Bleeding is associated with severely impaired outcomes in surgery for acute type a aortic dissection.

Background. Surgery for acute type A aortic dissection confers a risk for significant bleeding. We analyzed the impact of massive bleeding on complications after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. Methods. Patients undergoing surgery for acute type A aortic dissection from the retrospective multicenter Nordic Consortium for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection (NORCAAD) database 2005-2014 were eligible. Massive bleeding was defined according to the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding. The primary outcome measure was early mortality and secondary outcome measures were perioperative stroke, mechanical ventilation more than 48 h, new-onset dialysis, and intensive care unit stay. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in covariates. Results. Nine hundred ninety-seven patients were included, of whom 403 (40.4%) had massive bleeding. In the propensity score-matched cohort (344 pairs), patients with massive bleeding had higher 30-day mortality (17.2 versus 7.6%, p < .001), mechanical ventilation more than 48 h (52.8 versus 22.6%, p < .001), perioperative stroke (24.3 versus 14.8%, p = .002), new-onset dialysis (22.5 versus 4.9%, p < .001), and longer intensive care unit stay (6 versus 3 days, p < .001), compared with patients without massive bleeding. Risk factors for massive bleeding were previous cardiac surgery, preoperative clopidogrel or ticagrelor therapy, DeBakey type I dissection, and localized or generalized malperfusion. Conclusions. Massive bleeding in surgery for acute type A aortic dissection is associated with a markedly increased risk for severe complications as well as early death. Further improvement of surgical technique and pharmacological optimization of coagulation is paramount to possibly improve outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection repair.

Appropriateness of care in superficial venous disease.

Chronic superficial venous disease, including superficial venous insufficiency, superficial venous thrombosis, and aneurysms, are prevalent conditions that affect millions of individuals worldwide. With chronic venous insufficiency specifically, the advent of office-based minimally invasive procedures in recent decades has significantly expanded access to outpatient treatment. However, as venous insufficiency is rarely life- or limb-threatening, the clinical diagnosis, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment indications should be considered carefully when recommending elective intervention. Appropriateness of care guidelines intend to aid providers and patients in the decision-making process, based on the available evidence in the scientific literature, to select the best care for the patient when treating their superficial venous disease.

Decision making in the frail vascular surgery patient: A scoping review.

Increasing evidence highlights the adverse impact of frailty and reduced physiologic reserve on surgical outcomes. Therefore, identification of frailty is essential for older adults being evaluated for vascular surgery procedures. Numerous frailty assessment tools are available to quantify the level of frailty and assist in preoperative decision making for these older patients. This review evaluates traditional and novel frailty metrics for their scientific validation, limitations, and clinical utility in vascular surgery decision-making.

Appropriate care in chronic limb threatening ischemia: A review of current evidence and outcomes.

Chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) poses a significant treatment challenge for vascular surgeons, interventionalists, podiatrists, and associated medical specialists. The evidence for what constitutes appropriate care is rapidly evolving and new treatment options are in constant development. This review examines the current guidelines for CLTI care, as well as reported outcomes for multiple care strategies in this patient population, including revascularization and medical optimization. We performed a literature review of the PubMed database, reviewing articles that reported outcomes for CLTI care between 2000 and 2023, and described these outcomes as they relate to the current state of CLTI treatment. Significant data are still forthcoming regarding CLTI care, but widespread adoption of appropriate CLTI care is essential for the treatment of this vulnerable population.

Appropriate management of the small abdominal aortic aneurysm.

There is variation in the management of small aneurysms in the United States today, with some surgeons moving forward with elective repair and others practice ongoing surveillance. Literature exists to suggest that small aneurysms are repaired at a higher rate than should be considered acceptable, and this represents a deviation from current standards of care. To best understand the optimal care of this patient population, this article aims to evaluate the current management of small aneurysms, review contemporary guidelines and the literature behind them, and assess the appropriateness of surgical management of small aneurysms.

Overview and comparison of contemporary Society for Vascular Surgery, American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, and European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for the management of patients with intermittent claudication.

Intermittent claudication (IC) is a phenotype of peripheral artery disease that is characterized by pain in the lower extremity muscles during activity that is relieved by rest. Medical management, risk factor control, smoking cessation, and exercise therapy have historically been the mainstays of treatment for IC, but advances in endovascular technology have led to increasing use of peripheral vascular interventions in this patient population. There are meaningful differences in published society guidelines and appropriate use criteria relevant to the management of IC, especially regarding indications for peripheral vascular interventions. The current review aims to highlight similarities and differences between major society recommendations for the management of IC, and to discuss practice trends, disparities, and evidence gaps in the use of peripheral vascular interventions for IC in the context of existing guidelines.

