Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Outcomes following Vascular Procedure in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases morbidity and mortality in most vascular procedures. However, a binary classification of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, which is often used in both modeling and clinical trials, may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Determine the optimal eGFR cutoff for use in risk stratification and prediction models. METHODS: Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data for non-emergent, first-time OAR, EVAR, TEVAR, CEA, CAS, PVI, Supra- and infra-inguinal bypass were analyzed from to 2013-2023 and divided into cohorts based on eGFR (≥60, 45-59, 30-44, <30, and preoperative dialysis). χ2 and logistic regression were used to evaluate perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to patients with eGFR ≥60, those with eGFR 45-59 had similar odds of mortality following all procedures, except TEVAR. Driven by this group, the combined cohort showed a slight increase in the odds of mortality for eGFR 45-59 (0.6% vs. 0.7%, aOR 1.16, P=0.002). Those in the 30-44 group demonstrated increased odds of mortality both overall and in the individual procedure groups (0.6% vs. 1.2%, aOR 1.78, P<0.001). The odds of mortality continued to increase with worsening eGFR. The overall rate of new permanent dialysis was low for all eGFR cohorts, with a 0.02% difference between those with eGFR >60 and those in the 45-59 cohort (0.04% vs. 0.06%; a OR 1.65, P<0.001). The odds of permanent dialysis likewise continued to increase with decreasing eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than a binary eGFR cutoff of ≥60 and <60 to stratify patient risk, better risk stratification may be achieved by using five groups of ≥60, 45-59, 30-44, <30, and preoperative dialysis.

Disease-Specific Patient-Reported Quality of Life after Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Fenestrated-branched endovascular technology (F/B-EVAR) is increasingly used to repair complex aortic aneurysms. While reintervention, morbidity and mortality after F/B-EVAR have been well-characterized, studies on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) after F/B-EVAR have been limited in their use of non-specific instruments and measures. We report on disease-specific QOL in patients that underwent F/B-EVAR using a validated QOL survey for aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases were used to contact living patients that underwent F/B-EVAR for pararenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms at two institutions. Eligible patients (n=286) were asked to complete a disease-specific QOL survey previously validated in patients that underwent repair of an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. An emotional impact score (EIS) from 0-100 was derived from the survey with higher scores indicating more emotional impact and worse QOL. Respondent behavior change following F/B-EVAR was evaluated in four domains (strenuous activity, travel, heavy lifting, and sexual activity) previously identified by patients to be most impacted by an aortic aneurysm. RESULTS: In total, 234 patients (82%) completed surveys. Mean post-operative interval to survey completion was 3.4±2.8 years. Mean EIS was 16 (range 0-91) for all patients surveyed, with higher mean EIS among those within the first year after F/B-EVAR (20 vs 14). Most respondents demonstrated limited adverse emotional impact after F/B-EVAR. However, the 4th quartile of EIS was broad (22-91), indicating that a subset of respondents had significantly worse QOL after repair. While most patients reported no post-procedure change in each of the activity domains, over 40% of patients did report decrease in strenuous activity and heavy lifting after F/B-EVAR. Those with decreased activity after repair had corresponding deficiencies in disease-specific knowledge for the domains of heavy lifting (p<0.001) and sexual activity (p=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who underwent F/B-EVAR in this cohort had low emotional impact on their QOL after repair. One-quarter of patients did report significant post-procedure anxiety about their aneurysm, with improvement observed beyond one year after repair. Most patients reported unchanged or decreased activity levels following F/B-EVAR, and less aneurysm-specific patient knowledge was associated with decreased activity after repair. These findings are similar to those seen in prior work using this survey instrument in patients that underwent infrarenal aneurysm repair. This work confirms the feasibility of using this survey to evaluate QOL in patients with complex aortic disease. Longitudinal evaluation in these patients may identify those at high-risk for worse QOL after F/B-EVAR.

An international, expert-based, Delphi consensus document on controversial issues in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of conflicting, inadequate or controversial data in the literature, several issues concerning the management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remain unanswered. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to provide some guidance for clinicians on these controversial topics. METHODS: A three-round Delphi consensus document was produced with 44 experts on 6 prespecified topics regarding the management of AAAs. All answers were provided anonymously. The response rate for each round was 100%. RESULTS: Most participants (42 of 44 [95.4%]) agreed that a minimum case volume per year is essential (or probably essential) for a center to offer open or endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). Furthermore, 33 of 44 (75.0%) believed that AAA screening programs are (probably) still clinically effective and cost effective. Additionally, most panelists (36 of 44 [81.9%]) voted that surveillance after EVAR should be (or should probably be) lifelong. Finally, 35 of 44 participants (79.7%) thought that women smokers should (or should probably/possibly) be considered for screening at 65 years of age, similar to men. No consensus was achieved regarding lowering the threshold for AAA repair and the need for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in patients undergoing EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: This expert-based Delphi consensus document provides guidance for clinicians regarding specific unresolved issues. Consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting the need for further research in those areas.

