Association of Surgeon Self-Reported Gender and Surgical Outcomes in Current U.S. Practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association of surgeon self-reported gender on clinical outcomes in contemporary U.S. surgical practice. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research has suggested that there are potentially improved surgical outcomes for female surgeons, yet the underlying causal path for this association remains unclear. METHODS: Using the Vizient® Clinical Database(2016-2021), 39 operations categorized by the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network were analyzed. Surgeon self-reported gender was the primary exposure. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, complications, and/or 30-day readmission. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching was used for risk adjustment. RESULTS: The analysis included 4,882,784 patients operated on by 11,955 female surgeons(33% of surgeons, performing 21% of procedures) and 23,799 male surgeons(67% of surgeons, performing 79% of procedures). Female surgeons were younger(45±9 vs. males-53±11 y;P<0.0001) and had lower operative volumes. Unadjusted incidence of the primary outcome was 13.6%(10.7%-female surgeons, 14.3%-male surgeons;P<0.0001). After propensity matching, the primary outcome occurred in 13.0% of patients(12.9%-female, 13.0%-male; OR[M vs. F]=1.02, 95%CI 1.01-1.03;P=.001), with female surgeons having small statistical associations with lower mortality and complication rates but not readmissions. Procedure-specific analyses revealed inconsistent or no surgeon-gender associations. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest analysis to date, surgeon self-reported gender had a small statistical, clinically marginal correlation with postoperative outcomes. The variation across surgical specialties and procedures suggests that the association with surgeon gender is unlikely causal for the observed differences in outcomes. Patients should be reassured that surgeon gender alone does not have a clinically meaningful impact on their outcome.

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has had a dynamic impact on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) care, often supplanting open AAA repair (OAR). Accordingly, US AAA management is often highlighted by disparities in patient selection and guideline compliance. The purpose of this analysis was to define secular trends in AAA care. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all EVARs and OARs (2011-2021). End points included procedure utilization, change in mortality, patient risk profile, Society for Vascular Surgery-endorsed diameter compliance, off-label EVAR use, cross-clamp location, blood loss, in-hospital complications, and post-EVAR surveillance missingness. Linear regression was used without risk adjustment for all end points except for mortality and complications, for which logistic regression with risk adjustment was used. RESULTS: In all, 66 609 EVARs (elective, 85% [n=55 805] and nonelective, 15% [n=9976]) and 13 818 OARs (elective, 70% [n=9706] and nonelective, 30% [n=4081]) were analyzed. Elective EVAR:OAR ratios were increased (0.2 per year [95% CI, 0.01-0.32]), while nonelective ratios were unchanged. Elective diameter threshold noncompliance decreased for OAR (24%→17%; P=0.01) but not EVAR (mean, 37%). Low-risk patients increasingly underwent elective repairs (EVAR, +0.4%per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]; OAR, +0.6 points per year [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Off-label EVAR frequency was unchanged (mean, 39%) but intraoperative complications decreased (0.5% per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). OAR complexity increased reflecting greater suprarenal cross-clamp rates (0.4% per year [95% CI, 0.1-0.8]) and blood loss (33 mL/y [95% CI, 19-47]). In-hospital complications decreased for elective (0.7% per year [95% CI, 0.4-0.9]) and nonelective EVAR (1.7% per year [95% CI, 1.1-2.3]) but not OAR (mean, 42%). A 30-day mortality was unchanged for both elective OAR (mean, 4%) and EVAR (mean, 1%). Among nonelective OARs, an increase in both 30-day (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.1-1.5]) and 1-year mortality (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.3-1.6]) was observed. Postoperative EVAR surveillance acquisition decreased (67%→49%), while 1-year mortality among patients without imaging was 4-fold greater (9.2% versus imaging, 2.0%; odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 3.8-4.3]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in EVAR and a corresponding reduction in OAR across the United States, despite established concerns surrounding guideline adherence, reintervention, follow-up, and cost. Although EVAR morbidity has declined, OAR complication rates remain unchanged and unexpectedly high. Opportunities remain for improving AAA care delivery, patient and procedure selection, guideline compliance, and surveillance.