Preoperative evaluation profile of patients undergoing arterial vascular surgery in a tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral arterial disease have an increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications in the postoperative period of arterial surgeries known as Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), which includes acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, malignant arrhythmias, and stroke. The preoperative evaluation aims to reduce mortality and the risk of MACE. However, there is no standardized approach to performing them. The aim of this study was to compare the preoperative evaluation conducted by general practitioners with those performed by cardiologists. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of medical records of patients who underwent elective arterial surgeries from January 2016 to December 2020 at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. The authors compared the preoperative evaluation of these patients according to the initial evaluator (general practitioners vs. cardiologists), assessing patients' clinical factors, mortality, postoperative MACE incidence, rate of requested non-invasive stratification tests, length of hospital stay, among others. RESULTS: 281 patients were evaluated: 169 assessed by cardiologists and 112 by general practitioners. Cardiologists requested more non-invasive stratification tests (40.8%) compared to general practitioners (9%) (p < 0.001), with no impact on mortality (8.8% versus 10.7%; p = 0.609) and postoperative MACE incidence (10.6% versus 6.2%; p = 0.209). The total length of hospital stay was longer in the cardiologist group (17.27 versus 11.79 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The increased request for exams didn't have a significant impact on mortality and postoperative MACE incidence, but prolonged the total length of hospital stay. Health managers should consider these findings and ensure appropriate utilization of human and financial resources.

Mid-term outcomes of sartorius flap reconstruction in groin infection following vascular procedures or intravenous drug injections.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the early and mid-term outcomes of sartorius flap reconstruction after the development of a prior groin infection were investigated. METHODS: From January 2017 until June 2023, 44 patients from 2 centers in Italy underwent sartorius flap reconstruction after the development of a prior groin infection. Thirty-day outcome measures including major morbidity, amputation-free survival, and mortality were assessed. At 2-year follow-up, estimated outcomes of freedom from hemorrhagic complications, freedom from recurrent infection, freedom from reintervention, and amputation-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: In 35 cases (79.5%) a previous vascular procedure was performed, whilst in the remaining 9 cases (20.5%) the patient was an intravenous drug abuser. Thirty-day mortality and major amputation rates were 4.5%, and 2.3%, respectively. Overall 30-day wound healing rate was 56.8% (25 cases). The overall median duration of follow-up was 12 months (IQR 4-24). Complete wound healing was obtained in 36 cases (81.8%) after a median period of 1 month (IQR 1-3). The 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from hemorrhagic complications, freedom from recurrent infection, freedom from reintervention, and amputation-free survival were 82.1%, 70%, 71.9%, and 97.7%, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed the association of female sex with recurrent infection (HR 3.4, P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sartorius flap reconstruction after the development of a prior groin infection following vascular procedures or intravenous drug injections yielded acceptable mid-term outcomes in terms of freedom from hemorrhagic complications, and freedom from recurrent infection. Female sex seemed to affect the rate of recurrent infection.

Preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) is associated with major surgeries and remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in people undergoing vascular surgery, with an incidence rate ranging from 5% to 20%. Preoperative coronary interventions, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), may help prevent acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major vascular surgery when used in addition to routine perioperative drugs (e.g. statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiplatelet agents), CABG by creating new blood circulation routes that bypass the blockages in the coronary vessels, and PCI by opening up blocked blood vessels. There is currently uncertainty around the benefits and harms of preoperative coronary interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, and CINAHL EBSCO on 13 March 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care versus usual care for preventing acute myocardial infarction during major open vascular or endovascular surgery. We included participants of any sex or any age undergoing major open vascular surgery, major endovascular surgery, or hybrid vascular surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes of interest were acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and adverse events resulting from preoperative coronary interventions. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, quality of life, vessel or graft secondary patency, and length of hospital stay. We reported perioperative and long-term outcomes (more than 30 days after intervention). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (1144 participants). Participants were randomised to receive either preoperative coronary revascularisation with PCI or CABG plus usual care or only usual care before major vascular surgery. One trial enrolled participants if they had no apparent evidence of coronary artery disease. Another trial selected participants classified as high risk for coronary disease through preoperative clinical and laboratorial testing. We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis because participants from both the control and the intervention groups were eligible to undergo preoperative coronary revascularisation. We identified a high risk of performance bias in all included trials, with one trial displaying a high risk of other bias. However, the risk of bias was either low or unclear in other domains. We observed no difference between groups for perioperative acute myocardial infarction, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 4.57; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial showed a reduction in incidence of long-term (> 30 days) acute myocardial infarction in participants allocated to the preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care group, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28; 1 trial, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on all-cause mortality in the perioperative period when comparing the preoperative coronary intervention plus usual care group to usual care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of preoperative coronary interventions on long-term (follow up: 2.7 to 6.2 years) all-cause mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.80; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported no adverse effects related to coronary angiography, whereas the other two studies reported five deaths due to revascularisations. There may be no effect on cardiovascular mortality when comparing preoperative coronary revascularisation plus usual care to usual care in the short term (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 1 trial, 426 participants; low-certainty evidence). Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care in the short term may reduce length of hospital stay slightly when compared to usual care alone (mean difference -1.17 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.28; 1 trial, 462 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or vessel graft patency at either time point, and no study reported on adverse effects, cardiovascular mortality, or length of hospital stay at long-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may have little or no effect on preventing perioperative acute myocardial infarction and reducing perioperative all-cause mortality compared to usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain. Similarly, limited, very low-certainty evidence shows that preoperative coronary interventions may have little or no effect on reducing long-term all-cause mortality. There is very low-certainty evidence that preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may prevent long-term myocardial infarction, and low-certainty evidence that they may reduce length of hospital stay slightly, but not cardiovascular mortality in the short term, when compared to usual care alone. Adverse effects of preoperative coronary interventions were poorly reported in trials. Quality of life and vessel or graft patency were not reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence most frequently for high risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. None of the analysed trials provided significant data on subgroups of patients who could potentially experience more substantial benefits from preoperative coronary intervention (e.g. altered ventricular ejection fraction). There is a need for evidence from larger and homogeneous RCTs to provide adequate statistical power to assess the role of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

Illness Trajectories After Revascularization in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: A Unified Approach to Understanding the Risk of Major Amputation and Death.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the illness trajectories of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) after revascularization and estimate the independent risks of major amputation and death (from any cause) and their interaction. METHODS: Data from Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care were used to identify patients (≥50 years of age) who underwent lower limb revascularization for PAD in England from April 2013 to March 2020. A Markov illness-death model was developed to describe patterns of survival after the initial lower limb revascularization, if and when patients experienced major amputation, and survival after amputation. The model was also used to investigate the association between patient characteristics and these illness trajectories. We also analyzed the relative contribution of deaths after amputation to overall mortality and how the risk of mortality after amputation was related to the time from the index revascularization to amputation. RESULTS: The study analyzed 94 690 patients undergoing lower limb revascularization for PAD from 2013 to 2020. The majority were men (65.6%), and the median age was 72 years (interquartile range, 64-79). One-third (34.8%) of patients had nonelective revascularization, whereas others had elective procedures. For nonelective patients, the amputation rate was 15.2% (95% CI, 14.4-16.0) and 19.9% (19.0-20.8) at 1 and 5 years after revascularization, respectively. For elective patients, the corresponding amputation rate was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.4-3.1) and 5.3% (4.9-5.8). Overall, the risk of major amputation was higher among patients who were younger, had tissue loss, diabetes, greater frailty, nonelective revascularization, and more distal procedures. The mortality rate at 5 years after revascularization was 64.3% (95% CI, 63.2-65.5) for nonelective patients and 33.0% (32.0-34.1) for elective patients. After major amputation, patients were at an increased risk of mortality if they underwent major amputation within 6 months after the index revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The illness-death model provides an integrated framework to understand patient outcomes after lower limb revascularization for PAD. Although mortality increased with age, the study highlights patients <60 years of age were at increased risk of major amputation, particularly after nonelective revascularization.

Comparison of Endovascular Therapy and Open Surgical Revascularization in Patients With Acute Superior Mesenteric Artery Occlusion: A Large-Scale Analysis Based on the JROAD-DPC Database.

