Analysis of Surgeon and Center Case Volume and Stroke or Death after Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the annual hospital volume of cases may affect the number of adverse events following carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aim to study the associations between hospital as well as surgeon volume and the risk of stroke/death following TCAR. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative data of patients undergoing TCAR from 2016 to 2021. Surgeon and center volume were calculated based on the mean number of cases (MNC) performed yearly by each surgeon and center. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke/death. RESULTS: A total of 22,624 cases were included. Surgeon volume was divided into three quantiles: low (MNC=4), medium (MNC=10), and high (MNC=26). Center volume was also divided into low (MNC=14), medium (MNC=32), and high (MNC=64). After adjusting for potential confounders, and when compared to high volume centers, low and medium center volume was not associated with any increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death, stroke, death, or stroke/TIA. Compared to high volume surgeons, low surgeons' volume was associated with a higher odd of stroke (OR: 1.5, 95%CI (1.1-2.04), P=0.008), and stroke/TIA (OR: 1.5, 95%CI (1.2-1.9), P=.002). However, medium surgeon volume was not associated with higher odds of stroke/death, stroke, and stroke/TIA. Neither low nor medium surgeon volume was associated with a difference in mortality compared to high surgeon volume. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, center volume was not associated with any differences in outcomes among patients undergoing TCAR. On the other hand, surgeons with low volume were associated with a higher risk of stroke/death/MI and stroke/TIA when compared to high surgeon volume. There was no difference in outcomes between medium and high surgeon volume.

Non-White Patients Have a Higher Risk of Stroke Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery revascularization has traditionally been performed by either a carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent. Large data analysis has suggested there are differences in perioperative outcomes with regards to race, with non-White patients (NWP) having worse outcomes of stroke, restenosis and return to the operating room (RTOR). The introduction of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has started to shift the paradigm of carotid disease treatment. However, to date, there have been no studies assessing the difference in postoperative outcomes after TCAR between racial groups. METHODS: All patients from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent TCAR were included in our analysis. Patients were split into two groups based on race: individuals who identified as White and a second group that comprised all other races. Demographic and clinical variables were compared using Student's t-Test and chi-square test of independence. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on perioperative outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, restenosis, RTOR, and transient ischemic attack (TIA). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 22,609 patients: 20,424 (90.3%) White patients and 2185 (9.7%) NWP. After adjusting for sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, history of prior stroke or TIA, symptomatic status, and high-risk criteria at time of TCAR, there was a significant difference in postoperative stroke, with 63% increased risk in NWP (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.40, P = 0.014). However, we found no significant difference in the odds of MI, death, postoperative TIA, restenosis, or RTOR when comparing NWP to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that NWP have increased risk of stroke but similar outcomes of death, MI, RTOR and restenosis following TCAR. Future studies are needed to elucidate and address the underlying causes of racial disparity in carotid revascularization.

The obesity paradox exists for perioperative complications and mortality following lower extremity arterial bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The obesity paradox refers to a phenomenon by which obese individuals experience lower risk of mortality and even protective associations from chronic disease sequelae when compared with the non-obese and underweight population. Prior literature has demonstrated an obesity paradox after cardiac and other surgical procedures. However, the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and perioperative complications for patients undergoing major open lower extremity arterial revascularization is unclear. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative for individuals receiving unilateral infrainguinal bypass between 2003 and 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship of BMI categories (underweight [<18.5 kg/m2], non-obese [18.5-24.9 kg/m2], overweight [25-29.9 kg/m2], Class 1 obesity [30-34.9 kg/m2], Class 2 obesity [35-39.9 kg/m2], and Class 3 obesity [>40 kg/m2]) with 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and adverse cardiovascular events. We adjusted the models for key patient demographics, comorbidities, and technical and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2020, 60,588 arterial bypass procedures met inclusion criteria for analysis. Upon multivariable logistic regression with the non-obese category as the reference group, odds of 30-day mortality were significantly decreased among the overweight (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.78), Class 1 obese (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), Class 2 obese (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), and Class 3 obese (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97) patient categories. Conversely, odds of 30-day mortality were increased in the underweight patient group (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.13). Furthermore, a BMI-dependent positive association was present, with odds of surgical site infections with patients in Class 3 obesity having the highest odds (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.60-2.76). Finally, among the adverse cardiovascular event outcomes assessed, only myocardial infarction (MI) demonstrated decreased odds among overweight (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96), Class 1 obese (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93), and Class 2 obese (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) patient populations. Odds of MI among the underweight and Class 3 obesity groups were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The obesity paradox is evident in patients undergoing lower extremity bypass procedures, particularly with odds of 30-day mortality and MI. Our findings suggest that having higher BMI (overweight and Class 1-3 obesity) is not associated with increased mortality and should not be interpreted as a contraindication for lower extremity arterial bypass surgery. However, these patients should be under vigilant surveillance for surgical site infections. Finally, patients that are underweight have a significantly increased odds of 30-day mortality and may be more suitable candidates for endovascular therapy.

