Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Octogenarians.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified octogenarians (≥80 years) and non-octogenarians (<80 years) who had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair between 2012 and 2017. We compared patients' demographic, socioeconomic, comorbidity data between the two groups as well as the procedure indications and perioperative outcomes. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of advanced age (≥80 years) on the in-hospital mortality rates in patients who underwent TEVAR. This analysis was also performed for a separate cohort which included only patients who underwent TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm. RESULTS: A total of 4108 patients were included in our study; 3432 (83.5%) patients were <80 years (37.9% female; median age, 64 years; 34.3% non-white) and 676 (16.5%) patients were ≥80 years (50.7% female; median age, 83 years; 20.4% non-white). Non-ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm was the most common indication for TEVAR in older patients (61.4%), whereas type B aortic dissection was the most common indication in younger patients (36.4%). In-hospital complications were comparable between the two groups except for respiratory complications that were higher in the younger patients (21.2% vs. 15.2%; P <.001). The multivariable analysis demonstrated that advanced age had no association with increased in-hospital mortality rates (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], .97-2.05), However, in ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm cohort, octogenarians had higher in-hospital mortality rates (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.04-3.32). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians have acceptable rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to the younger group and should be considered for TEVAR. Octogenarians are at higher risk for in-hospital mortality in the setting of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm, supporting the appropriateness of elective TEVAR in selected Octogenarians.

Routine Postoperative Cardiac Testing is Unnecessary after Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Routine laboratory testing to rule out myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is common in many centers. Its use in this patient population has not been thoroughly investigated. We hypothesize that routine testing for MI in post-CEA patients is of low yield and not cost-effective. METHODS: A retrospective review of 291 consecutive CEAs from February 2011 to July 2015 was performed. Two patients were excluded: one for postoperative noncardiac death and one for preoperative MI. Patient demographics, medications, medical history, type of anesthesia, and postoperative laboratory results were reviewed. All patients had troponin-I and creatine kinase-MB levels taken postoperatively. A patient was judged to have an MI if troponin-I was greater than or equal to 0.6 ng/mL or CK-MB is >6.3 ng/mL. The incidence of postoperative MI was recorded, and a cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 70.2 years (range: 42-92). Of all, 59.5% were male, and 92.4% had a history of hypertension. Preoperatively, 57.4% were on beta-blocker therapy, 86.5% on aspirin, and 52.2% on both. Most (80.6%) were on preoperative statin therapy, 26.9% had a prior history of MI (37.2% within 5 years of surgery), and 56.4% of patients had a prior coronary intervention (27.6% percutaneous, 28.7% coronary artery bypass grafting, and 11% both). All patients received general anesthesia. The mean procedure time was 121.5 min (range: 62-258). The mean postoperative length of stay was 2.6 days. Eight patients (2.7%) were judged to have acute MI, one of which was symptomatic. Three of the 8 (38%) had a prior history of MI. In asymptomatic patients, the peak level of troponin-I ranges from 0.52 to 3.64 ng/mL and that of CK-MB from 11.8 to 24 ng/mL. The symptomatic patient had chest pain and bradycardia. The patient had a peak troponin-I level of 1.59 ng/mL, with a CK-MB level of 11.5 ng/mL. All patients were treated medically. The cost per troponin-I and CK-MB is $27.78 and $31.44, respectively, in our institution. We estimate that eliminating routine postoperative troponin-I and CK-MB testing in patients who underwent CEA would have saved an estimated $51,343 over the course of treatment of the studied population. CONCLUSIONS: Routine postoperative cardiac laboratory testing in asymptomatic patients after CEA increases the hospital cost. The low overall rate of postoperative MI suggests that cardiac testing is best reserved for symptomatic patients or those with clinical suspicion for MI.

Long-term Outcomes Favor Duodenum-preserving Pancreatic Head Resection over Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the long-term outcomes of DPPHR versus PPPD in patients with chronic pancreatitis. A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases on all studies published between January 1991 and January 2013 reporting intermediate and long-term outcomes after DPPHR and PPPD for chronic pancreatitis. Long-term outcomes of interest were complete pain relief, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency. Other outcomes of interest included perioperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). Ten studies were included comprising of 569 patients. There was no significant difference in complete pain relief (P = 0.24), endocrine insufficiency (P = 0.15), and perioperative morbidity (P = 0.13) between DPPHR and PPPD. However, quality of life (P < 0.00001), professional rehabilitation (P = 0.004), exocrine insufficiency (P = 0.005), and LOS (P = 0.00001) were significantly better for patients undergoing DPPHR compared with PPPD. In conclusion, there is no significant difference in endocrine insufficiency, postoperative pain relief, and perioperative morbidity for patients undergoing DPPHR versus PPPD. Improved intermediate and long-term outcomes including LOS, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, and preservation of exocrine function make DPPHR a more favorable approach than PPPD for patients with chronic pancreatitis.