METHODS: Using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database, we retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent elective EVAR from August 2003 to June 2021. Patients were grouped by anesthetic type based on the level of consciousness afforded by the anesthetic: local or regional anesthesia (LR) vs GA. Primary outcomes were total postoperative hospital length-of-stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. Propensity score matching was used for risk adjustment and to analyze the primary outcomes with confirmatory analysis using logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, in single and multilevel models. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, postoperative outcomes, operative time, fluoroscopy time, and reoperation rate. These were analyzed following propensity score matching as well as using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression in single and multilevel models, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 50,809 patients underwent elective EVAR from 2003 to 2021. Of these, 4302 repairs used LR (8.5%) and 46,507 (91.5%) were performed under GA. After employing propensity score matching, two groups of 3027 patients were produced. These showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.22; P = .53), 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.06; P = .62), or any postoperative outcomes. LR was found to be significantly associated with shorter hospital stays (≤2 days) (12.5% vs 14.8%; P = .01), decreased ICU utilization (19.3% vs 30.6%; P < .001), decreased operative time (110.8 vs 117.3 minutes; P < .001), decreased fluoroscopy time (21.0 vs 22.7 minutes; P < .001), and a slight reduction in reoperation rate (1.2% vs 1.9%; P = .02), which all remained significant following single-level and multilevel multivariate analyses accounting for hospital and physician random effects. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that LR anesthesia is safe and may offer advantages in reducing resource utilization for patients undergoing elective EVAR, primarily based on associations with reduced ICU care and reduced hospital stay. Given these findings, LR may prove an advantageous technique in appropriately selected patient populations.

Impact of calcified plaque volume on technical and 3-year outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify the percent calcification within carotid artery plaques and assess its impact on percent residual stenosis and rate of restenosis in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected institutional Vascular Quality Initiative data was performed to identify all patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization from December 2015 to June 2021 (n = 210). Patient and lesion characteristics were extracted. Using a semiautomated workflow, preoperative computed tomography head and neck angiograms were analyzed to determine the calcified plaque volume in distal common carotid artery and internal carotid artery plaques. Intraoperative digital subtraction angiograms were reviewed to calculate the percent residual stenosis post-intervention according to North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. Peak systolic velocity and end-diastolic velocity were extracted from outpatient carotid duplex ultrasound examinations. Univariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the relationship of calcium volume percent and Vascular Quality Initiative lesion calcification to percent residual stenosis in completion angiograms. Kaplan-Meier analysis examined the relationship between calcium volume percent and in-stent stenosis over 36 months. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven carotid arteries were preliminarily examined. Predilation was performed in 87.4% of cases with a mean balloon diameter of 5.1 ± 0.7 mm and a mean stent diameter was 8.8 ± 1.1 mm. The mean calcium volume percent was 11.9 ± 12.4% and the mean percent residual stenosis was 16.1 ± 15.6%. Univariate logistic regression demonstrated a statistically significant difference between calcium volume percent and percent residual stenosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.324; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.005-1.746; P = .046). Stratified by quartile, only the top 25% of calcified plaques (>18.7% calcification) demonstrated a statistically significant association with higher percent residual stenosis (OR, 2.532; 95% CI, 1.049-6.115; P =.039). There was no statistical significance with lesion calcification (OR, 1.298; 95% C,: 0.980-1.718; P = .069). A Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the rate of in-stent stenosis during a 36-month follow-up for lesions containing >8.2% calcium volume (P = .0069). CONCLUSIONS: A calcium volume percent of >18.7% was associated with a higher percent residual stenosis, and a calcium volume percent of >8.2% was associated with higher in-stent stenosis at 36 months. There was one clinically diagnosed stroke during the follow-up period, demonstrating the overall safety of the procedure.

