Mechanical thrombectomy of inferior vena cava filter-associated caval thrombosis using FlowTriever and ClotTriever systems.

OBJECTIVE: Chronically indwelling inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) can have multiple adverse sequelae, including IVCF-associated thrombosis. The Inari ClotTriever and FlowTriever mechanical and aspiration thrombectomy systems (Inari Medical) can be used for acute caval thrombosis associated with IVCFs if appropriate proximal IVCF protection is used intraprocedurally. The present study reports a single institution's outcomes after ClotTriever and FlowTriever thrombectomy of acute IVCF-associated iliocaval thrombus. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent ClotTriever or FlowTriever thrombectomy for IVCF-associated caval thrombosis. The patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and postprocedural outcomes of a 15-patient cohort were compiled and described. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were identified as presenting with acute IVCF-associated caval thrombosis and having undergone intervention with either the ClotTriever or FlowTriever system from 2019 to 2022. Of the 15 patients in the cohort, 3 (20%) had presented with a threatened extremity (phlegmasia cerulea dolens), and 12 had presented with severe, debilitating, but non-limb-threatening, lower extremity edema. The preprocedural clot burden was significant and involved the cava, iliac veins, and femoropopliteal veins in 7 of 15 patients (47%) in the cohort. The procedure was technically successful in 11 patients (73.33%). Resolution of acute symptoms was noted in 100% of the technically successful procedures. The 30-day mortality rate was 13% (2 of 15 patients). One intraprocedural death occurred from pulmonary embolism, and one patient died of malignancy complications. The surviving patients not lost to follow-up experienced stable or improving venous disease, with only one patient presenting with post-phlebitic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical and aspiration thrombectomy of IVCF-associated thrombus with the FlowTriever and ClotTriever systems have good technical success and resulted in significant improvement in acute symptoms with adequate clot clearance. Proximal embolic protection maneuvers for pulmonary embolism prophylaxis and preexisting filter protection are required intraprocedurally.

Factors associated with preference of choice of aortic aneurysm repair in the PReference for Open Versus Endovascular repair of AAA (PROVE-AAA) study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients can choose between open repair and endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the factors associated with patient preference for one repair type over another are not well-characterized. Here we assess the factors associated with preference of choice for open or endovascular AAA repair among veterans exposed to a decision aid to help with choosing surgical treatment. METHODS: Across 12 Veterans Affairs hospitals, veterans received a decision aid covering domains including patient information sources and understanding preference. Veterans were then given a series of surveys at different timepoints examining their preferences for open versus endovascular AAA repair. Questions from the preference survey were used in analyses of patient preference. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with preference for open repair or preference for EVAR. RESULTS: A total of 126 veterans received a decision aid informing them of their treatment choices, after which 121 completed all preference survey questions; five veterans completed only part of the instruments. Overall, veterans who preferred open repair were typically younger (70 years vs 73 years; P = .02), with similar rates of common comorbidities (coronary disease 16% vs 28%; P = .21), and similar aneurysms compared with those who preferred EVAR (6.0 cm vs 5.7 cm; P = .50). Veterans in both preference categories (28% of veterans preferring EVAR, 48% of veterans preferring open repair) reported taking their doctor's advice as the top box response for the single most important factor influencing their decision. When comparing the tradeoff between less invasive surgery and higher risk of long-term complications, more than one-half of veterans preferring EVAR reported invasiveness as more important compared with approximately 1 in 10 of those preferring open repair (53% vs 12%; P < .001). Shorter recovery was an important factor for the EVAR group (74%) and not important in the open repair group (76%) (P = .5). In multivariable analyses, valuing a short hospital stay (odds ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-135.70) and valuing a shorter recovery (odds ratio, 15.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-240.20) were associated with a greater odds of preference for EVAR, whereas finding these characteristics not important was associated with a greater odds of preference for open repair. CONCLUSIONS: When faced with the decision of open repair versus EVAR, veterans who valued a shorter hospital stay and a shorter recovery were more likely to prefer EVAR, whereas those more concerned about long-term complications preferred an open repair. Veterans typically value the advice of their surgeon over their own beliefs and preferences. These findings need to be considered by surgeons as they guide their patients to a shared decision.