BACKGROUND: Acute mesenteric ischemia is rare, and few large-scale trials have evaluated endovascular therapy (EVT) and open surgical revascularization (OS). This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes after EVT or OS for acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion and identify predictors of mortality and bowel resection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases-Diagnosis Procedure Combination (JROAD-DPC) database from April 2012 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Overall, 746 patients with acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion who underwent revascularization were classified into 2 groups: EVT (n=475) or OS (n=271). The primary clinical outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were bowel resection, bleeding complications (transfusion or endoscopic hemostasis), major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization duration, and cost. The in-hospital death or bowel resection rate was ≈30%. In-hospital mortality (22.5% versus 21.4%, P=0.72), bowel resection (8.2% versus 8.5%, P=0.90), and major adverse cardiovascular events (11.6% versus 9.2%, P=0.32) were comparable between the EVT and OS groups. Hospitalization duration in the EVT group was 6 days shorter than that in the OS group, and total hospitalization cost was 0.88 million yen lower. Interaction analyses revealed that EVT and OS had no significant difference in terms of in-hospital death in patients with thromboembolic and atherothrombotic characteristics. Advanced age, decreased activities of daily living, chronic kidney disease, and old myocardial infarction were significant predictive factors for in-hospital mortality. Diabetes was a predictor of bowel resection after revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: EVT was comparable to OS in terms of clinical outcomes in patients with acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion. Some predictive factors for mortality or bowel resection were obtained. REGISTRATION: URL: www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/; Unique Identifier: UMIN000045240.

Following the COMPASS: Antithrombotic Prescription Trends in Patients with Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease following Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The Vascular Outcomes Study of aspirin (ASA) Along with Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) trial demonstrated the superiority of ASA and low-dose rivaroxaban (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial dosing) compared with ASA alone in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse limb events. We studied the COMPASS discharge prescription patterns in patients with symptomatic PAD who have undergone revascularization in our institution, since the time of publication of the Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA Along with Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for PAD trial. METHODS: All patients included in this study had documented lower-extremity atherosclerotic PAD and were eligible for COMPASS dosing. Revascularization strategies included endovascular (n = 299), suprainguinal bypass (n = 18), and infrainguinal bypass (n = 36). RESULTS: COMPASS prescription patterns for the composite of endovascular and surgical strategies demonstrated a consistently low rate over time, without a trend toward increasing use. COMPASS dosing was prescribed as often as antiplatelet monotherapy (33.4% COMPASS vs. 34.6% antiplatelet monotherapy). This low COMPASS prescription rate was driven by significantly lower COMPASS prescriptions following endovascular therapy compared to surgical bypass (28.8% endovascular vs. 59.3% surgical bypass). COMPASS prescriptions following surgical bypass showed better trends; half of suprainguinal bypass patients (50.0%) and two-thirds of infrainguinal bypass patients (63.9%) were discharged on COMPASS. Despite patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) representing a high-risk limb presentation, COMPASS prescriptions were low (29.8%), as opposed to patients without CLTI, and did not show a trend toward increasing use. In patients who underwent reinterventions throughout the observation period, there was a low conversion rate from ASA alone to COMPASS (3/26, 11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, one-third of patients were undertreated by prescription of antiplatelet monotherapy, indicating that there is significant room for medical optimization. This is especially true of patients undergoing endovascular treatment, including the high-risk subgroup of patients with CLTI. We highlight the importance of dual pathway antithrombotic therapy in patients eligible for COMPASS dosing to optimize best current evidence medical therapy.

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

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

Association Between Pack-Years and Smoking Cessation on Outcomes After Vascular Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: The influence of pack-year history and smoking cessation timing on postoperative morbidity and mortality in a highly comorbid cohort is uncertain. We examined whether the association between smoking and adverse postoperative events is modified by pack-year history and smoking cessation timing. METHODS: We collected single-institution, retrospective data from consecutive patients undergoing open operations for carotid, aortic, and infrainguinal arterial disease. Active smoking was defined as smoking on the day of the index surgical intervention. Duration of smoking cessation was calculated as the time between smoking cessation and index surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality and morbidity. Logistic and time-to-event Cox regressions estimated associations with interactions between cessation duration and pack-year history for nonactive smokers. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, 1087 patients underwent 1640 high-risk vascular interventions. Median pack-year history was 40.0 pack-years (interquartile range [IQR]: 20.0-60.0) among nonactive smokers and 46.0 pack-years (IQR: 31.0-61.0) among active smokers (P < 0.001). The median smoking cessation time was 15.5 y (IQR: 4.4-30.9). Smoking status did not independently predict an increased risk of postoperative mortality or morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99, P = 0.96). Among nonactive smokers, neither smoking cessation duration (OR = 0.99, P = 0.16) nor pack-year history (OR = 1.00, P = 0.88) were significantly associated with adverse events (interaction P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk vascular interventions in a single institution, active smoking, cessation period, and pack-year history are not associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality-highlighting the benefit of cessation as independent of frequency or intensity.