Use of Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapies with thromboxane inhibitors and adenosine 5'-diphosphate antagonists have been widely used following carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, these therapies may not apply to patients who are intolerant or present acutely. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are a proposed alternative therapy in these patients; however, their use has been limited due to concerns of increased risk for intracranial bleeding. Thus, this study aims to assess the safety profile of GPI in patients undergoing CAS. METHODS: All patients undergoing CAS in the Society of Vascular Surgery - Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2012 to 2021 was included and grouped into GPI versus non-GPI therapy (control). The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)/seizure. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (Transcarotid artery revascularization using flow reversal (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting), and stepwise backward logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate major primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 50,628 patients underwent carotid revascularization. Of these, 4.4% of the patients received GPI. Mean age was similar between control versus GPI (71.35(9.67) vs. 71.36(10.20) years). Compared to the control group, patients who receive GPI are less likely to be on optimal medical therapy, including aspirin (83.0% vs. 88.1%), P2Y12 inhibitor (73.0% vs. 82.7%), and statin (82.3% vs. 86.0%) (All P < 0.05). In addition, patients in the GPI group were more likely to undergo TCAR for carotid revascularization (52.2% vs. 48.4%) for emergent/urgent (29.4% vs. 16.8%) and symptomatic indications (55.5% vs. 49.7%) (All P < 0.001). After stratifying by surgical approach, if patients underwent TFCAS and received a GPI, they were at increased odds of developing stroke/death (1.77(1.25-2.51)), death (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.67(1.07-2.61)), stroke/TIA (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 1.65(1.09-2.51)), and ICH/seizure (OR (95% CI): 2.13(1.23-3.68)) (All P < 0.05). No difference was seen in outcomes between the 2 groups if undergoing TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who receive GPI were more likely to be symptomatic at presentation and less likely to be medically optimized before their carotid revascularization. Transfemoral access in patients receiving GPI was associated with increased odds of morbidity and mortality. However, this was not observed if undergoing TCAR. TCAR can be considered for its overall favorable results in high-risk patients who are not medically optimized.

Survival, Reintervention, and Value of Open and Endovascular Repair for Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: There are limited analyses of survival and postoperative outcomes in chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) using data from large cohorts. Current guidelines recommend open repair (OR) for younger, healthier patients when long-term benefits outweigh increased perioperative risks or for poor endovascular repair (ER) candidates. This study investigates whether long-term survival, reintervention, and value differ between these treatment modalities. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on data extracted from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, the New York statewide all-payer database containing demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and charges. Patients were selected for CMI and subsequent ER or OR using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Patients with peripheral arterial disease were excluded to account for ambiguity in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code for angioplasty of noncoronary vessels, which includes angioplasty of upper and lower extremity vessels. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare 1-year and 5-year survival and reintervention between treatment modalities using a propensity-matched cohort. Cox proportional hazards testing was performed to find factors associated with 1-year and 5-year survival and reintervention. Analysis of procedural value was performed using linear regression. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2014, 744 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 209 (28.1%) underwent OR and 535 (71.9%) ER. No difference between propensity-matched groups was found in 1-year (P = 0.46) or 5-year (P = 0.91) survival. Congestive heart failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-4.4; P < 0.01), cancer (HR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.3-5.8; P < 0.01), and dysrhythmia (HR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-2.8; P = 0.02) correlated with 1-year mortality. Cancer (HR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.6-5.5; P < 0.01), congestive heart failure (HR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.5-3.2; P < 0.01), chronic pulmonary disease (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0; P = 0.04), and age (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05; P < 0.01) correlated with 5-year mortality. Treatment modality was not associated with reintervention at 1 year on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.29). However, ER showed increased instances of reintervention at 5 years (P < 0.01). Additionally, ER was associated with an increased 5-year value (0.7 ± 0.9 vs. 0.5 ± 0.5 life years/charges at index admission [$10k], P < 0.01; b coefficient: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.1-0.4, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest retrospective propensity-matched single-study cohort to analyze long-term survival outcomes after intervention for CMI. Long-term mortality was independent of treatment modality and rather was associated with patient comorbidities. Therefore, treatment selection should depend on anatomic considerations and long-term value. ER should be considered over OR in patients with amenable anatomy based on the superior procedural value.

Sarcopenia predicts for long-term survival in patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing operative and nonoperative management.