Postoperative Outcomes and One-Year Mortality of Patients on Chronic Anticoagulation Medications Undergoing Infrainguinal Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring open infrainguinal bypass (IIB) frequently are taking chronic anticoagulation (AC) medications. Taking these medications in the preoperative setting may affect the outcomes of surgery. This study aims to evaluate postoperative outcomes and 1-year mortality of patients taking chronic AC medications that undergo IIB. METHODS: Using data obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative from January 2011 to October 2021, patients on warfarin or any direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) within 30 days of IIB were compared with patients not taking chronic AC medications. The primary outcomes were in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. The secondary outcomes included total procedure time, need for perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion, prolonged length of hospital stay, postoperative myocardial infarction or stroke, and graft patency at discharge. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients taking warfarin with those taking DOACs. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan Meier survival, and Cox regression analyses were used to analyze the data for postoperative and 1-year outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 55,076 patients underwent IIB during the study period, and 11,547 (20.97%) were on chronic AC prior to surgery. The 2 cohorts differed significantly in almost every demographic and clinical characteristic. Multivariate analyses adjusting for 45 potential confounders revealed that there was no significant difference in in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. The total procedure time for the chronic AC cohort was on average 11.46 ± 2.16 min longer (P ≤ 0.001) and there was a greater risk of prolonged length of stay in the hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.26, P < 0.001). These patients also returned to the operating room (OR) at a greater rate (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.19; P = 0.016) and demonstrated a significantly lower rate of graft patency at discharge (aOR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.86, P = 0.001). On subgroup analysis, multivariate analysis demonstrated lower 30-day mortality for the DOAC group in comparison to the warfarin group (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.94, P = 0.015), but no significant differences in in-hospital and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking AC medications within 30 days prior to IIBs may require more perioperative red blood cell transfusions, longer hospitalizations, and return to the OR at a greater rate. They are also at an increased risk for loss of graft patency at discharge. However, these patients are not at increased risk of in-hospital, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. IIB can, therefore, be performed safely in patients taking chronic AC medications.

Long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy vs transfemoral carotid stenting in a Medicare-matched database.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. However, there is discrepancy in data regarding long-term outcomes. We aimed to compare long-term outcomes of CEA vs TFCAS using the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. METHODS: We assessed patients undergoing first-time CEA or TFCAS in Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network from January 2003 to December 2018. Patients with prior history of carotid revascularization, nontransfemoral stenting, stenting performed without distal embolic protection, multiple or nonatherosclerotic lesions, or concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality, any stroke, and a combined end point of death or stroke. We additionally performed propensity score matching and stratification based on symptomatic status. RESULTS: A total of 80,146 carotid revascularizations were performed, of which 72,615 were CEA and 7531 were TFCAS. CEA was associated with significantly lower risk of death (57.8% vs 70.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.52; P < .001), stroke (21.3% vs 26.6%; aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.69; P < .001) and combined end point of death and stroke (65.3% vs 76.5%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55; P < .001) at 10 years. These findings were reflected in the propensity-matched cohort (combined end point: 34.6% vs 46.8%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.62) at 4 years, as well as stratified analyses of combined end point by symptomatic status (asymptomatic: 63.2% vs 74.9%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; P < .001; symptomatic: 69.9% vs 78.3%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59; P < .001) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of North American real-world data, CEA was associated with greater long-term survival and fewer strokes compared with TFCAS. These findings support the continued use of CEA as the first-line revascularization procedure.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Three Years Survival of Trans Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Medicare-Linked Database.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA. BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and 1-year outcomes compared with CEA. We aimed to compare the 1-year and 3-year outcomes of TCAR versus CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked [Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION)] database. METHODS: The VISION database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was 1-year and 3-year survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce 2 well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression was used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in 1-year death [hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30; P =0.065]. At 3-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P =0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased 3-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.63; P =0.008). Exploratory analyses of postoperative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at 1 year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of 3-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard-risk patients requiring carotid revascularization.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors Are Associated With Favorable Outcomes Compared to Beta Blockers in Reducing Mortality Following Abdominal Aneurysm Repair.