The Impact of Work Status and Age in Choosing Type of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

INTRODUCTION: The PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) trial aimed to determine the efficacy of a validated decision aid to enable better alignment between patient preference and their ultimate repair. We sought to determine the key factors influencing the decision-making of veterans for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: A total of 235 veterans in the PROVE-AAA trial were asked their information sources regarding repairs, employment status, and preferred intervention. Answers were coded and analyzed using conventional content analysis to generate nonoverlapping themes, then stratified by employment status. RESULTS: Forty-two patients (17.8% of enrollees) provided their source of information for OSR prior to using a decision aid. 81% of retired veterans were greater than 70 y old, while 58% of nonretired veterans were greater than 70 (P = 0.003). The most common information source was from a vascular surgeon/professional or unspecified MD/other health professionals (51.4%), while sources from outside this group made up the remaining 48.5%. The most preferred procedure was EVAR. However, nonretired individuals were more likely to prefer OSR. These data on information source and preferred procedure were similar in patients who provided their source for EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans in the PROVE-AAA study were more likely to be retired and more likely to rely on information from an unspecified MD/other health professionals for EVAR. Although both retired and nonretired veterans preferred EVAR the most, nonretired veterans were more likely to prefer OSR despite being younger.

Exploring Factors Associated With Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis Within Surgical Groups.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists caring for patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders may have ethical concerns because of their resuscitative wishes and may have clinical concerns because of their known increased risk of morbidity/mortality. Patient heterogeneity and/or emphasis on mortality outcomes make previous studies among patients with DNR orders difficult to interpret. We sought to explore factors associated with morbidity and mortality among patients with DNR orders, which were stratified by surgical subgroups. METHODS: Exploratory retrospective cohort study in adult patients undergoing prespecified colorectal, vascular, and orthopedic surgeries was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File data from 2010 to 2013. Among patients with preoperative DNR orders (ie, active DNR order written in the patient's chart before surgery), factors associated with 30-day mortality, increased length of stay, and inpatient death were determined via penalized regression. Unadjusted and adjusted estimates for selected variables are presented. RESULTS: After selection as above, 211,420 patients underwent prespecified procedures, and of those, 2755 (1.3%) had pre-existing DNR orders and met above selection to address morbidity/mortality aims. By specialty, of these patients with a preoperative DNR, 1149 underwent colorectal, 870 vascular, and 736 orthopedic surgery. Across groups, 36.2% were male and had a mean age 79.9 years (range 21-90). The 30-day mortality was 15.4%-27.2% and median length of stay was 6-12 days. Death at discharge was 7.0%, 13.1%, and 23.0% in orthopedics, vascular, and colorectal patients with a DNR, respectively. The strongest factors associated with increased odds of 30-day mortality were preoperative septic shock in colorectal patients, preoperative ascites in vascular patients, and any requirement of mechanical ventilation at admission in orthopedic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DNR orders undergoing common surgical procedures, the association of characteristics with morbidity and mortality varies in both direction and magnitude. The DNR order itself should not be the defining measure of risk.

Development and Performance of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Inform Resource Utilization for Elective Operations.

Importance: Hospitals ceased most elective procedures during the height of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. As hospitals begin to recommence elective procedures, it is necessary to have a means to assess how resource intensive a given case may be. Objective: To evaluate the development and performance of a clinical decision support tool to inform resource utilization for elective procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, predictive modeling was used on retrospective electronic health records data from a large academic health system comprising 1 tertiary care hospital and 2 community hospitals of patients undergoing scheduled elective procedures from January 1, 2017, to March 1, 2020. Electronic health records data on case type, patient demographic characteristics, service utilization history, comorbidities, and medications were and abstracted and analyzed. Data were analyzed from April to June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Predicitons of hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, and need to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility. These predictions were generated using the random forests algorithm. Predicted probabilities were turned into risk classifications designed to give assessments of resource utilization risk. Results: Data from the electronic health records of 42 199 patients from 3 hospitals were abstracted for analysis. The median length of stay was 2.3 days (range, 1.3-4.2 days), 6416 patients (15.2%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, 1624 (3.8%) received mechanical ventilation, and 2843 (6.7%) were discharged to a skilled nursing facility. Predictive performance was strong with an area under the receiver operator characteristic ranging from 0.76 to 0.93. Sensitivity of the high-risk and medium-risk groupings was set at 95%. The negative predictive value of the low-risk grouping was 99%. We integrated the models into a daily refreshing Tableau dashboard to guide decision-making. Conclusions and Relevance: The clinical decision support tool is currently being used by surgical leadership to inform case scheduling. This work shows the importance of a learning health care environment in surgical care, using quantitative modeling to guide decision-making.

The Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes (VISION) Coordinated Registry Network: An effort to advance evidence evaluation for vascular devices.

The Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) is a Coordinated Registry Network (CRN) a member of Medical Device Epidemiology Network, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-supported global public-private partnership that seeks to advance the collection and use of real-world data to improve patient outcomes. The VISION CRN began in September 2015 and held its first strategic meeting on September 10, 2018, at the FDA headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. VISION is a collaboration of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), the FDA, and other stakeholders. At this annual meeting, leaders from the FDA, VQI, industry representatives, population health researchers, and regulatory science experts gathered to discuss strategic goals and opportunities for VISION. One of the key focus areas for VISION is linkage of VQI registry data to Medicare, longitudinal data sources maintained by various states, and other relevant data sources, as a model for efficient, cost-saving, and effectual evidence generation and appraisal. This would provide the means to expand data collection, assess long-term procedural outcomes across the carotid, lower extremity, aortic, and venous intervention datasets, and execute registry-based trials through the CRN structure in an efficient, cost-effective manner. Looking forward, VISION strives to validate long-term outcome data in the VQI using industry datasets, in hopes of using CRNs to make device regulatory decisions. With the guidance of a steering committee, VISION will provide vascular surgeons, industry, and regulators the appropriate data to improve care for patients with vascular disease.

Assessing Quality of Surgical Real-World Data from an Automated Electronic Health Record Pipeline.

BACKGROUND: Significant analysis errors can be caused by nonvalidated data quality of electronic health records data. To determine surgical data fitness, a framework of foundational and study-specific data analyses was adapted and assessed using conformance, completeness, and plausibility analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Electronic health records-derived data from a cohort of 241,695 patients undergoing 412,182 procedures from October 1, 2014 to August 31, 2018 at 3 hospital sites was evaluated. Data quality analyses tested CPT codes, medication administrations, vital signs, provider notes, labs, orders, diagnosis codes, medication lists, and encounters. RESULTS: Foundational checks showed that all encounters had procedures within the inclusion period, all admission dates occurred before discharge dates, and race was missing for 1% of patients. All procedures had associated CPT codes, 69% had recorded blood pressure, pulse, temperature, respiration rate, and oxygen saturation. After curation, all medication matched RxNorm medication naming standards, 84% of procedures had current outpatient medication lists, and 15% of procedures had missing procedure notes. Study-specific checks temporally validated CPT codes, intraoperative medication doses were in conventional units, and of the 13,500 patients who received blood pressure medication intraoperatively, 93% had a systolic blood pressure >140 mmHg. All procedure notes were completed within less than 30 days of the procedure and 93% of patients after total knee arthroplasty had postoperative physical therapy notes. All patients with postoperative troponin-T lab values ≥0.10 ng/mL had more than 1 ECG with relevant diagnoses. Postoperative opioid prescription decreased by 8.8% and nonopioid use increased by 8.8%. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of conformance, completeness, and clinical plausability demonstrate higher quality of real-world data fitness and low levels demonstrate less-fit-for-use data.

Design of the PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) Trial.

For patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), randomized trials have found endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality than open surgical repair (OSR). However, OSR has fewer long-term aneurysm-related complications, such as endoleak or late rupture. Patients treated with EVAR and OSR have similar survival rates within two years after surgery, and OSR does not require intensive surveillance. Few have examined if patient preferences are aligned with the type of treatment they receive for their AAA. Although many assume that patients may universally prefer the less-invasive nature of EVAR, our preliminary work suggests that patients who value the lower risk of late complications may prefer OSR. In this study, called The PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) trial, we describe a cluster-randomized trial to test if a decision aid can better align patients' preferences and their treatment type for AAA. Patients enrolled in the study are candidates for either endovascular or open repair and are followed up at VA hospitals by vascular surgery teams who regularly perform both types of repair. In Aim 1, we will determine patients' preferences for endovascular or open repair and identify domains associated with each repair type. In Aim 2, we will assess alignment between patients' preferences and the repair type elected and then compare the impact of a decision aid on this alignment between the intervention and control groups. This study will help us to accomplish two goals. First, we will better understand the factors that affect patient preference when choosing between EVAR and OSR. Second, we will better understand if a decision aid can help patients be more likely to receive the treatment strategy they prefer for their AAA. Study enrollment began on June 1, 2017. Between June 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018, we have enrolled 178 of a total goal of 240 veterans from 20 VA medical centers and their vascular surgery teams across the country. We anticipate completing enrollment in PROVE-AAA in June 2019, and study analyses will be performed thereafter.