Comparative outcomes of open mesenteric bypass after a failed endovascular or open mesenteric revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines have recommended an endovascular-first approach (ENDO) for the management of patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), whereas an open mesenteric bypass (OMB) is proposed for subjects deemed to be poor ENDO candidates. However, the impact of a previous failed endovascular or open mesenteric reconstruction on a subsequent OMB is unknown. Accordingly, this study was designed to examine the results of a remedial OMB (R-OMB) after a failed ENDO or a primary OMB (P-OMB) for patients with recurrent CMI. METHODS: All patients who underwent an OMB from 2002 to 2022 at the University of Florida were reviewed. Outcomes after an R-OMB (ie, history of a failed ENDO or P-OMB) and P-OMB were compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality, whereas secondary outcomes included complications, reintervention, and survival. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from reintervention and all-cause mortality, whereas multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling identified predictors of death. RESULTS: A total of 145 OMB procedures (R-OMB, n = 48 [33%]; P-OMB, n = 97 [67%]) were analyzed. A majority of R-OMB operations were performed for a failed stent (prior ENDO, n = 39 [81%]; prior OMB, n = 9 [19%]). R-OMB patients were generally younger (66 ± 9 years vs P-OMB, 69 ± 11 years; P = .09) and had lower incidence of smoking exposure (29% vs P-OMB, 48%; P = .07); however, there were no other differences in demographics or comorbidities. R-OMB was associated with less intraoperative transfusion (0.6 units vs P-OMB, 1.4 units; P = .01), but there were no differences in conduit choice or bypass configuration.The overall 30-day mortality and complication rates were 7% (n = 10/145) and 53% (n = 77/145), respectively, with no difference between the groups. Notably, R-OMB had decreased cardiac (6% vs P-OMB, 21%; P < .01) and bleeding complication rates (2% vs P-OMB, 15%; P = .01). The freedom from reintervention (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 95% ± 4%, 83% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 97% ± 2%, 93% ± 5%, respectively; log-rank P = .21) and survival (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 82% ± 6%, 68% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 84% ± 4%, 66% ± 7%; P = .91) were similar. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included new postoperative hemodialysis requirement (hazard ratio [HR], 7.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-17.3; P < .001), pulmonary (HR, 2.7, 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) and cardiac (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .04) complications, and female sex (HR, 2.1, 95% CI, 1.03-4.8; P = .04). Notably, R-OMB was not a predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative and longer-term outcomes for a remedial OMB after a failed intraluminal stent or previous open bypass appear to be comparable to a P-OMB. These findings support the recently updated clinical practice guideline recommendations for an endovascular-first approach to treating recurrent CMI due to the significant perioperative complication risk of OMB. However, among the subset of patients deemed ineligible for endoluminal reconstruction after failed mesenteric revascularization, R-OMB results appear to be acceptable and highlight the utility of this strategy in selected patients.

Arteriovenous Access for Hemodialysis: A Review.

Importance: Hemodialysis requires reliable vascular access to the patient's blood circulation, such as an arteriovenous access in the form of an autogenous arteriovenous fistula or nonautogenous arteriovenous graft. This Review addresses key issues associated with the construction and maintenance of hemodialysis arteriovenous access. Observations: All patients with kidney failure should have an individualized strategy (known as Patient Life-Plan, Access Needs, or PLAN) for kidney replacement therapy and dialysis access, including contingency plans for access failure. Patients should be referred for hemodialysis access when their estimated glomerular filtration rate progressively decreases to 15 to 20 mL/min, or when their peritoneal dialysis, kidney transplant, or current vascular access is failing. Patients with chronic kidney disease should limit or avoid vascular procedures that may complicate future arteriovenous access, such as antecubital venipuncture or peripheral insertion of central catheters. Autogenous arteriovenous fistulas require 3 to 6 months to mature, whereas standard arteriovenous grafts can be used 2 to 4 weeks after being established, and "early-cannulation" grafts can be used within 24 to 72 hours of creation. The prime pathologic lesion of flow-related complications of arteriovenous access is intimal hyperplasia within the arteriovenous access that can lead to stenosis, maturation failure (33%-62% at 6 months), or poor patency (60%-63% at 2 years) and suboptimal dialysis. Nonflow complications such as access-related hand ischemia ("steal syndrome"; 1%-8% of patients) and arteriovenous access infection require timely identification and treatment. An arteriovenous access at high risk of hemorrhaging is a surgical emergency. Conclusions and Relevance: The selection, creation, and maintenance of arteriovenous access for hemodialysis vascular access is critical for patients with kidney failure. Generalist clinicians play an important role in protecting current and future arteriovenous access; identifying arteriovenous access complications such as infection, steal syndrome, and high-output cardiac failure; and making timely referrals to facilitate arteriovenous access creation and treatment of arteriovenous access complications.