Background The best medical therapy to control hypertension following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is yet to be determined. We therefore examined whether treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) versus beta blockers influenced postoperative and 1-year clinical end points following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a Medicare-linked database. Methods and Results All patients with hypertension undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair and open aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database between 2003 and 2018 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on their preoperative and discharge medications, either RAASIs or beta blockers. Our cohort included 8789 patients, of whom 3523 (40.1%) were on RAASIs, and 5266 (59.9%) were on beta blockers. After propensity score matching, there were 3053 matched pairs of patients in each group. After matching, RAASI use was associated with lower risk of postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6]), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.03-0.6]), and nonhome discharge (OR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.5-0.7]). Before propensity score matching, RAASI use was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4 [95% CI, 0.4-0.5]) and lower risk of aneurysmal rupture (HR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.5-0.9]). These results persisted after propensity score matching for mortality (HR, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.4-0.5]) and aneurysmal rupture (HR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.5-0.9]). Conclusions In this large contemporary retrospective cohort study, RAASI use was associated with favorable postoperative outcomes compared with beta blockers. It was also associated with lower mortality and aneurysmal rupture at 1 year of follow-up.

Two-Stage Offers No Advantages over Single-Stage Arteriovenous Creation: An Analysis of Multicenter National Data.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) involving the basilic vein (BV) have been created in 1 or 2 stages to allow time for the vein to enlarge before superficialization for potential better fistula maturation. Previous single institution studies and meta-analyses have found conflicting outcomes between single-stage and 2-stage procedures. Our study aims to use a large national database to assess the difference in outcomes between single-stage and 2-stage procedures for dialysis access. METHODS: We studied all patients undergoing BV AVF creation in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from 2011 to 2021. Patients were split into single-stage or a planned 2-stage procedure for dialysis access. Primary outcomes included dialysis use with index fistula, maturity rate, and number of days from surgery to fistula use. Secondary outcomes included patency (defined by physical exam or imaging on follow-up), 30-day mortality, and postoperative complications (bleeding, steal syndrome, thrombosis, or neuropathy). Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between staged dialysis access procedures and primary outcomes of interest. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 22,910 individuals of which 7,077 (30.9%) had a 2-staged dialysis access procedure and 15,833 (69.1%) had a single-staged procedure. Average follow-up was 345 days in the single stage and 420 days for 2-stage. Baseline characteristics were significantly different between the 2 groups in terms of medical comorbidities. Primary outcomes were significant for more patients in the 2-stage group undergoing dialysis with the index fistula compared to single stage (31.5% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.0001), significant decrease in days to use in current dialysis patients (103.9 days single stage versus 141.0 days 2-stage, P < 0.0001), and no difference in maturity at follow-up (19.3% single-stage and 17.4% 2-stage, P = 0.354). Secondary outcomes revealed no difference in 30-day mortality or patency (89.8% single-stage and 89.1% 2-stage, P = 0.383), but a significant difference in postoperative complications with a 2-stage procedure compared to 1-stage (1.6% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.026). Finally, a spline model was used to determine that a preoperative vein of 3 mm or less could be a cutoff in which a 2-stage procedure might be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that when dialysis access fistulas are created using the BV, there is no difference in maturity rate or 1-year patency when assessing single-stage versus 2-stage procedures. However, 2-stage procedures significantly delay the time of first use of the fistula and increase postoperative complications. Therefore, we suggest performing single stage procedures when the vein is of appropriate diameter to minimize multiple procedures, complications and expedite time to maturity.