Patient information sources when facing repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Shared medical decision making is most important when there are competing options for repair such as in treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We sought to understand the sources of patients' pre-existing knowledge about AAA to better inform treating physicians about patients' needs for preoperative counseling. METHODS: We performed a multicenter survey of patients facing AAA repair at 20 Veterans Affairs hospitals across the United States as part of the Preferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of AAA study. A validated survey instrument was administered to examine the sources of information available and commonly used by patients to learn about their repair options. The survey was administered by study personnel before the patient had any interaction with the vascular surgeon because survey data were collected before the vascular clinic visit. RESULTS: Preliminary analysis of data from 99 patients showed that our cohort was primarily male (99%) and elderly (mean age 73 years). Patients commonly had a history of hypertension (86%), prior myocardial infarction (32%), diabetes (32%), and were overweight (58%). Patients arrived at their surgeon's office appointment with limited information. A majority of patients (52%) reported that they had not talked to their primary care physician at all about their options for AAA repair, and one-half (50%) reported that their view of the different surgical options had not been influenced by anyone. Slightly less than one-half of patients reported that they did not receive any information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (41% and 37%, respectively). Few patients indicated using the internet as their main source of information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (10% and 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are commonly referred for AAA repair having little to no information regarding AAA pathology or repair options. Fewer than one in five patients searched the internet or had accessed other sources of information on their own. Most vascular surgeons should assume that patients will present to their first vascular surgery appointment with minimal understanding of the treatment options available to them.

Carotid stenting and endarterectomy and contralateral carotid occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The presence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) has been controversial throughout the history of carotid intervention. Some studies cite a higher stroke risk in the setting of CCO, whereas other studies document no difference in stroke risk. We investigated the risk of stroke after intervention in the setting of CCO in a large, national, validated dataset. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2011-2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Initiative Project files using targeted carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid angioplasty, and carotid artery stenting (CAS) data. Patient and procedural characteristics, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. The primary outcome measure was the stroke rate, with a secondary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: During the study period, 11,948 CEA and 422 CAS procedures were available for study, with significantly fewer CEA (4.73% of all CEA) than CAS (9.95%; P < .0001) occurring in the setting of CCO. CAS was associated with more severe degree of stenosis than CEA (P = .045). Multivariable logistic regression showed that stroke after procedures was higher in patients with CCO than without CCO (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.76; P = .02), but specific procedure (CEA vs CAS) was not associated with stroke while controlling for confounders. However, when evaluating our secondary composite outcome, CCO was not associated with the outcome while controlling for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a bias that CCO confers a higher risk on patients undergoing carotid procedures and this notion is manifest in the proportion of CEA and CAS procedures done in the setting of CCO. Our study observes that CCO provides only a minor influence on periprocedural stroke risk and that other factors are more closely tied to outcomes of CEA and CAS.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Site Infection in Procedure-Targeted ACS NSQIP Pancreaticoduodenectomies.

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) incurs a surgical site infection rate of up to 18%. Published rates after minimally invasive PD are comparable or superior to open, but data are limited to high-volume, single-institution series. This study aimed to determine national outcomes. We hypothesized nationwide infections would be reduced with a minimally invasive approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the newly available pancreatectomy-specific outcomes in National Surgical Quality Improvement Project, data on surgical site infection in PD were extracted from the procedure-targeted participant user file from 2014 to 2015. χ2 test determined correlation of infection with approach. Linear regression determined correlation of known parameters with infection rate. RESULTS: Overall infection rate was 24%. Compared with open, laparoscopic rates were lower (P = 0.001), but robotic rates were comparable with open. Stenting, longer operative times, and soft gland texture were associated with increased infection rates, whereas larger duct size and drains were associated with decreased rates (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic PD is associated with decreased surgical site infection on a national level. This represents the first procedure-targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Project report on this endpoint. Despite greater infection rates than previously reported, these data support previous institutional reports of decreased infection rates with laparoscopic approach.