Appropriateness of care: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis including transcarotid artery revascularization.

Carotid artery stenosis is one of the most common diagnoses treated by vascular specialists in the United States. The optimal management of carotid stenosis remains controversial, however, with notable variation surrounding diagnostic imaging modalities, longitudinal surveillance, medical therapies, and procedural interventions. Data from high-quality randomized controlled trials and observational studies form the foundation for current management paradigms and societal guidelines that inform clinical practice. Presently, a diagnosis of carotid disease is most often established with duplex ultrasound and supplemental cross-sectional imaging using computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography as needed to provide additional anatomic information. All patients with documented occlusive disease should receive goal-directed medical therapy with antiplatelet agents and a lipid-reduction strategy, most commonly with a statin. Those with severe carotid stenosis and an acceptable life expectancy may be considered for carotid artery revascularization. The proceduralist should optimally consider a shared decision-making approach in which the tradeoffs of revascularization can be carefully considered with the patient to optimize informed therapeutic decision making. In current practice, three distinct procedure options exist to treat carotid artery stenosis, including carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, and transcarotid artery revascularization. It should be noted that each procedure, although often used interchangeably in most clinical settings, carry technical nuances and outcome disparities. In this review, each of these topics are explored and various approaches are outlined surrounding the appropriate use of treatments for patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

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

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association of surgeon self-reported gender on clinical outcomes in contemporary US surgical practice. BACKGROUND: 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. The surgeon self-reported gender as 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 were 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 =0.001), 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.

A patient-centered textbook outcome measure effectively discriminates contemporary elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair quality.

BACKGROUND: There is persistent controversy surrounding the merit of surgical volume benchmarks being used solely as a sufficient proxy for assessing the quality of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Importantly, operative volume quotas may fail to reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive depiction of surgical outcomes most relevant to patients. Accordingly, we herein propose a patient-centered textbook outcome (TO) for AAA repair that is analogous to other large magnitude extirpative operations performed in other surgical specialties, and test its feasibility to discriminate hospital performance using Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) volume guidelines. METHODS: All elective open infrarenal AAA repairs (OAR) in the SVS-Vascular Quality Initiative were examined (2009-2022). The primary end point was a TO, defined as a composite of no in-hospital complication or reintervention/reoperation, length of stay of ≤10 days, home discharge, and 1-year survival rates. The discriminatory ability of the TO measure was assessed by comparing centers that did or did not meet the SVS annual OAR volume threshold recommendation (high volume ≥10 OARs/year; low volume <10 OARs/year). Logistic regression and multivariable models adjusted for patient and procedure-related differences. RESULTS: A total of 9657 OARs across 198 centers were analyzed (mean age, 69.5 ± 8.4 years; female, 26%; non-White, 12%). A TO was identified in 44% (n = 4293) of the overall cohort. The incidence of individual TO components included no in-hospital complication (61%), no in-hospital reintervention or reoperation (92%), length of stay of ≤10 days (78%), home discharge (76%), and 1-year survival (91%). Median annual center volume was 6 (interquartile range, 3-10) and a majority of centers did not meet the SVS volume suggested threshold (<10 OARs/year, n = 148 [74%]). However, most patients (6265 of 9657 [65%]) underwent OAR in high-volume hospitals. When comparing high- and low-volume centers, a TO was more likely to occur in high-volume institutions: ≥10 OARs/year (46%) vs <10 OARs/year (42%; P = .0006). The association of a protective effect for higher center volume remained after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.26; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TOs for elective OAR reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive patient centered proxy to measure care delivery, consistent with other surgical specialties. Surprisingly, a TO was achieved in <50% of elective AAA cases nationally. Although the likelihood of a TO seems to correlate with SVS center volume recommendations, it more importantly reflects elements which may be prioritized by patients and thus offers insights into further improving real-world AAA care.