Hemodynamic instability predicts in-hospital and 1-year mortality after transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure fluctuations are a common hemodynamic alteration following carotid artery stenting either with transfemoral (TFCAS) or transcarotid (TCAR) approach and are thought to be related to alteration in baroreceptor function due to angioplasty and stent expansion. These fluctuations are particularly worrisome in the high-risk patient population referred for CAS. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients who required the administration of intravenous blood pressure medication (IVBPmed) for hypotension or hypertension after CAS. METHODS: All patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database between 2016 and 2021 were included. We compared outcomes of patients who required postoperative IVBPmed to treat hyper- or hypotension with normotensive patients. In-hospital outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression. One-year outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 38,510 patients undergoing CAS (57.7% TCAR and 42.3% TFCAS), of which, 30% received IVBPmed for treatment of either postoperative hypertension (12.6%) or hypotension (16.4%). In multivariable analysis, postoperative hypotension was associated with a higher risk of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI) (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-3.6; P < .001), stroke or death (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.4-3.5; P < .001), stroke (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.1-3.2; P < .001), death (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.6-4.8; P < .001), MI (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.3-6.7; P < .001), and bleeding (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; P < .001) compared with normotensive patients. Postoperative hypertension was associated with a higher risk of stroke, death, or MI (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 3-4.4; P < .001), stroke or death (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.7-4.1; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 3-4.7; P < .001), death (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.9; P < .001), MI (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 3.9-8.3; P < .001), and bleeding (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; P < .001) compared with normotensive patients. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative hypertension or hypotension requiring IVBPmed after CAS is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital stroke, death, MI, and bleeding. Postoperative hypertension is associated with worse survival at 1 year. This study indicates that the need for IVBPmed after CAS is not benign; therefore, these patients necessitate aggressive perioperative medical management and safe techniques to avoid hypo and hypertension. Close follow-up and continue medical management are needed to maximize these patients' survival.

Novel Risk Score Calculator for Perioperative Mortality after EVAR with Incorporation of Anatomical Factors.

BACKGROUND: Hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy has been associated with an increased risk of perioperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, all available mortality risk prediction models after EVAR lack neck anatomic associations. The aim of this study is to develop a preoperative prediction model for perioperative mortality after EVAR incorporating important anatomic factors. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative database on all patients who underwent elective EVAR between January 2015 and December 2018. A stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was implemented to identify independent predictors and develop a risk calculator for perioperative mortality after EVAR. Internal validation was done using bootstrap of 1,000 reps. RESULTS: A total of 25,133 patients were included, of whom 1.1% (N = 271) died within 30 days or before discharge. Significant preoperative predictors of perioperative mortality were age (odds ratio [OR], 1.053; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.050-1.056; P < 0.001), female sex (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54; P < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.57-1.73; P < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.77-1.94; P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.91-2.13, P < 0.001), aneurysm diameter ≥ 6.5 cm (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.24-2.47, P < 0.001), proximal neck length < 10 mm (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.81-2.12; P < 0.001), proximal neck diameter ≥ 30 mm (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.5; P < 0.001), infrarenal neck angulation ≥ 60° (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < 0.001), and suprarenal neck angulation ≥ 60° (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.16-1.37; P < 0.001). Significant protective factors included aspirin use (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93; P < 0.001) and statin intake (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < 0.001). These predictors were incorporated to build an interactive risk calculator of perioperative mortality after EVAR (C-statistic = 0.749). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a prediction model for mortality following EVAR that incorporates aortic neck features. The risk calculator can be used to weigh risk/benefit ratio when counseling patients preoperatively. Prospective use of this risk calculator may show its benefit in long-term prediction of adverse outcomes.

The Impact of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms on Vascular Surgery Training in Open Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in 1992, the number of open AAA repair (OAR) cases continue to decline. The consequence of reduced OAR cases raises valid concerns related to patient safety and the future training of vascular surgeons that need to be appropriately addressed. Our objective is to analyze trends in OAR and EVAR cases and to assess their implications on the quality of vascular surgery training. METHODS: We analyzed the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case log database for total clinical experience in OAR and EVAR for graduating vascular surgery fellows (VSFs) finishing 5 + 2 programs between 2002 and 2019 and vascular surgery integrated residents (VSRs) between 2013 and 2019. VSF case totals were calculated by combining average total cases of open and endovascular supra- and infrarenal AAA repair during fellowship years combined with total cases performed during their general surgery residency. VSR case totals included only the cases performed during the 5-year residency period. Isolated Iliac and thoracic aortic aneurysms were excluded from our analysis. RESULTS: The average number of OAR cases per trainee has decreased by 60% (from 36.9 to 14.7) with a rate of 1.4 cases per year (P < 0.001) for VSF. Meanwhile, EVAR average cases have increased by 102% (from 22 to 44.4). However, there were 2 different trends exhibited with EVAR over the study period. Between 2002 and 2007, EVAR cases tended to increase by 5.9 cases per year (P < 0.001). Whereas, between 2007 and 2019, there was a slightly decreased trend in EVAR cases by 0.3 cases per year (P = 0.01). For VSR, while no significant trend was observed in the mean number of OAR cases (Coef. -0.3, P = 0.2) due to the limited time frame, the proportion of open cases was significantly lower compared to endovascular cases. Additionally, there were 2 different trends exhibited with EVAR over the study period. Between 2013 and 2015, EVAR cases tended to increase by 1.7 cases per year (P = 0.1). Whereas, between 2015 and 2019, there was a slightly decreased trend in EVAR cases by 0.2 cases per year (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in average OAR cases and an increase in EVAR cases were observed over the study period. Vascular surgery training programs may need to introduce further training programs in open surgical repair to ensure vascular surgery trainees have the required technical skills and expertize to perform such a high-risk procedure safely and independently.