Is General Anesthesia for Peripheral Vascular Surgery Correlated with Impaired Outcome in Patients with Cardiac Comorbidity? A Closer Look into the Nationwide Danish Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: General anesthesia (GA) may impair outcome after vascular surgery. The use of anticoagulant medication is often used in patients with cardiac comorbidity. Regional anesthesia (RA) requires planning of discontinuation before neuraxial blockade(s) in this subgroup. This study aimed to describe the effect of anesthesia choice on outcome after vascular surgery in patients with known cardiac comorbidity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Danish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 6302 patients with known cardiac comorbidity, defined as ischemic heart disease, valve disease, pulmonary vascular disease, heart failure, and cardiac arrhythmias, undergoing lower extremity vascular surgery between 2005 and 2017. INTERVENTIONS: GA versus RA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were extracted from national registries. GA was defined as anesthesia with mechanical ventilation. Multivariable regression models were used to describe the incidence of postoperative complications as well as 30-day mortality, hypothesizing that better outcomes would be seen after RA. The rate of RA decreased from 48% in 2005 to 20% in 2017. The number of patients with 1 or more complications was 9.7% vs 6.2% (p < 0.001), and 30-day mortality was 6.0% vs 3.4% (p < 0.001) after GA. After adjusting for baseline differences, the odds ratio (OR) was significantly lower for medical complications (cardiac, pulmonary, renal, new dialysis, intensive care unit and other medical complications; OR, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.98) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) after RA. CONCLUSIONS: RA may be associated with a better outcome than GA after lower extremity vascular surgery in patients with a cardiac comorbidity. Prioritizing RA, despite the inconvenience of discontinuing anticoagulants, may be recommended.

[Preventive myocardial revascularization prior to abdominal aortic repair in patients without cardiac symptoms: long-term results]. / Profilakticheskaya revaskulyarizatsiya miokarda pered rezektsiei anevrizmy bryushnoi aorty u kardiologicheski asimptomnykh bol'nykh: otdalennye rezul'taty.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term influence of preoperative invasive coronary screening and preventive myocardial revascularization on mortality and cardiac complications after open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present long-term outcomes after open surgery for AAA between 2011 and 2022. Patients without clinical or objective signs of coronary artery disease were included. In the 1st group, routine coronary angiography was performed before surgery. Prophylactic myocardial revascularization was performed in 12 cases. Long-term data on 45 patients were obtained. In the 2nd group, 53 patients underwent repair without invasive coronary screening, and data on 48 patients were obtained in this group. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 32 and 79 months, respectively. Kaplan-Meyer overall 48-month survival was 87.3% and 82.1%, respectively (p=0.278). In the first group, 2 patients developed angina pectoris in the same period. In the second group, we observed 2 cases of myocardial infarction and 3 cases of angina pectoris without infarction. Analysis of survival curves found no significant differences (p=0.165). CONCLUSION: In our study, invasive coronary screening and preventive myocardial revascularization in patients without clinical and objective signs of coronary artery did not improve 4-year long-term period after abdominal aortic repair. Perhaps, differences will appear after 4 years, and this requires further follow-up after coronary angiography. However, there is a tendency towards more common onsets of coronary artery disease that dictates the need for cardiac monitoring of such patients.

Comparison of Various Functional Assessment Tools to Identify Older Patients Undergoing Aortic Aneurysm Repair at Risk for Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: To estimate whether the benefits of aortic aneurysm repair will outweigh the risks, determining individual risks is essential. This single-center prospective cohort study aimed to compare the association of functional tools with postoperative complications in older patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (≥65 years) who underwent aortic aneurysm repair were included. Four functional tools were administered: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); the 4-Meter Walk Test (4-MWT); handgrip strength; and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Primary outcome was the association between all tests and 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, the odds ratio for MoCA was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.450; 3.157; P = 0.723), for 4-MWT 0.63 (95% CI 0.242; 1.650; P = 0.348), for GFI 1.82 (95% CI 0.783; 4.323, P = 0.162), and for weak handgrip strength 4.78 (95% CI 1.338; 17.096, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Weak handgrip strength is significantly associated with the development of postoperative complications after aortic aneurysm repair. This study strengthens the idea that implementing a quick screening tool for risk assessment at the outpatient clinic, such as handgrip strength, identifies patients who may benefit from preoperative enhancement with help from, for example, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, eventually leading to better outcomes for this patient group.