The Sustained Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vascular Surgical Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated postponement of vascular surgery procedures nationally. Whether procedure volumes have since recovered remains undefined. Therefore, our objective was to quantify changes in procedure volumes and determine whether surgical volume has returned to its prepandemic baseline. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study between 2018 and 2023 using the US Fee-for-Service Medicare 5% National Sample as part of the VA Disrupted Care National Project. We studied patients who underwent 1 of 3 procedures: abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair for intact aneurysms, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and major lower extremity amputation (LEA). The case volume of each quarter of 2020-2023 was compared to its corresponding prepandemic quarter in 2019. We then performed a subanalysis of these trends by sex, age, and race. RESULTS: We identified 21,031 procedures: 4,411 AAA repair, 8,361 CEA, and 8,259 LEA. The average percent change during the baseline prepandemic period from 2018 to 2019 was -4.3% for AAA repair, -8.5% for CEA, and -2.6% for LEA. Compared to Q2 of 2019, Q2 of 2020 demonstrated that AAA repair procedures decreased by 47%, CEA by 40%, and LEA by 14%. While procedures initially rebounded in Q3 of 2020, volumes did not return to their prepandemic baseline, demonstrating a persistent volume reduction (-16% AAA, -22% CEA, and -11% LEA). Thereafter, procedure counts again declined in Q1 of 2022 (-25% AAA, -34% CEA, and -25% LEA). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a perception that vascular surgical care was singularly disrupted at the outset of the pandemic, there has been a sustained reduction in vascular surgical volume since 2019. Not only have procedure volumes not returned to prepandemic baseline but it also appears that there has been a cumulative incremental impact on overall procedure volume. The impact of these findings on long-term population health remains uncertain and necessitates a better understanding of postpandemic care delivery.

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.

Most preoperative stress tests fail to comply with practice guideline indications and do not reduce cardiac events.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in stress test utilization before major vascular surgery and adherence to practice guidelines is unclear. We defined rates of stress test compliance at our institution and led a quality improvement initiative to improve compliance with American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. METHODS: We implemented a stress testing order set in the electronic medical record at one tertiary hospital. We reviewed all patients who underwent elective, major vascular surgery in the 6 months before (Jan 1, 2022 - Jul 1, 2022) and 6 months after (Aug 1, 2022 - Jan 31, 2023) implementation. We studied stress test guideline compliance, changes in medical or surgical management, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Before order set implementation, 37/122 patients (30%) underwent stress testing within the past year (29 specifically ordered preoperatively) with 66% (19/29) guideline compliance. After order set implementation, 50/173 patients (29%) underwent stress testing within the past year (41 specifically ordered preoperatively) with 80% (33/41) guideline compliance. In the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, stress testing led to a cardiovascular medication change or preoperative coronary revascularization in 24% (7/29) and 27% (11/41) of patients, and a staged surgery or less invasive anesthetic strategy in 14% (4/29) and 4.9% (2/41) of patients, respectively. All unindicated stress tests were surgeon-ordered and none led to a change in management. There was no change in MACE after order set implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic medical record-based guidance of perioperative stress testing led to a slight decrease in overall stress testing and an increase in guideline-compliant testing. Our study highlights a need for improved preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment prior to major vascular surgery, which may eliminate unnecessary testing and more effectively guide perioperative decision-making.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Changes in global mortality from aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Globally, there has been a marked increase in aortic aneurysm-related deaths between 1990 and 2019. We sought to understand the underlying etiologies for this mortality trend by examining secular changes in both demographics and the prevalence of risk factors, and how these changes may vary across sociodemographic index (SDI) regions. METHODS: We queried the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) for aortic aneurysm deaths from 1990 to 2019 overall and by age group. We identified the percentage of aortic aneurysm deaths attributable to each risk factor identified by GBD modeling (smoking, hypertension, lead exposure, and high sodium diet) and their respective changes over time. We then analyzed aneurysm mortality by SDI region. RESULTS: The number of aortic aneurysm-related deaths have increased from 94,968 in 1990 to 172,427 in 2019, signifying an 81.6% increase, which greatly exceeds the 18.2% increase in all-cause mortality observed over the same time interval. Examination of age-specific mortality demonstrated that the number of aortic aneurysm deaths markedly correlated with advancing age. However, when considering rate of death rather than mortality count, overall age-standardized death rates decreased 18% from 2.72 per 100,000 in 1990 to 2.21 per 100,000 in 2019. Analysis of the specific risk factors associated with aneurysm death revealed that the percentage of deaths attributable to smoking decreased from 45.6% in 1990 to 34.6% in 2019, and deaths attributable to hypertension decreased from 38.7% to 34.7%. Globally, hypertension surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor. The reported rate of death was consistently greater as SDI increased, and this effect was most pronounced among low-middle and middle SDI regions (173.2% and 170.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an overall increase in the number of aneurysm deaths, there was a decrease in the age-standardized death rate, demonstrating that the observed increased number of aortic aneurysm deaths between 1990 and 2019 was primarily driven by an overall increase in the age of the global population. Fortunately, it appears that the increase in overall aneurysm-related deaths has been modulated by improved risk factor modification, in particular smoking. Given the rise in aneurysm-related deaths, global expansion of vascular specialty capabilities is warranted and will serve to amplify improvements in population-based aneurysm health achieved with risk factor control.

