Late Referral and Patient Transfer is Associated with Worse Outcomes for Patients Presenting with Initially Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissections.

BACKGROUND: Acute type B aortic dissections (TBADs) can become complicated at any time point, necessitating surgical repair. We sought to investigate the effect of interhospital transfer on the development of delayed complications in acute type B aortic dissection (dcTBAD). METHODS: All patients who presented with acute TBAD to a tertiary aortic center from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. Patients were divided into initially complicated type B aortic dissection (icTBAD) (0-24 hours from symptom onset), dcTBAD (25 hours to 14 days), and uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (ucTBAD) groups. Criteria for complicated dissection were aortic rupture, malperfusion, or rapid aortic growth. Demographics, patient history, the timing of presentation, imaging findings, and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 120 acute TBADs included, 27 (22%) were initially complicated (aortic rupture, n = 9; malperfusion, n = 18). Twenty-one (18%) developed delayed complications (aortic rupture, n = 3; malperfusion, n = 14; rapid growth, n = 4) at a median of 7.0 [4.0, 9.0] days from symptom onset. Seventy-two (60%) remained uncomplicated. Overall, 111 (93%) presented as transfers from outside hospitals (icTBAD, n = 25; dcTBAD, n = 21; ucTBAD, n = 65). Of those, dcTBADs were more likely to have a prolonged delay between presentation to the outside hospital and referral to the tertiary center compared to ucTBADs (median = 1.00 [0.0, 5.0] days delayed vs. 0.00 [0.0, 0.0] days delayed; P < 0.001). Initially uncomplicated patients referred for transfer ≥24 hours from presentation went on to develop dcTBAD more often than those transferred in <24 hours (73% vs 13%; P < 0.001). Of dcTBADs, 38% had no high-risk features on initial imaging. Patients with dcTBAD had significantly longer length of stay (median = 12 vs 7 days; P = 0.006). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in dcTBADs than ucTBADs (9.5% vs 0%; P = 0.047). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between dcTBADs and icTBADs (9.5% vs. 11%; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and consequence of dcTBADsare not insignificant. Late referral and transfer to a tertiary aortic center (≥24 hours from initial presentation) was associated with dcTBADsrequiring surgical intervention. The development of dcTBADwas associated with increased length of stay and increased in-hospital mortality.

Effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm appropriateness dashboard on clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery published abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) practice guidelines in 2003, 2009, and 2018 to improve the management and treatment of AAAs. In 2014, our vascular surgery department implemented a quarterly AAA dashboard (AAAdb) to record the perioperative outcomes and guideline compliance with a focus on intervention appropriateness and procedural follow-up, which supplemented our Vascular Quality Initiative data. From the available reported evidence and expert consensus opinions, nine additional criteria for the appropriate treatment of AAAs <5 cm in women and <5.5 cm in men were noted, when applicable. The purpose of our study was to assess the effects of AAAdb implementation on adherence to society and institutional guidelines, documentation of treatment rationale, and the quality of follow-up. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of elective open and endovascular AAA repair at a single institution from 2010 to 2018. The AAAdb was implemented in the middle of this period in 2014. The patient demographics, aortic size, repair indication, repair type, 30-day mortality, and postoperative and 1-year follow-up imaging findings were analyzed. The primary outcome was adherence to intervention appropriateness and the follow-up guidelines. The categorical factors were summarized using frequencies and percentages and compared using the Pearson χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Continuous measures were summarized using the mean ± standard deviation and compared between study periods using two-sample t tests. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, 1549 patients had undergone elective AAA repair: 657 before and 892 after AAAdb implementation. No differences were found in AAA size after AAAdb (5.6 ± 1.2 cm vs 5.6 ± 1.1 cm; P = .88). However, the proportion of size-appropriate repairs increased (64.1% vs 71.3%; P = .003). The proportion of small AAA repairs with a documented rationale had increased (64.4% vs 80.5%; P < .001), with rapid disease progression cited most often. No difference was found in 30-day mortality (1.2% vs 1.5%; P = .69). Follow-up imaging after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair increased at <60 days postoperatively (76% vs 84%; P = .004) and at 1 year of follow-up (78% vs 86%; P = .0005). The proportion of patients with endoleak at <60 days postoperatively had increased in the post-AAAdb cohort (21% vs 29%; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: The AAAdb served as a centerpiece for improving the appropriateness of care and compliance with national and institutional guidelines, including treatment of small AAAs in special circumstances. Its implementation was associated with higher quality follow-up and surveillance in a high-volume, regional aortic center. Consideration should be given to adding additional criteria to the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines and Vascular Quality Initiative reporting.

Outcomes and role of peripheral revascularization in type A aortic dissection presenting with acute lower extremity ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data exists on management and outcomes of patients presenting with type A aortic dissection (TAAD) and acute lower extremity ischemia (ALI). The role of limb-related revascularization and optimal treatment strategy remains undefined. The objective of this study was to analyze dissection characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes of patients undergoing proximal aortic repair for TAAD with ALI. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent proximal aortic repair for TAAD were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Clinical data, imaging, operative details, and outcomes of patients with TAAD and ALI were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate overall and amputation-free survival. Log-rank tests were used to compare overall curves. Predictors of revascularization and in-hospital mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, 463 patients with TAAD underwent proximal aortic repair. A total of 81 patients (17%) presented with ALI; 48% (39/81) with isolated ALI, and 52% (42/81) with ALI and renovisceral malperfusion. Thirty percent (24/81) required revascularization in addition to proximal aortic repair. Revascularization strategies involved endovascular (46%; 11/24), open (33%; 8/24), and hybrid (21%; 5/24) interventions. The major amputation rate was 4% (3/81), and in-hospital mortality was 21% (17/81). Amputation-free survival was significantly lower in patients requiring revascularization compared with those who did not (log-rank P = .023). Overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (log-rank P = .095). Overall survival was significantly lower in patients with concomitant ALI and renovisceral malperfusion compared with those with isolated ALI (log-rank P = .0017). Distal extent of dissection flap into zone 11 (odds ratio [OR], 5.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-20.2; P = .008) and partial/complete thrombosis of any iliac artery (OR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.23-12.6; P = .021) were associated with increased risk of requiring an additional revascularization procedure. True lumen collapse at level of renovisceral aorta (OR, 8.84; 95% CI, 1.74-44.9; P = .0086) was associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: ALI resolves after proximal aortic repair of TAAD in most cases. Distal extent of aortic dissection into zone 11 and iliac thrombosis are risk factors for additional peripheral revascularization. True lumen collapse at the renovisceral aorta and TAAD with concomitant ALI and renovisceral malperfusion portends a poor prognosis. A multi-disciplinary team approach to manage these patients who present with ascending aortic dissection and distal malperfusion may improve outcomes in this complex population.