OBJECTIVE: Sarcopenia, defined as a loss of muscle mass or poor muscle quality, is a syndrome associated with poor surgical outcomes. The prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) is unknown. The present study was designed to define sarcopenia in this patient population and assess its impact on survival among patients who had undergone operative and nonoperative management of TAAAs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with a diagnosis of a TAAA at an academic hospital between 2009 and 2017 who had been selected for operative and nonoperative management. Sarcopenia was identified by measuring the total muscle area on a single axial computed tomography image at the third lumbar vertebra. The muscle areas were normalized by patient height, and cutoff values for sarcopenia were established at the lowest tertile of the normalized total muscle area. Long-term patient survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were identified, of whom 199 had undergone operative management and 96 nonoperative management for TAAAs. The patients selected for nonoperative management were more likely to be women and to have chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, a higher modified frailty index, and a larger aortic diameter. The Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed significantly lower long-term survival for the patients with and without sarcopenia in the operative and nonoperative groups. In Cox regression analyses, sarcopenia was a significant predictor of shorter survival for both operative (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P = .006) and nonoperative (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .05) groups after adjusting for age, race, sex, maximum aortic diameter, modified frailty index, chronic kidney disease, and active smoking. Additionally, age was a significant predictor of shorter survival in the operative group, and smoking and aortic diameter were significant in the nonoperative group. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of patients who had received operative and nonoperative management of TAAAs, the patients with sarcopenia had had significantly lower long-term survival, regardless of whether surgery had been performed. These data suggest that sarcopenia could be used as a predictor of survival for patients with TAAAs and might be useful for risk stratification and decision making in the management of TAAAs.

Factors associated with preference of choice of aortic aneurysm repair in the PReference for Open Versus Endovascular repair of AAA (PROVE-AAA) study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients can choose between open repair and endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the factors associated with patient preference for one repair type over another are not well-characterized. Here we assess the factors associated with preference of choice for open or endovascular AAA repair among veterans exposed to a decision aid to help with choosing surgical treatment. METHODS: Across 12 Veterans Affairs hospitals, veterans received a decision aid covering domains including patient information sources and understanding preference. Veterans were then given a series of surveys at different timepoints examining their preferences for open versus endovascular AAA repair. Questions from the preference survey were used in analyses of patient preference. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with preference for open repair or preference for EVAR. RESULTS: A total of 126 veterans received a decision aid informing them of their treatment choices, after which 121 completed all preference survey questions; five veterans completed only part of the instruments. Overall, veterans who preferred open repair were typically younger (70 years vs 73 years; P = .02), with similar rates of common comorbidities (coronary disease 16% vs 28%; P = .21), and similar aneurysms compared with those who preferred EVAR (6.0 cm vs 5.7 cm; P = .50). Veterans in both preference categories (28% of veterans preferring EVAR, 48% of veterans preferring open repair) reported taking their doctor's advice as the top box response for the single most important factor influencing their decision. When comparing the tradeoff between less invasive surgery and higher risk of long-term complications, more than one-half of veterans preferring EVAR reported invasiveness as more important compared with approximately 1 in 10 of those preferring open repair (53% vs 12%; P < .001). Shorter recovery was an important factor for the EVAR group (74%) and not important in the open repair group (76%) (P = .5). In multivariable analyses, valuing a short hospital stay (odds ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-135.70) and valuing a shorter recovery (odds ratio, 15.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-240.20) were associated with a greater odds of preference for EVAR, whereas finding these characteristics not important was associated with a greater odds of preference for open repair. CONCLUSIONS: When faced with the decision of open repair versus EVAR, veterans who valued a shorter hospital stay and a shorter recovery were more likely to prefer EVAR, whereas those more concerned about long-term complications preferred an open repair. Veterans typically value the advice of their surgeon over their own beliefs and preferences. These findings need to be considered by surgeons as they guide their patients to a shared decision.

Understanding and finding opportunities for inclusive mentorship and sponsorships in vascular surgery.

Deliberate efforts are needed to address the lack of diversity in the vascular surgery workforce and to correct the current scarcity of diversity in vascular surgery leadership. Effective mentorship and sponsorship are crucial for success in academic surgery. In the present report, we have explained the importance of mentorship and sponsorship relationships for surgeons historically underrepresented in medicine, discussed the unique challenges faced by them in academic surgery, and provided a practical framework for fostering intentional and thoughtful mentor and sponsor relationships to nurture their careers.