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.

A dedicated risk prediction model of 1-year mortality following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair involving the renal-mesenteric arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment goals of prophylactic endovascular aortic repair of complex aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries (complex endovascular aortic repair [cEVAR]) include achieving both technical success and long-term survival benefit. Mortality within the first year after cEVAR likely indicates treatment failure owing to associated costs and procedural complexity. Notably, no validated clinical decision aid tools exist that reliably predict mortality after cEVAR. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a preoperative prediction model of 1-year mortality after elective cEVAR. METHODS: All elective cEVARs including fenestrated, branched, and/or chimney procedures for aortic disease extent confined proximally to Ishimaru landing zones 6 to 9 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative were identified (January 2012 to August 2023). Patients (n = 4053) were randomly divided into training (n = 3039) and validation (n = 1014) datasets. A logistic regression model for 1-year mortality was created and internally validated by bootstrapping the AUC and calibration intercept and slope, and by using the model to predict 1-year mortality in the validation dataset. Independent predictors were assigned an integer score, based on model beta-coefficients, to generate a simplified scoring system to categorize patient risk. RESULTS: The overall crude 1-year mortality rate after elective cEVAR was 11.3% (n = 456/4053). Independent preoperative predictors of 1-year mortality included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal insufficiency (creatinine >1.8 mg/dL or dialysis dependence), hemoglobin <12 g/dL, decreasing body mass index, congestive heart failure, increasing age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥IV, current tobacco use, history of peripheral vascular intervention, and increasing extent of aortic disease. The 1-year mortality rate varied from 4% among the 23% of patients classified as low risk to 23% for the 24% classified as high risk. Performance of the model in validation was comparable with performance in the training data. The internally validated scoring system classified patients roughly into quartiles of risk (low, low/medium, medium/high and high), with 52% of patients categorized as medium/high to high risk, which had corresponding 1-year mortality rates of 11% and 23%, respectively. Aneurysm diameter was below Society for Vascular Surgery recommended treatment thresholds (<5.0 cm in females, <5.5 cm in males) in 17% of patients (n = 679/3961), 41% of whom were categorized as medium/high or high risk. This subgroup had significantly increased in-hospital complication rates (18% vs 12%; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (13% vs 5%; P < .0001) compared with patients in the low- or low/medium-risk groups with guideline-compliant aneurysm diameters (≥5.0 cm in females, ≥5.5 cm in males). CONCLUSIONS: This validated preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality after cEVAR incorporates physiological, functional, and anatomical variables. This novel and simplified scoring system can effectively discriminate mortality risk and, when applied prospectively, may facilitate improved preoperative decision-making, complex aneurysm care delivery, and resource allocation.

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease. RESULTS: Four publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

Modern management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) remain one of the most clinically challenging and technically complex emergencies in contemporary vascular surgery practice. Over the past 30 years, a variety of changes surrounding the treatment of rAAA have evolved including improvements in diagnosis, development of coordinated referral networks to transfer patients more efficiently to higher volume centers, deliberate de-escalation of pre-hospital resuscitation, modification of patient and procedure selection, implementation of clinical pathways, as well as enhanced awareness of certain high-impact postoperative complications. Despite these advances, current postoperative outcomes remain sobering since morbidity and mortality rates ranging from 25%-50% persist among modern published series. Some of the most impactful variation in rAAA management has been fostered by the rapid proliferation of endovascular repair (EVAR) along with service alignment at selected centers to improve timely revascularization. Indeed, clinical care pathways and emergency response networks are now increasingly utilized which has led to improved outcomes contemporaneously. Moreover, evolution in pre- and post-operative physiologic resuscitation has also contributed to observed improvements in rAAA outcomes. Due to different developments in care provision over time, the purpose of this review is to describe the modern management of rAAA, while providing historical perspectives on patient, procedure and systems-based practice elements that have evolved care delivery paradigms in this complex group of patients.