TransCarotid Artery Revascularization Can Be Safely Performed in Patients Undergoing Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has been effectively performed to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis (CS). Prior studies established that TCAR can be safely performed in high-risk patients such as octogenarians, patients with prior carotid endarterectomy (CEA), contralateral occlusion, and heavily calcified lesions. Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of exhibiting cardiovascular complications. This study aims to investigate how dialysis may affect TCAR outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) dataset was queried for patients undergoing TCAR from November 2016 to November 2021. Patients were divided into dialysis and nondialysis groups. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, prolonged length of stay (more than 1 day) (PLOS), MI, and stroke or death. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess in-hospital outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival and log-rank test were used to assess 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 22,619 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Of these, 327 patients were undergoing dialysis. On univariable analysis, dialysis patients were associated with a higher risk of mortality compared to nondialysis patients (1.2% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.030). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, this difference did not persist (odd ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.8-4.9), P = 0.136). Dialysis patients were more likely to experience PLOS (OR: 1.6, 95% CI (1.2-2), P < 0.001). There was no difference between dialysis and nondialysis patients in the risk of stroke or death, stroke, stroke or TIA, MI, and stroke or death, or MI on univariable and multivariable analyses. At 1 year, the overall survival for dialysis versus nondialysis patients was 81.5% vs. 95.5%, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to date of dialysis patients who have undergone TCAR. We have shown that there was no difference in the risk of stroke, death, and MI between dialysis and nondialysis patients. Therefore, TCAR can be safely offered to patients undergoing dialysis. Future studies with larger number of patients are warranted to confirm these results.

Evaluating postoperative outcomes in patients with hostile neck anatomy undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy is relatively contraindicated in patients with a hostile neck anatomy who were historically revascularized with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). As transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has progressively replaced TFCAS, evidence pertaining to hostile neck anatomy and TCAR is necessary to establish its safety and feasibility in this subgroup of patients. Therefore, we analyzed the impact of a hostile neck anatomy on outcomes in patients undergoing TCAR and further compared them with those undergoing TFCAS to establish recommendations for standard of care. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR and TFCAS from November 2016 to June 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database were included. Patients were characterized into two groups based on the neck anatomy. Hostile neck anatomy was defined as a history of neck radiation or prior neck surgery including prior carotid endarterectomy or radical neck dissection. Primary outcomes included technical failure, access site complications (hematoma, stenosis, infection, pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula), and stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and a composite end point of stroke or TIA. Patients with nonatherosclerotic or multiple lesions were excluded from the analysis. Primary analysis was performed with all patients undergoing TCAR and outcomes between patients with hostile and nonhostile neck anatomy were compared. Further analysis included a comparison of patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR and TFCAS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess impact of hostile neck anatomy on postoperative outcomes. Results were adjusted for relevant potential confounders including age, gender, race, degree of stenosis, symptomatic status, comorbidities, preoperative medications, anesthesia type, and protamine use. RESULTS: Among the 19,859 patients who underwent TCAR during the study period, 3636 (18.3%) had a hostile neck anatomy. On univariate analysis, both groups had comparable outcomes except for higher rates of stroke or death in patients with hostile neck anatomy. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no differences in technical failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.21; P = .699), stroke (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.28; P = .464), death (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.71; P = .598), and MI (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = .518). However, patients with hostile neck were at a 30% increased risk of access site complications (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .023). Further adjusted analysis comparing the outcomes in TFCAS and TCAR among patients with hostile neck anatomy showed an almost four-fold increase in risk of death (aOR, 3.77; 95% CI, 1.49-9.53; P = .005) and technical failure (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.82-7.47; P < .001) among patients undergoing treatment with TFCAS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR experienced an increased risk of access site complications; however, the risk for technical failure and postoperative stroke/death, stroke, TIA, MI, or death was similar among both groups. TFCAS was associated with significant increase in the risk of death and technical failure compared with TCAR in this group of patients. These results confirm that TCAR should be the preferred minimally invasive revascularization procedure for patients with hostile neck anatomy.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes after open conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair versus primary open aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: The use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, significant rates of late reintervention and aneurysm rupture have been reported after EVAR, resulting in the need for conversion to OAR (C-OAR). To assess the relative effects of C-OAR on patients, we compared the outcomes of these patients to those of patients who had undergone P-OAR. METHODS: The data from all patients who had undergone C-OAR and P-OAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database from 2003 to 2018 were queried. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the perioperative long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4763 patients were included (91.4%, P-OAR; 8.6%, C-OAR). C-OAR was associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7; P = .027) and renal complications (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2; P = .004) vs P-OAR. At 5 years, conversion was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001), aneurysmal rupture (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .007), and reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97; P = .022) compared with P-OAR. These results also persisted at 10 years, with conversion associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001), rupture (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .018), and reintervention (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have demonstrated that C-OAR is associated with a significantly higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with P-OAR. We found a significant increase in mortality, aneurysm rupture, and reintervention at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.

