The Effect of Intravenous and Oral Beta-Blocker Use in Patients with Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers have become the cornerstone for medical management in patients with chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). However, the effect of being on and/or receiving intravenous beta-blockers during hospitalization on outcomes of surgical repair of TBAD is not fully described. We sought to investigate this association during open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular (Endo) intervention for nontraumatic TBAD. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was inquired (June/2009-March/2015). Patients with nontraumatic isolated TBAD were identified via ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes. Patients with codes that indicated TAAD were excluded. In-hospital mortality, cardiac complications (CHF, MI, arrythmia) and stroke were evaluated. Log binomial regression analyses with bootstrapping were performed to assess the relative risk of adverse outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1,752 were admitted for OSR (54.3%) and Endo (45.7%) TBAD repair. Use of oral beta blocker (BB) was 16.0% in OSR and 56.4% in Endo groups. In each arm, patients on BB were more likely to be diabetic, on aspirin or statin and more likely to receive additional IV BB than nonBB patients. There was no significant difference in age, sex, race, or prior history of CHF between BB and nonBB groups. Mortality was proportionally lower in patients on BB in OSR group (7.9% vs. 16.7%; P = 0.006) and Endo (3.3% vs. 9.2%; P < 0.001). The adjusted relative risk for mortality and stroke were significantly lower in oral BB recipients compared with none [aRR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.32-0.90) and 0.46 (0.25-0.87); both P ≤ 0.02]. IV metoprolol was the only IV BB that reduced mortality [aRR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.46-0.85); P = 0.003]. A dose of ≤10 mg was associated with significant mortality reduction: 6.3% (3.0-9.5%) compared with 8.1% (4.6-11.6%) in no IV BB group. Cardiac complications were not affected by BB use. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with nontraumatic TBAD, use of oral BB was associated with significant protection against in-hospital mortality and stroke following repair. Metoprolol was the only Intravenous BB type associated with improved survival. Further research is warranted to elucidate the effect of beta-blockers on the long-term surgical outcomes of TBAD.

Safety of carotid artery revascularization procedures in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (Afib) is a major contributor to cerebrovascular events. Coexisting carotid artery disease is not uncommon in Afib patients, yet they have been excluded from major randomized clinical trials. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in Afib patients. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was queried (2009-2015). Patients who underwent CEA or CAS were captured by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Multivariable logistic modeling was implemented to examine the outcomes: in-hospital stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), mortality, and stroke/death. RESULTS: There were 86,778 patients included. The majority were asymptomatic (n = 82,128 [94.6%]). Afib was reported in 6743 patients (7.8%). In terms of absolute outcomes in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, Afib patients (vs non-Afib patients) had higher mortality and stroke/death (asymptomatic: mortality, 0.4% vs 0.2%; stroke/death, 1.7% vs 1.2%; symptomatic: mortality, 6.9% vs 2.1%; stroke/death, 10.6% vs 4.5%; all P < .05). Adjusted analysis yielded higher odds of ICH (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.67), mortality (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.11-2.26), and stroke/death (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.08-1.58) in Afib patients. Although univariable analysis found Afib to be a statistically significant predictor of ischemic stroke, similar results could not be elucidated in the multivariable analysis (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93-1.47). In Afib patients, important predictors of stroke/death included CAS (aOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.21-2.68) and symptomatic presentation (aOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 3.20-7.83). Other important predictors were type of preoperative medication use, age, and hospital size. CONCLUSIONS: Afib was associated with worse postoperative outcomes in patients with carotid artery disease. Symptomatic status in Afib patients is associated with a stroke/death risk that is higher than in recommended guidelines for CEA and particularly for CAS. Overall, CEA was associated with lower periprocedural ICH, mortality, and stroke/death in Afib patients compared with CAS.

Outcomes of Infrainguinal Lower Extremity Bypass Are Superior in Kidney Transplant Recipients Than Patients with Dialysis.

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) whether on dialysis therapy (DT) or who received a kidney transplant (KT) have previously shown unfavorable surgical outcomes. Little is known about the comparative efficacy and durability of lower extremity bypass (LEB) in those patients. The Vascular Quality Initiative database was explored to identify DT or KT recipients (2003-2016) who had LEB. We included 1,714 bypass procedures; DT: 1,512 (88.2%). Primary patency (PP) at 2 year was comparable between KT and DT groups (PP [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 77.0% [69.7%-82.8%] vs. 80.5% [77.8%-82.9%]; P = 0.212), and the risk-adjusted hazard was similar (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] [95% CI]: 0.89 [0.61-1.30]; P = 0.540). Amputation-free survival (AFS) at 2 year was more favorable in KT group (AFS [95% CI]: 73.1% [66.3%-78.8%] vs. 48.0% [45.4%-50.6%]; P < 0.001), (aHR [95% CI]: 2.29 [1.62-3.23]; P < 0.001). Patients on DT exhibited a higher risk of mortality than KT recipients (aHR [95% CI]: 2.94 [2.07-4.17]; P < 0.001). This study demonstrated superior limb outcomes in KT recipients than patients on DT after LEB. Despite the comparable PP, the risk of amputation or death was doubled in patients on DT compared with KT recipients. Because both groups were similar in several baseline characteristics, the difference in outcome is likely driven by the positive effect of KT on the physiological milieu of these patients.

Trend and Economic Burden of Intravenous Narcotic Analgesic Utilization in Major Vascular Interventions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The use of IV narcotic analgesics (IVNA) within the context of vascular procedures is not fully described. We sought to evaluate the burden of IVNA including narcotic analgesia-related adverse drug events (NARADE), associated mortality and hospitalization cost in open and endovascular vascular procedures, and to compare it with nonnarcotic analgesia (IVNNA). METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study in hospitals participating in Premier database (2009-2015). Logistic regression analysis was implemented to report the risks of NARADE and in-hospital mortality. Negative binomial regression was used to assess length of stay and generalized linear modeling was used to estimate the hospitalization cost. RESULTS: A total of 171,473 patients were identified. NARADE occurred in 6.2% of the cohort. NARADE group was similar in gender and race but was slightly older (median age 71 vs. 70; P < 0.001). After risk-adjustment, NARADE risk was higher in patients who received IVNA-alone in carotid and lower extremity revascularization (LER) [OR (odds ratio) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 1.17 (1.02-1.34) and 1.31 (1.14-1.50)] or combined with IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 1.34 (1.13-1.59) and 1.81 (1.54-2.13)], respectively. Patients receiving aortic repair benefited from the use of IVNA + IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.69-0.98)]. Occurrence of NARADE doubled the LOS, amplified mortality risk and increased cost in all domains. NARADE increased the odds of mortality by 24.3, 6.5 (4.9-8.68) and 16.6 times and added $5,368, $12,737 and $11,349 to the cost of carotid, aortic and LER interventions, respectively. In contrast, IVNNA was not associated with NARADE risk, increased LOS or cost and showed a survival benefit in patients undergoing open aortic repair [aOR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.36-0.75)]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of opioid-based narcotics had increased the risk of NARADE, resources utilization and NARADE-related mortality. Yet the use of nonopioid-based analgesic was safe, did not increase the cost and reduced mortality in open AA repair. This entices shifting the paradigm toward exploring nonopioid-based analgesia options in order to replace or minimize opioid requirements.