Limited health literacy is common among vascular surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy is a crucial aspect of informed decision-making, and limited health literacy has been associated with worse health care outcomes. To date, health literacy has not been examined in vascular surgery patients. Therefore, we conducted a prospective observational study to determine the prevalence and factors associated with poor health literacy in vascular surgery patients. METHODS: The Newest Vital Sign (Pfizer, New York, NY), a validated instrument, was used to appraise the health literacy of 150 patients who visited the outpatient vascular clinic at UF Health Shands Hospital between April 2022 and August 2022. Patients who scored a 4 (out of 6) or higher were classified as having adequate health literacy. Each study participant also completed a sociodemographic questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 82 out of the 150 (54%) patients we screened had limited health literacy. The prevalence of limited health literacy varied and was independently associated with increased age (odds ratio 1.06; 95% [1.02 to 1.10], P = .004), having not attended college (high school diploma versus college+ odds ratio 3.5; 95% [1.26 to 10.1], P = .018), and African American race (odds ratio 5.3; 95% [1.59 to 22.3], P = .012). A total of 83% of African American patients had limited health literacy, compared to 49% of Asian and White patients. CONCLUSION: Most vascular surgery patients have limited health literacy. Increased age, fewer years of education, and African American race were associated with limited health literacy. Physicians caring for patients with lower health literacy should investigate and use communication strategies tailored to patients with limited health literacy.

Size thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms warrant reconsideration.

BACKGROUND: The historical size threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is widely accepted to be 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, contemporary AAA rupture risks may be lower than historical benchmarks, which has implications for when AAAs should be repaired. Our objective was to use contemporary AAA rupture rates to inform optimal size thresholds for AAA repair. METHODS: We used a Markov chain analysis to estimate life expectancy for patients with AAA. The primary outcome was AAA-related mortality. We estimated survival using Social Security Administration life tables and published contemporary AAA rupture estimates. For those undergoing repair, we modified survival estimates using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative and Medicare on complications, late rupture, and open conversion. We used this model to estimate the AAA repair size threshold that minimizes AAA-related mortality for 60-year-old average-health men and women. We performed a sensitivity analysis of poor-health patients and 70- and 80-year-old base cases. RESULTS: The annual risk of all-cause mortality under surveillance for a 60-year-old woman presenting with a 5.0 cm AAA using repair thresholds of 5.5 cm, 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, and 7.0 cm was 1.7%, 2.3%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding risk for a man was 2.3%, 2.9%, 3.3%, and 3.4% for the same repair thresholds, respectively. For a 60-year-old average-health woman, an AAA repair size of 6.1 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 5.7 cm to 7.1 cm. For a 60-year-old average-health man, an AAA repair size of 6.9 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 6.0 cm to 7.4 cm. Women in poor health, at various age strata, had optimal AAA repair size thresholds that were >6.5 cm, whereas men in poor health, at all ages, had optimal repair size thresholds that were >8.0 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal threshold for AAA repair is more nuanced than a discrete size. Specifically, there appears to be a range of AAA sizes for which repair is reasonable to minmized AAA-related mortality. Notably, they all are greater than current guideline recommendations. These findings would suggest that contemporary AAA size thresholds for repair should be reconsidered.