Patient information sources when facing repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Shared medical decision making is most important when there are competing options for repair such as in treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We sought to understand the sources of patients' pre-existing knowledge about AAA to better inform treating physicians about patients' needs for preoperative counseling. METHODS: We performed a multicenter survey of patients facing AAA repair at 20 Veterans Affairs hospitals across the United States as part of the Preferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of AAA study. A validated survey instrument was administered to examine the sources of information available and commonly used by patients to learn about their repair options. The survey was administered by study personnel before the patient had any interaction with the vascular surgeon because survey data were collected before the vascular clinic visit. RESULTS: Preliminary analysis of data from 99 patients showed that our cohort was primarily male (99%) and elderly (mean age 73 years). Patients commonly had a history of hypertension (86%), prior myocardial infarction (32%), diabetes (32%), and were overweight (58%). Patients arrived at their surgeon's office appointment with limited information. A majority of patients (52%) reported that they had not talked to their primary care physician at all about their options for AAA repair, and one-half (50%) reported that their view of the different surgical options had not been influenced by anyone. Slightly less than one-half of patients reported that they did not receive any information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (41% and 37%, respectively). Few patients indicated using the internet as their main source of information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (10% and 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are commonly referred for AAA repair having little to no information regarding AAA pathology or repair options. Fewer than one in five patients searched the internet or had accessed other sources of information on their own. Most vascular surgeons should assume that patients will present to their first vascular surgery appointment with minimal understanding of the treatment options available to them.

Design of the PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) Trial.

For patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), randomized trials have found endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality than open surgical repair (OSR). However, OSR has fewer long-term aneurysm-related complications, such as endoleak or late rupture. Patients treated with EVAR and OSR have similar survival rates within two years after surgery, and OSR does not require intensive surveillance. Few have examined if patient preferences are aligned with the type of treatment they receive for their AAA. Although many assume that patients may universally prefer the less-invasive nature of EVAR, our preliminary work suggests that patients who value the lower risk of late complications may prefer OSR. In this study, called The PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) trial, we describe a cluster-randomized trial to test if a decision aid can better align patients' preferences and their treatment type for AAA. Patients enrolled in the study are candidates for either endovascular or open repair and are followed up at VA hospitals by vascular surgery teams who regularly perform both types of repair. In Aim 1, we will determine patients' preferences for endovascular or open repair and identify domains associated with each repair type. In Aim 2, we will assess alignment between patients' preferences and the repair type elected and then compare the impact of a decision aid on this alignment between the intervention and control groups. This study will help us to accomplish two goals. First, we will better understand the factors that affect patient preference when choosing between EVAR and OSR. Second, we will better understand if a decision aid can help patients be more likely to receive the treatment strategy they prefer for their AAA. Study enrollment began on June 1, 2017. Between June 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018, we have enrolled 178 of a total goal of 240 veterans from 20 VA medical centers and their vascular surgery teams across the country. We anticipate completing enrollment in PROVE-AAA in June 2019, and study analyses will be performed thereafter.

Feasibility and pilot efficacy of a brief smoking cessation intervention delivered by vascular surgeons in the Vascular Physician Offer and Report (VAPOR) Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study determined the feasibility and potential efficacy of an evidence-based standardized smoking cessation intervention delivered by vascular surgeons to smokers with peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: We performed a cluster-randomized trial of current adult smokers referred to eight vascular surgery practices from September 1, 2014, to July 31, 2015. A three-component smoking cessation intervention (physician advice, nicotine replacement therapy, and telephone-based quitline referral) was compared with usual care. The primary outcome was smoking cessation for 7 days, assessed 3 months after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were patients' nicotine dependence and health expectancies of smoking assessed using Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif). RESULTS: We enrolled 156 patients (65 in four intervention practices, 91 in four control practices), and 141 (90.3%) completed follow-up. Patients in the intervention and control practices were similar in age (mean, 61 years), sex (68% male), cigarettes per day (mean, 14), and prior quit attempts (77%). All three components of the intervention were delivered to 75% of patients in intervention practices vs to 7% of patients at control practices (P < .001). At 3 months, 23 of 57 patients (40.3%) in the intervention group quit smoking (23 of 56 patients quit who completed follow-up, plus 1 death included in the analysis in the denominator as a smoker), and 26 of 84 patients (30.9%) In the control group quit smoking (26 patients of 84 who completed follow-up, including 2 deaths included in the denominator as smokers). This difference (40.3% quit rate in intervention, 31% quit rate in control; P = .250) was not statistically significant in crude analyses (P = .250) or analyses adjusted for clustering (P = .470). Multivariable analysis showed factors associated with smoking cessation were receipt of physician advice (odds ratio for cessation, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.02; P < .002) and nicotine replacement therapy (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.56; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a brief, surgeon-delivered smoking cessation intervention is feasible for patients with peripheral arterial disease. A larger trial will be necessary to determine whether this is effective for smoking cessation.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic appendectomy: a Markov model.