Loss of follow-up after carotid revascularization is associated with worse long-term stroke and death.

OBJECTIVES: Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines recommend surveillance with duplex ultrasound scanning at baseline (within 3 months from discharge), every 6 months for 2 years, and annually afterward following carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting. There is a growing concern regarding the significance of postoperative follow-up after several vascular procedures. We sought to determine whether 1-year loss to follow-up (LTF) after carotid revascularization was associated with worse outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) linked to Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) database. METHODS: All patients who underwent carotid revascularization in the VQI VISION database between 2003 and 2016 were included. LTF was defined as failure to complete 1-year follow-up in the VQI long-term follow-up dataset. Data about stroke and mortality were captured in the VISION dataset using a list of Current Procedural Terminology, International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision), and International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Revision) codes linked to index procedures in VQI. Kaplan-Meier life-table methods and Cox proportional hazard modeling were used to compare 5- and 10-year outcomes between patients with no LTF and those who were LTF. RESULTS: A total of 58,840 patients were available for analysis. The 1-year LTF rate was 43.8%. Patients who were LTF were older and more frequently symptomatic, with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, chronic kidney diseases, and congestive heart failure. Also, patients who underwent carotid artery stenting were more likely to be LTF compared with carotid endarterectomy patients (54.5% vs 42.3%; P < .001). The incidence of postoperative (30 days) stroke was higher in the LTF group (2.9% vs 1.7%; P < .001). Cox regression analysis revealed that LTF was associated with an increased risk of long-term stroke at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.6; P < .001) and 10 years (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2-1.5; P < .001). It was also associated with significantly higher mortality at 5 years (HR: 2.5, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8; P < .001) and 10 years (HR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.9-2.5; P < .001). Stroke or death was significantly worse in the LTF group at 5 years (HR: 2.3, 95% CI: 2.1-2.5; P < .001) and up to 10 years (HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.8-2.3; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: One-year follow-up after carotid revascularization procedures was found to be associated with better stroke- and mortality-free survival. Surgeons should emphasize the importance of follow-up to all patients who undergo carotid revascularization, especially those with multiple comorbidities and postoperative neurological complications.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Is Associated with Increased Risk of Bleeding and Decreased Risk of Stroke Following Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite many patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) being on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for cardiac or neurologic indications, the impact of such therapy on perioperative outcomes remains unclear. We aim to compare rates of postoperative bleeding, stroke and major adverse events (stroke, death or MI) among patients on Aspirin alone (ASAA) versus DAPT (Clopidogrel and Aspirin). METHODS: Patients undergoing CEA for carotid artery stenosis between 2010 and 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) were included. We excluded patients undergoing concomitant or re-do operations or patients with missing antiplatelet information. Propensity score matching was performed between the 2 groups ASAA and DAPT based on age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities [hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD)], degree of ipsilateral stenosis, presence of contralateral occlusion, as well as preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in perioperative outcomes were tested with the McNemar's test for categorical variables and paired t-test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test for continuous variables where appropriate. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event in the patients treated within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 125,469 patients were included [ASAA n = 82,920 (66%) and DAPT n = 42,549 (34%)]. Patients on DAPT were more likely to be symptomatic, had higher rates of CAD, prior percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, and higher rates of diabetes. After propensity score matching, the DAPT group had an increased rate of bleeding complications (RR: 1.6: 1.4-1.8, P < 0.001) as compared with those on ASAA despite being more likely to receive both drains and protamine. In addition, patients on DAPT had a slight decrease in the risk of in-hospital stroke as compared with patients on ASAA (RR: 0.80: 0.7-0.9, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This large multi-institutional study demonstrates a modest decrease in the risk of in-hospital stroke for patients on DAPT undergoing CEA as compared with those on ASAA. This small benefit is at the expense of a significant increase in the risk of perioperative bleeding events incurred by those on DAPT at the time of CEA. This analysis suggests avoiding DAPT when possible, during CEA.