Self-pay insurance status is associated with failure of medical therapy in patients with acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections are managed medically, and acute complicated dissections are managed surgically. Self-pay patients with medically managed acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections may fare worse than their insured counterparts. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, demographics, follow-up, and outcomes of patients with acute type B aortic dissections from 2011 to 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 159 patients presented with acute type B aortic dissections; 102 were complicated and managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 57 were uncomplicated and managed medically. A total of 32% (n = 51) were self-pay. Self-pay patients were from areas with worse area deprivation indices (71% vs 63%, P = .024). They more often reported alcohol abuse (28% vs 7%, P < .001), cocaine/methamphetamine use (16% vs 5%, P = .028), and nonadherence to home antihypertensives (35% vs 11%, P < .001). Self-pay patients less often had a primary care physician (65% vs 7%, P < .001) or took antihypertensives before admission (31% vs 58%, P = .003). Self-pay patients frequently required financial assistance at discharge (63%), most often using charity funds (46%). Few patients (7%) qualified for our hospital's financial assistance program, and most (78%) remained uninsured at the first follow-up. Self-pay acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections patients had the lowest rate of follow-up (31% vs 66%, P < .001) and were more likely to represent emergently (75% vs 0%, P = .033) compared to insured acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections patients. Self-pay patients were more likely to follow up after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute complicated type B aortic dissections (82% vs 31%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Self-pay patients have multiple, interconnected, complex socioeconomic factors that likely influence preadmission risk for dissection and post-discharge adherence to optimal medical management. Further research is needed to clarify treatment strategies in this high-risk group.

Presentation and Outcomes of Elective and Nonelective Complex Endovascular Repair for Thoracoabdominal and Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) and juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAA) with fenestrated and/or branched endografts (B/FEVAR) has become common. Physician modified endografts for patients presenting with symptomatic or contained ruptures has made B/FEVAR a feasible option in nonelective settings. The purpose of this study was to describe our 10-year institutional experience with endovascular interventions for TAAA in elective and nonelective cases to evaluate differences in outcomes and the clinical risk factors associated with nonelective presentation. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively queried for patients undergoing B/FEVAR for TAAA and JAA at a single tertiary care academic institution between 1/2011 and 12/2020. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, aneurysm characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Nonelective repair was defined as any patient that presented through the Emergency Department, as a hospital transfer, or as a direct admission from clinic and had aortic repair performed during the same admission. Univariate analyses were used to compare patients. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and nonhome discharge. RESULTS: Between 1/201 and 12/2020, a total of 208 patients underwent B/FEVAR for TAAA (173) and JAA (35). Nonelective repair was performed in 44 (21%) patients with 39 for TAAA (23%) and 5 for JAA (14%). Nonelective patients were younger (71 ± 11 vs. 74 ± 7 years, P = 0.03), more likely to be self-pay or have Medicaid (11% vs. 2%, P = 0.02) and had a different race distribution compared to the elective cohort (P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was 4% (n = 6) in elective repairs and 7% (n = 3) in nonelective repairs. One-year mortality was 13% (n = 22) in elective repairs and 18% (n = 8) in nonelective repairs. There were no differences between patients receiving elective versus nonelective repair in 30-day (P = 0.40) or 1-year mortality (P = 0.47). Nonelective patients had longer median duration of stay (11 interquartile range (IQR) 6-15 vs. 5 IQR 4-8, P < 0.01), postoperative length of stay (7 IQR 5-12 vs. 4 IQR 3-7, P < 0.01), and more intensive care unit days (6 IQR 3-8 vs. 3 IQR 2-5, P < 0.01). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between elective and nonelective patients including inpatient and access-related complications, re-interventions, and nonhome discharge (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). A composite "any complication" occurred more frequently in patients with nonelective repair (50% vs. 35%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair for TAAA or JAA is a good option in patients undergoing nonelective surgical intervention, with comparable 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and perioperative morbidity to that of patients undergoing elective B/FEVAR.