BACKGROUND: Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery performed in the USA. Removal of a non-inflamed appendix during unrelated abdominal surgery (prophylactic or incidental appendectomy) can prevent the downstream risks and costs of appendicitis. It is unknown whether such a strategy could be cost saving for the health system. METHODS: We considered hypothetical patient cohorts of varying ages from 18 to 80, undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal and pelvic procedures. A Markov decision model using cost per life-year as the main outcome measure was constructed to simulate the trade-off between cost and risk of prophylactic appendectomy and the ongoing risk of developing appendicitis, with downstream costs and risks. Rates, probabilities, and costs of disease, treatment, and outcomes by patient age and gender were extracted from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using complications and costs of prophylactic appendectomy. RESULTS: With our base-case assumptions, including added cost of prophylactic appendectomy of $660, we find that prophylactic removal of the appendix is cost saving for males aged 18-27 and females aged 18-28 undergoing elective surgery. The margin of cost savings depends on remaining life-years and increases exponentially with age: a 20-year-old female undergoing elective surgery could save $130 over a lifetime by undergoing prophylactic appendectomy, while a 40-year-old female would lose $130 over a lifetime. When the risk of the prophylactic appendectomy exceeds the risk of laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis or the cost exceeds $1080, it becomes more cost saving to forego the prophylactic procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic appendectomy can be cost saving for patients younger than age thirty undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal and pelvic procedures.

Impact and Duration of Brief Surgeon-Delivered Smoking Cessation Advice on Attitudes Regarding Nicotine Dependence and Tobacco Harms for Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recognized benefits of smoking cessation, many clinicians question if a brief smoking cessation intervention can help dedicated smokers with peripheral arterial disease understand nicotine dependence and harms related to smoking. We investigated the impact and durability of a multimodal smoking cessation intervention on patient attitudes regarding nicotine dependence and the health effects of smoking. METHODS: We conducted a pilot cluster-randomized trial of a brief smoking cessation intervention at 8 vascular surgery practices between September 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015. Compared with control sites, patients at intervention sites received protocolized brief cessation counseling, medications, and referrals to a quitline. After their clinic visit and again at 3 months, participants completed a brief survey about patient attitudes regarding nicotine dependence and the health effects of smoking. Responses to questions were analyzed using chi-squared test and Student's t-test. RESULTS: All trial participants (n = 156) complete the initial survey, and 75 (45%) participants completed the follow-up survey. Intervention and control patients both reported a greater than 30-pack-year history (80% vs. 90%, P = 0.07) and previous failed quit attempts (77% vs. 78%, P = 0.8). Compared with usual care, patients in the intervention group were more likely to describe hearing advice to quit from their surgeon (98% vs. 77%, P < 0.001), and expressed "a lot" or "some" interest in quitting (95.4% vs. 85.7%, P = 0.05). Patients in the intervention group were also more likely to acknowledge their addictive behaviors, consistently scoring higher on question bank items regarding nicotine addiction (52.9 vs. 48.0, P = 0.006) and the negative health effects of smoking (scaled score 56.6 vs. 50.6, P = 0.001). When resurveyed 3 months after intervention, patients in the intervention group had larger declines in nicotine dependence and health effect domains, suggesting durable impact of the intervention on patient attitudes regarding nicotine addiction and smoking harms. CONCLUSIONS: Brief smoking cessation counseling by a vascular surgeon increases patient interest in smoking cessation and awareness of smoking harms, and this effect was durable 3 months after intervention. This evidence suggests that even brief counseling within a surgical clinic has the potential to impact patient desire to quit.