Barriers to Antiplatelet and Statin Adherence Following Major Vascular Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelets and statins therapies are associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes following major vascular intervention. Many vascular surgery institutions are reporting improved prescribing rates for aspirin (ASA), P2Y12 antagonists, and statins. Nevertheless, there remains limited publication describing rates and patient-perceived barriers for postoperative adherence. The purpose of this study is to investigate patient nonadherence to antiplatelet and statin therapies following major vascular intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent major vascular intervention at a single academic center was performed. The prescribing rates of ASA, P2Y12 antagonists, and statins were reviewed. Postoperative adherence, defined as consistent intake as prescribed, was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using electronic documentation of both follow-up clinic appointments and phone call assessments, then corroborated with pharmacy fulfilment records. Patient-reported barriers to medication adherence were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 101 subjects underwent major vascular intervention between January 2020 and July 2020, 98% of whom were discharged on at least 1 antiplatelet or statin agent. Approximately 90% of patients were discharged with ASA, 32% with a P2Y12 antagonist, and 96% with a statin. All patients who maintained adherence up to 6 months continued to report adherence at 9 and 12 months. Consistent adherence at 12 months was documented in 76% of patients on ASA, 81% on P2Y12 antagonism therapy, and 73% on statins. New adverse drug reactions represented the most common barrier to achieving adherence (37% [n = 20]). Preoperative therapy with ASA, P2Y12 antagonists, and statins were all independently predictive of postoperative adherence to the same regimen (P ≤ 0.001). The female gender was also associated with higher rates of adherence to postoperative P2Y12 antagonism therapy (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The current prescribing rates for antiplatelet and statin agents are promising, but postoperative nonadherence remains a multifaceted issue.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes among patients undergoing revascularization vs medical therapy for intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommend revascularization for patients with intermittent claudication (IC) if it can improve patient function and quality of life. However, it is still unclear if patients with IC achieve a significant functional benefit from surgery compared with medical management alone. This study examines the relationship between IC treatment modality (operative vs nonoperative optimal medical management) and patient-reported outcomes for physical function (PROMIS-PF) and satisfaction in social roles and activities (PROMIS-SA). METHODS: We identified patients with IC who presented for index evaluation in a vascular surgery clinic at an academic medical center between 2016 and 2021. Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent a revascularization procedure during follow-up vs continued nonoperative management with medication and recommended exercise therapy. We used linear mixed-effect models to assess the relationship between treatment modality and PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-SA, and ankle-brachial index (ABI) over time, clustering among repeat patient observations. Models were adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Clinical Frailty Score, tobacco use, and index ABI. RESULTS: A total of 225 patients with IC were identified, of which 40% (n = 89) underwent revascularization procedures (42% bypass; 58% peripheral vascular intervention) and 60% (n = 136) continued nonoperative management. Patients were followed up to 6.9 years, with an average follow-up of 5.2 ± 1.6 years. Patients who underwent revascularization were more likely to be clinically frail (P = .03), have a lower index ABI (0.55 ± 0.24 vs 0.72 ± 0.28; P < .001), and lower baseline PROMIS-PF score (36.72 ± 8.2 vs 40.40 ± 6.73; P = .01). There were no differences in patient demographics or medications between treatment groups. Examining patient-reported outcome trends over time; there were no significant differences in PROMIS-PF between groups, trends over time, or group differences over time after adjusting for covariates (P = .07, P = .13, and P =.08, respectively). However, all patients with IC significantly increased their PROMIS-SA over time (adjusted P = .019), with patients managed nonoperatively more likely to have an improvement in PROMIS-SA over time than those who underwent revascularization (adjusted P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes associated with functional status and satisfaction in activities are similar for patients with IC for up to 7 years, irrespective of whether they undergo treatment with revascularization or continue nonoperative management. These findings support conservative long-term management for patients with IC.