Role of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibition in Patients Undergoing Carotid Revascularization.

Background Previous data suggest that using renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) improves survival in patients with cardiovascular diseases. We sought to investigate the association of different patterns of use of RAASIs on perioperative and 1-year outcomes following carotid revascularization. Methods and Results We investigated patients undergoing carotid revascularization, either with carotid endarterectomy or transfemoral carotid artery stenting, in the VQI (Vascular Quality Initiative) VISION (Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network) data set between 2003 and 2018. We divided our cohort into 3 groups: (1) no history of RAASI intake, (2) preoperative intake only, and (3) continuous pre- and postoperative intake. The final cohort included 73 174 patients; 44.4% had no intake, 50% had continuous intake, and 5.6% had only preoperative intake. Compared with continuous intake, preoperative and no intake were associated with higher odds of postoperative stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.7 [95% CI, 1.5-1.9]; P<0.001; OR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.03-1.2]; P=0.010); death (OR, 4.8 [95% CI, 3.8-6.1]; P<0.001; OR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.6-2.2]; P<0.001); and stroke/death (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.8-2.3]; P<0.001; OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.3]; P<0.001), respectively. At 1 year, preoperative and no intake were associated with higher odds of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4 [95% CI, 1.3-1.6]; P<0.001; HR, 1.15, [95% CI, 1.08-1.2]; P<0.001); death (HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.5-1.9]; P<0.001; HR, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.2-1.4]; P<0.001); and stroke/death (HR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.7]; P<0.001; HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.17-1.3]; P<0.001), respectively. Conclusions Compared with subjects discontinuing or never starting RAASIs, use of RAASIs before and after carotid revascularization was associated with a short-term stroke and mortality benefit. Future clinical trials examining prescribing patterns of RAASIs should aim to clarify the timing and potential to maximize the protective effects of RAASIs in high-risk vascular patients.

Carotid lesion length independently predicts stroke and death after transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVES: Prior data from the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial suggested that the higher perioperative stroke or death event rate among patients treated with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) appears to be strongly related to the lesion length. Nonetheless, data regarding the impact of lesion length on outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal are lacking. Herein, we aimed to compare the outcomes of TCAR vs TFCAS stratified by the length of the carotid lesion. METHODS: Our cohort was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative database for carotid artery stenting between 2016 and 2021. Restricted cubic spline analysis was used to describe the relationship between the primary outcome (in-hospital stroke/death) and the exposure variable (lesion length) in the overall cohort. This relationship was not linear, and knots were identified where significant changes in the slope of the curve occurred. We therefore divided patients based on knot with the most significant inflection into two groups: lesion length <25 mm (short) and lesion length ≥25 mm. Clinically relevant and statistically significant variables on univariable analysis were added to the final logistic regression model clustered by center identifier to study the association between lesion length and in-hospital outcomes stratified by the stent approach. RESULTS: The study cohort included 17,931 TCAR (52.6% with long lesions) and 12,036 TFCAS (53.2% with long lesions) patients. Patients with long lesions had higher rates of being symptomatic among both TCAR (27.2% vs 24.3%, P < .001) and TFCAS (43.5% vs 38.5%, P < .001) and were more likely to undergo general anesthesia in TCAR (84.7% vs 81.9%, P < .001) and TFCAS (21.6% vs 15.8%, P < .001). After adjusting for potential confounders, long carotid lesions were associated with higher odds of stroke, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), and stroke/death compared with short lesions among patients who underwent TCAR or TFCAS. However, when comparing TCAR vs TFCAS outcomes in patients with long lesions, TCAR was found to be associated with a 30% reduction in stroke/TIA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6-0.9, P = .015), stroke (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5-0.9, P = .009), and extended length of stay (ELOS) (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.8, P < .001). There was also a 40% reduction in the odds of in-hospital stroke/death (aOR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.8, P < .001) and a 70% reduction in mortality (aOR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2-0.4, P < .001) in TCAR compared with TFCAS. CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary retrospective national study, carotid lesion length appears to negatively impact in-hospital outcomes for TCAR and TFCAS. In the presence of lesions longer than 25 mm, TCAR appears to be safer than TFCAS with regard to the risk of in-hospital stroke, stroke/TIA, death, stroke/death, and ELOS. These favorable outcomes seem to confirm the relative advantage of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection devices in terms of neuroprotection.