An Unusual Cause of Coronary Occlusion During an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Reperfusion With Diagnostic Angiography Only.

We present a unique case of a type I peri-operative myocardial infarction during an extensive abdominal aortic aneurysm repair occurring due to the occlusion of a severe stable ostial plaque stenosis by a small overlying thrombus. During coronary angiography, the thrombus was dislodged by the diagnostic catheter which restored normal flow without stent placement. We demonstrate a care approach that was carefully arrived upon through multidisciplinary management with vascular surgery and anesthesiology colleagues.

Increased Preoperative Stress Test Utilization is Not Associated With Reduced Adverse Cardiac Events in Current US Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency of preoperative stress testing and its association with perioperative cardiac events. BACKGROUND: There is persistent variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States. It remains unclear whether more testing is associated with reduced perioperative cardiac events. METHODS: We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base to study patients who underwent 1 of 8 elective major surgical procedures (general, vascular, or oncologic) from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles by frequency of stress test use. We computed a modified revised cardiac risk index (mRCRI) score for included patients. Outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), and cost, which we compared across quintiles of stress test use. RESULTS: We identified 185,612 patients from 133 centers. The mean age was 61.7 (±14.2) years, 47.5% were female, and 79.4% were White. Stress testing was performed in 9.2% of patients undergoing surgery, and varied from 1.7% at lowest quintile centers, to 22.5% at highest quintile centers, despite similar mRCRI comorbidity scores (mRCRI>1: 15.0% vs 15.8%; P =0.068). In-hospital MACE was less frequent among lowest versus highest quintile centers (8.2% vs 9.4%; P <0.001) despite a 13-fold difference in stress test use. Event rates were similar for MI (0.5% vs 0.5%; P =0.737). Mean added cost for stress testing per 1000 patients who underwent surgery was $26,996 at lowest quintile centers versus $357,300 at highest quintile centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States despite similar patient risk profiles. Increased testing was not associated with reduced perioperative MACE or MI. These data suggest that more selective stress testing may be an opportunity for cost savings through a reduction of unnecessary tests.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. METHODS: In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. RESULTS: There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Baseline modern medical management in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT. RESULTS: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses.

National Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Hospitalized Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia and End-Stage Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) can be associated with dismal outcomes but there are limited real-world data to further define the impact of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on outcomes nationally in this subset of patients. We sought to characterize national patterns of inpatient treatment of CLTI and compare outcomes in patients without ESKD. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried from 2015-2018 for all hospital admissions including treatment for CLTI. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of ESKD on outcomes and treatment choice. RESULTS: We identified 11 652 hospital admissions with CLTI alone and 2705 with CLTI + ESKD. Hospital admissions with CLTI + ESKD patients included patients who were younger (66 vs 69 years, P < .0001), less likely to be white (39% vs 63%, P < .0001), and more likely to reside in lower income large metropolitan areas. Admissions for CLTI + ESKD patients had a lower likelihood of open arterial reconstruction (OR .40, P < .0001) and a higher likelihood of endovascular revascularization or major limb amputation (OR 1.70, P < .0001). Admissions for CLTI + ESKD also had a 4.5- and 1.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital death and complications. These findings were associated with a longer LOS (P < .0001), increased probability of discharge to rehabilitation facility (50% vs 41%, P < .0001), and greater hospital charges (median, $107 K vs $85 K, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to hospital admissions for patients without ESKD, admissions for patients with CLTI + ESKD demonstrated distinctive demographic characteristics, a lower likelihood of open revascularization and a higher likelihood of endovascular revascularization and major limb amputation. Chronic limb-threatening ischemia + ESKD hospital admissions showed worse overall outcomes and greater resource utilization compared to CLTI admissions without ESKD.

Assessing the quality of reporting of studies using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals. RESULTS: Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals. CONCLUSIONS: Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data.