Low mortality rates after endovascular aortic repair expand use to high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: The 2010 endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) trial 2 (EVAR 2) reported that patients with comorbidity profiles rendering them unfit for open aneurysm repair who underwent EVAR did not experience a survival advantage compared with those who did not undergo intervention. These patients experienced a 30-day mortality of 7.3%, whereas reports from similar cohorts reported far lower mortality rates. The primary objective of our study was to compare the incidence of 30-day mortality in low- and high-risk patients undergoing EVAR in a contemporary data set, using patient risk stratification criteria from EVAR 2. Secondarily, we sought to identify risk factors associated with a disproportionate contribution to 30-day mortality risk. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2005 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use Data Files (N = 24,813). Patients were included in the high-risk cohort with the presence of renal, respiratory, or cardiac preoperative criteria alone or in combination. Renal impairment criteria were defined as dialysis and creatinine concentration >2.26 mg/dL. Respiratory impairment criteria included history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and preoperative ventilator support. Cardiac impairment criteria included history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, and prior coronary intervention. Patient and procedural characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: Among 24,813 patients undergoing EVAR, 12,043 (48%) patients were characterized as high risk (at least one impairment criterion); 12,770 (52%) patients were stratified as low risk. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.9% in the high-risk cohort compared with the 7.3% reported by EVAR 2, and it was higher in the high-risk cohort compared with the low-risk cohort (1.9% vs 0.9%; P < .001). Whereas the presence of each comorbidity increased the odds of 30-day mortality (respiratory odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.26; P = .005; cardiac OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.10; P = .005), the presence of renal criteria disproportionately increased the odds of mortality threefold (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.31-5.09; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary 30-day mortality after EVAR in high-risk patients is substantially lower than that reported in the EVAR 2 trial. Whereas low- and high-risk stratification by current comorbidity criteria is appropriate, attention needs to be paid to disproportionate risk contribution from renal disease to mortality compared with cardiac and pulmonary comorbidities. Given the lower mortality risk than previously described, patients stratified as high risk should be thoughtfully considered for definitive EVAR.

Vascular Complications and Use of a Distal Perfusion Cannula in Femorally Cannulated Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Femoral arterial cannulation in adult venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) predisposes patients to ipsilateral limb ischemia. Placement of a distal perfusion catheter (DPC) is one of few techniques available to prevent or manage this complication. Although frequently used, the indications for and timing of DPC placement are poorly characterized, and no guidelines are available to guide its use. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidences of vascular complications and limb ischemia between patients who did and did not receive a DPC at the time of primary ECMO cannulation. Between June 2009 and April 2015, 132 adults underwent VA ECMO cannulation at our institution. Of the 80 femoral cannulations comprising this retrospective single-center study cohort, 14 (17.5%) received a DPC at the time of primary cannulation. Demographics, indications for ECMO, and cardiovascular history and risk factors were not significantly different between comparison groups. Median arterial cannula size was 17 French in both groups. Vascular complications occurred in 2 of the 14 patients with initial DPC (14.3%) compared with 21 of 66 without initial DPC (31.8%; p = 0.188). Limb ischemia occurred in 2 of 14 patients in the DPC group (14.3%) and 15 of 66 in the non-DPC group (22.7%; p = 0.483). In-hospital mortality was comparable between groups. DPC placement at the time of primary cannulation may lower the incidence of limb ischemia. The benefit of DPC placement once evidence of limb ischemia is apparent remains unclear.