Long-term Outcomes Associated With Open vs Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Medicare-Matched Database.

Importance: Endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with a significant reduction in perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with open aneurysm repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, this benefit decreases over time owing to increased reinterventions and late aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair. Objective: To compare long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter retrospective cohort study used deidentified data with 6-year follow-up from the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. Patients undergoing first-time elective endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2018 were propensity score matched. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, concomitant procedures, or prior history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2018. Exposures: First-time elective endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary long-term outcome of interest was 6-year all-cause mortality, rupture, and reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and perioperative complications. Results: Among a total of 32 760 patients (median [IQR] age, 75 [70-80] years; 25 706 [78.5%] men) who underwent surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, 28 281 patients underwent endovascular repair and 4479 patients underwent open repair. After propensity score matching, there were 2852 patients in each group. Open repair was associated with significantly lower 6-year mortality compared with endovascular repair (548 deaths [35.6%] vs 608 deaths [41.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94; P = .002), with increases in mortality starting from 1 to 2 years (84 deaths [4.3%] vs 126 deaths [6.7%]; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83; P = .001) and 2 to 6 years (211 deaths [25.8%] vs 241 deaths [30.6%]; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P = .001). Open repair, compared with endovascular repair, also was associated with significantly lower rates of 6-year rupture (117 participants [5.8%] vs 149 participants [8.3%]; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P < .001) and reintervention (190 participants [11.6%] vs 267 participants [16.0%]; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; P < .001). Open repair was associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.41-5.26; P < .001) and complications. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that overall mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was higher with endovascular repair than open repair despite reduced 30-day mortality and perioperative morbidity after endovascular repair. Endovascular repair additionally was associated with significantly higher rates of long-term rupture and reintervention. These findings emphasize the importance of careful patient selection and long-term follow-up surveillance for patients who undergo endovascular repair.

Outcomes of Endovascular-First Versus Bypass-First Approach for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Using a Medicare-Linked Database.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has been increasing in prevalence and remains a significant cause of limb loss and disability and a strong predictor of cardiovascular mortality. Previous studies have demonstrated that endovascular and open repair are similarly effective. These findings led to a significant increase in the adoption of the less-invasive endovascular-first (EVF) approach. However, it remains unknown whether the 2 treatment modalities have similar durability in today's real-world setting. The aim of the present study was to compare the midterm outcomes of the EVF and bypass-first (BF) strategies in patients with CLTI. METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone limb revascularization from January 2010 to December 2016 in the Vascular Quality Initiative Medicare-linked database. Patients with a history of previous revascularization and those who had undergone hybrid or suprainguinal procedures were excluded from the present study. The remaining patients were divided into 2 groups: EVF and BF. The main end points were 2-year limb salvage, freedom from reintervention, amputation-free survival (AFS), and freedom from all-cause mortality (ACM). RESULTS: The EVF approach was applied to 12,062 patients (70%) and the BF approach to 5,166 patients (30%). The median follow-up was 33 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 14-49). Patients in the EVF group were older and had more comorbidities and tissue loss. At 2 years, the BF group had achieved greater rates of limb salvage (86.4% vs. 82.1%; P < 0.001), freedom from reintervention (72% vs. 68%; P < 0.001), AFS (66.9% vs. 56.3%; P < 0.001), and freedom from ACM (75.7% vs. 66.1%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, an effect of the treatment strategy on limb salvage (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.16; P = 0.55), reintervention (aHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.019; P = 0.06), AFS (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.007; P = 0.08), and ACM (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.001; P = 0.055) was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the largest real-word analysis showing the noninferiority of the EVF approach in patients with CLTI, with similar limb salvage, durability, AFS, and ACM compared with the BF approach. However, level 1 evidence on the role of the revascularization strategy in these challenging patients is needed.