Psoas Muscle Area as a Prognostic Factor for Survival in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Conversion.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair conversion (EVAR-c) is increasingly reported and known to be technically complex and physiologically demanding. It has been proposed that pragmatic anthropomorphic measures such as psoas muscle area (PMA) may reliably quantify levels of preoperative frailty and be used to inform point of care clinical decision-making and patient discussions for a variety of complex operations. To date, there is mixed data supporting use of PMA as a prognostic factor in fenestrated endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) repairs; however, no literature exists evaluating the impact of preoperative PMA on EVAR-c results. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review our EVAR-c experience and evaluate the association of PMA with perioperative and long-term mortality outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-center review of all AAA repairs was performed (2002-2019) and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed (n = 153). Cross-sectional PMA at the mid-body of the L3 vertebrae was measured. The lowest PMA tertile was used as a threshold value to designate patients as having "low" PMA (n = 51) and this cohort was subsequently compared to subjects with "normal" PMA (n = 102). Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate covariate association with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Patients with low PMA were older (77 vs. 72 years; P = 0.002), more likely to be female (27% vs. 5%; P < 0.001), and had reduced body mass index (26 vs. 29 kg/m2; P = 0.002). Time to conversion, total number of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reinterventions prior to conversion and elective EVAR-c presentation incidence were similar; however, patients with low PMA had larger aneurysms (8.3 vs. 7.5 cm; P = 0.01) and increased post-EVAR sac growth (2.3 vs. 1 cm; P = 0.005). Unadjusted inpatient mortality was significantly greater for low PMA patients (16% vs. normal PMA, 5%, P = 0.02). Similarly, the total number of complications was higher among low PMA subjects (1.5 ± 1.9 vs. normal PMA, 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.02). Although frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events and new onset inpatient hemodialysis were similar, low PMA patients had a more than four-fold increased likelihood of having persistent requirement of hemodialysis at discharge (18% vs. 4%,P = 0.01). The low PMA group had decreased survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively (77 ± 5%, 65 ± 6% vs. normal PMA, 86 ± 3%, 82% ± 5%; log-rank P = 0.03). Low PMA was an independent predictor of mortality with every 100 mm2 increase in PMA being associated with a 15% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio: 0.85,95% confidence interval:, 0.74-0.97; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among EVAR-c patients, subjects with low preoperative PMA had higher rates of postoperative complications and worse overall survival. PMA assessments may be a useful adjunct to supplement traditional risk-stratification strategies when patients are being considered for EVAR-c.

Sex-based differences in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute complicated type B dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Sex-based differences in outcomes for patients undergoing degenerative aortic aneurysm repair have been well described, with female patients having worse early and long-term outcomes compared with male patients. However, differences between men and women after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of acute complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) have not been well characterized. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess the sex-based differences in clinical presentation, time to repair, morbidity, and mortality for patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures performed for acute complicated TBAD from a single academic medical center from August 2005 to January 2020 were analyzed. The clinical presentation, time to repair, and outcomes were compared by sex. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications, reintervention, aorta-related death, and out of hospital survival. The predictors of mortality, including sex, were determined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients (38 women [24%]) were included in the analysis. No sex-based differences were found in clinical presentation or comorbidity prevalence between the female and male patients. The female patients had had a longer overall time from initial symptom onset to TEVAR (female patients: median, 3.5 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-10 days]; male patients: median, 1 day [IQR, 1-3]; P = .007). However, no differences were found in the time to repair after admission to the academic medical center (female patients: median, 1 day [IQR, 0-5 days]; male patients: median, 1 day [IQR, 0-3]; P = .176). No differences were found in the unadjusted aortic-related, in-hospital, or 30-day death between the female and male patients. Similarly, the risk-adjusted analysis revealed that sex was not associated with adverse outcomes. The 1- and 5-year freedom from aortic-related mortality were 82% ± 4% and 87% ± 6% and 79% ± 4% and 80% ± 8% for the men and women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences between the female and male patients with acute complicated TBAD who had undergone TEVAR in the clinical presentation or comorbidities. The female patients had undergone TEVAR after a longer duration of symptoms, but this was not associated with sex-based differences in early or late morbidity or mortality.