Endovascular and Open Repair of Ruptured Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: The mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) has been reported as high as 90%. Loss of consciousness and a systolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg on presentation are the most important predictors of mortality after emergent open repair (OR). Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has reduced short-term operative mortality and morbidity for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and may be advocated for wider application of EVAR for rAAA. The objective of this study is to compare our experience with OR and EVAR management of rAAA. METHODS: Retrospective review of all rAAAs presenting to a tertiary care center between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2011 was performed. Patients were grouped based on the surgical approach (OR versus EVAR). Patient demographics, intraoperative details, and postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were compared. Statistical analyses were conducted with Stata, version 12. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six patients presented with rAAA over the study period. Patients who declined repair (n = 14) or died before repair (n = 13) were excluded from this study. Of the 99 patients who underwent repair, 25 patients (25.3%) received EVAR and 74 (74.7%) underwent OR. One patient required conversion to OR from EVAR (1.0%). Overall, 30-day and 1-year mortality was 35.4% and 41.4%, respectively, with no difference seen between the 2 types of repair (30-day mortality: EVAR = 24.0%, OR = 39.2%, P = 0.17; 1-year mortality: EVAR = 32.0%, OR = 44.6%, P = 0.27). Major morbidity also did not differ between the 2 repair procedures (EVAR = 60.0%, OR = 60.8%, P = 0.94). However, patients undergoing EVAR had significantly less estimated blood loss (median: 0.3 vs. 3.0 L, P < 0.0001) and transfusion requirement (median: 5.0 vs. 9.0 U, P = 0.0041). Furthermore, although there was no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay between the 2 groups (8.5 vs. 15 days in the OR group, P = 0.18), significantly more patients in the EVAR group were discharged to home (66.7% vs. 57.1% in the OR group, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to recently published series, this series shows no differences in morbidity or mortality between EVAR or OR of rAAAs. EVAR is appropriate in stable patients with a rAAA and favorable anatomy.

Laparotomy during endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms increases mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Subset analyses from small case series suggest patients requiring laparotomy during endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (REVAR) have worse survival than those undergoing REVAR without laparotomy. Most concomitant laparotomies are performed for abdominal compartment syndrome. This study used data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to determine whether the need for laparotomy during REVAR is associated with increased mortality. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2005 to 2013 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files based on Current Procedural Terminology (American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill) and International Classification of Diseases-9 Edition coding. Patient and procedure-related characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using Pearson χ2 tests for categoric variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables. A backward-stepwise multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify patient- and procedure-related factors associated with increased death after REVAR. RESULTS: We identified 1241 patients who underwent REVAR, and 91 (7.3%) required concomitant laparotomy. The 30-day mortality was 60% in the laparotomy group and 21% in the standard REVAR group (P < .001). The major complication rate was also higher in the laparotomy group (88% vs 63%; P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed laparotomy was strongly associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 5.91; 95% confidence interval, 3.62-9.62; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Laparotomy during REVAR is a commonly used technique for the management of elevated intra-abdominal pressure and abdominal compartment syndrome development. The results of this study strongly confirm findings from smaller studies that the need for laparotomy during REVAR is associated with significantly worse 30-day survival.

Perioperative Optimization of Geriatric Lower Extremity Bypass in the Era of Increased Performance Accountability.

BACKGROUND: The initiation of bundled payment for care improvement by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has led to increased financial and performance accountability. As most vascular surgery patients are elderly and reimbursed via CMS, improving their outcomes will be critical for durable financial stability. As a first step in forming a multidisciplinary pathway for the elderly vascular patients, we sought to identify modifiable perioperative variables in geriatric patients undergoing lower extremity bypass (LEB). METHODS: The 2011-2013 LEB-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used for this analysis (n = 5316). Patients were stratified by age <65 (n = 2171), 65-74 (n = 1858), 75-84 (n = 1190), and ≥85 (n = 394) years. Comparisons of patient- and procedure-related characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes stratified by age groups were performed with Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: During the study period, 5316 total patients were identified. There were 2171 patients aged <65 years, 1858 patients in the 65-74 years age group, 1190 patients in the 75-84 years age group, and 394 patients in the ≥85 years age group. Increasing age was associated with an increased frequency of cardiopulmonary disease (P < 0.001) and a decreased frequency of diabetes, tobacco use, and prior surgical intervention (P < 0.001). Only 79% and 68% of all patients were on antiplatelet and statin therapies, respectively. Critical limb ischemia occurred more frequently in older patients (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements, and discharge to a skilled nursing facility increased with age (P < 0.001). Thirty-day amputation rates did not differ significantly with age (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric patients undergoing LEB have unique and potentially modifiable perioperative factors that may improve postoperative outcomes. These modifiers will be the basis of a multidisciplinary care path targeting the geriatric vascular surgery patients.

Operative and perioperative management of infected arteriovenous grafts.

Vascular graft infections are a particularly troublesome complication for dialysis patients, many of whom are in an already immunocompromised state. The objective of this review is to detail the risk factors, etiology, diagnosis, perioperative and operative management of vascular graft infections.