Adoption and Diffusion of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in Contemporary Practice.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the FDA approved transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) for high-risk patients with carotid stenosis. This was granted in the absence of level 1 evidence to support TCAR. We aimed to document trends in TCAR utilization, its diffusion over time, and the clinical phenotypes of patients undergoing TCAR, CEA, and TF-CAS. METHODS: We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent TCAR. We calculated the number of TCARs performed and the percent of TCAR utilization versus CEA/TF-CAS. Using data from before TCAR was widespread, we calculated propensity scores for patients to receive CEA. We applied this model to patients undergoing carotid revascularization from 2016 to 2022 and grouped patients by the procedure they ultimately underwent, examining overlap in score distribution to measure patient similarity. We measured the trend of in-hospital stroke/death after TCAR. RESULTS: We studied 31 447 patients who underwent TCAR from January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2022. The number of centers performing TCAR increased from 29 to 606. In 2021, TCAR represented 22.5% of carotid revascularizations at centers offering all 3 procedures. The percentage of patients that underwent TCAR who met approved high-risk criteria decreased from 88.5% to 80.9% (P<0.001). Those with a prior ipsilateral carotid procedure decreased from 20.6% in 2016 to 12.0% in 2021 (P<0.001). Patients undergoing TCAR after stroke increased from 19.7% to 30.7% (P<0.001). Propensity-score overlap was 55.4% for TCAR/CEA, and 58.6% for TCAR/TF-CAS, demonstrating that TCAR patients have a clinical phenotype mixed between those who undergo CEA and TF-CAS. The average in-hospital stroke/death risk after TCAR was 2.3% in 2016 and 1.7% in 2022 (P trend: 0.954). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR now represents nearly 1-in-4 procedures at centers offering it. TCAR was increasingly performed among standard-risk patients and as a first-line procedural option after stroke. The absence of level 1 evidence underscores the importance of high-quality registry-based analyses to document TCAR's real-world outcomes and durability.

Readmission After Lower Extremity Bypass Following Discharge to a Rehabilitation or Nursing Facility.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital readmission after lower extremity arterial bypass (LEB) is common. Patients are often discharged to a facility after LEB as a bridge to home. Our objective was to define the association between discharge to a facility and readmission after LEB. METHODS: We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent LEB from 2017 to 2022. The primary exposure was discharge location. The primary outcome was 30-d hospital readmission. RESULTS: We included 6076 patients across 147 centers. The overall 30-d readmission rate was 18%. Readmission occurred among 15% of patients discharged home, 22% of patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility, and 25% of patients discharged to a nursing home. After controlling for patient and procedural factors, there was no significant association between discharge location and 30-d readmission (rehabilitation versus home odds ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.29; nursing facility versus home odds ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.47). Female sex, end-stage renal disease, diabetes, heart failure, pulmonary disease, smoking, preoperative functional impairment, tibial bypass target, critical limb threatening or acute ischemia, and postoperative complications including surgical site infection, change in renal function and graft thrombosis were associated with an increased likelihood of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged home after LEB experienced a similar likelihood of readmission as those discharged to a facility. While discharge to a facility may aid in care transitions, it did not appear to lead to reduced 30-d readmissions. The recommended discharge location should be predicated on patient care needs and not as a perceived mechanism to reduce readmissions.

The role of big data, risk prediction, simulation, and centralization for emergency vascular problems: Lessons learned and future directions.

Vascular specialists remain in high demand in current practice and commonly oversee care delivery for a variety of clinical emergencies. Accordingly, the contemporary vascular surgeon must be facile with treating a spectrum of problems, including a complex, heterogeneous group of acute arteriovenous thromboembolic and bleeding diatheses. It has been documented previously that there are substantial current workforce limitations placing constraints on vascular surgical care provision. Moreover, with the aging at-risk population, there remains a considerable national urgency to improve timely diagnoses, specialty consultation, and appropriate transfer of patients to centers of excellence capable of providing a comprehensive compendium of emergency vascular services. Clinical decision aids, simulation training, and regionalization of nonelective vascular problems are all strategies that have been increasingly recognized to address these service gaps. Notably, clinical research in vascular surgery has traditionally focused on identification of patient- and procedure-related factors that influence outcomes by using resource-intensive causal inference methodology. By comparison, large data sets have only more recently been recognized to be a valuable tool that can provide heuristic algorithms to address more complex health care problems. Such data can be manipulated to generate clinical risk scores and decision aids, as well as robust outcome descriptions, which stand to inform stakeholders regarding best practice. The purpose of this review was to provide a robust overview of the lessons derived from the application of big data, risk prediction, and simulation in the management of vascular emergencies.

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.