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.

Preoperative COVID-19 Vaccination is Associated with Decreased Perioperative Mortality after Major Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of corona virus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on perioperative outcomes after major vascular surgery. BACKGROUND DATA: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with decreased mortality in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. However, the effect of vaccination on perioperative mortality after major vascular surgery is unknown. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent major vascular surgery between December 2021 through August 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of index operation or prior to hospital discharge. Multivariable models were used to examine the association between vaccination status and the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 85,424 patients included, 19161 (22.4%) were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated patients were younger compared to vaccinated patients (mean age 68.44 +/- 10.37 y vs 72.11 +/- 9.20 y, P <0.001) and less likely to have comorbid conditions, including hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dialysis. After risk factor adjustment, vaccination was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.81, P <0.0001). Stratification by procedure type demonstrated that vaccinated patients had decreased odds of mortality after open AAA (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, P =0.03), EVAR (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.43-0.83, p 0.002), CAS (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P =0.004) and infra-inguinal lower extremity bypass (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P =0.03). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with reduced perioperative mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery. This association is most pronounced for patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair, carotid stenting and infrainguinal bypass.

National Registry Insights on Genetic Aortopathies and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes following TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010-2023 in the VQI were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox-regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan; 9% Loeys-Dietz; and 4% Vascular Ehlers-Danlos). Compared with non-GA, GA patients were younger (50 [37-72] years vs. 70 [61-77] years), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs. 18%), post-dissection aneurysm (48% vs. 17%), had symptomatic presentation (50% vs. 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs. 47%) or PAU [+ IMH] (3% vs. 13%) (all p<.001). GA patients were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open: 56% vs. 11%;p<.001; endovascular 5.6% vs. 2.1%;p=.017) or the descending thoracic aorta (open: 12% vs. 2%;p=.007; endovascular 8.2% vs. 3.6%;p=.011). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs, however, GA patients had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs. 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs. 5.5%)(all p<.05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs. 7.0%; aOR:1.1 [95%CI: 0.57-1.9];p=.75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs. 23%; aOR:1.24 [0.92-1.6];p=.14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs. 8.3%; aOR:1.25 [0.84-1.8];p=.25) compared with non-GA patients. However, GA patients had higher likelihood of post-operative vasopressors (33% vs. 27%; aOR:1.44 [1.1-1.9];p=.006) and transfusion (25% vs. 23%; aOR:1.39 [1.03-1.9]; p=.006). 2-year reintervention rates were higher in GA patients (25% vs. 13%; aHR:1.99 [1.4-2.9];p<.001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs. 74%; aHR:1.02 [0.70-1.5];p=.1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for GA patients appeared to be initially safe with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with non-GA patients. However, GA patients had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in GA patients.

Earned Outcomes Correlate with Reliability-Adjusted Surgical Mortality after Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair and Predict Future Performance.

OBJECTIVES: Cumulative, probability-based metrics are regularly used to measure quality in professional sports, but these methods have not been applied to health care delivery. These techniques have the potential to be particularly useful in describing surgical quality, where case volume is variable and outcomes tend to be dominated by statistical "noise". The established statistical technique used to adjust for differences in case volume is reliability-adjustment which emphasizes statistical "signal"but has several limitations. We sought to validate a novel measure of surgical quality based on earned outcomes methods (deaths above average, DAA) against reliability-adjusted mortality rates, using abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes to illustrate the measure's performance. METHODS: Earned outcomes methods were used to calculate the outcome of interest for each patient: deaths above average (DAA). Hospital-level DAA were calculated for non-ruptured open AAA repair and EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database from 2016-2019. DAA for each center is the sum of observed - predicted risk of death for each patient; predicted risk of death was calculated using established multivariable logistic regression modeling. Correlations of DAA with reliability-adjusted mortality rates and procedure volume were determined. Because an accurate quality metric should correlate with future results, outcomes from 2016-2017 were used to categorize hospital quality based on (1) risk-adjusted mortality, (2) risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality, and (3) DAA. The best performing quality metric was determined by comparing the ability of these categories to predict 2018-2019 risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,734 patients underwent open repair (106 hospitals), and 20,680 patients underwent EVAR (183 hospitals). DAA was closely correlated with reliability-adjusted mortality rates for open repair (r=0.94, P<0.001) and EVAR (r=0.99, P<0.001). DAA also correlated with hospital case volume for open repair (r=-.54, P<0.001), but not EVAR (r=0.07, P=0.3). In 2016-2017, most hospitals had 0% mortality (55% open repair, 57% EVAR), making it impossible to evaluate these hospitals using traditional risk-adjusted mortality rates alone. Further, zero mortality hospitals in 2016-2017 did not demonstrate improved outcomes in 2018-2019 for open repair (3.8% vs 4.6%, P=0.5) or EVAR (0.8% vs 1.0%, P=0.2) compared to all other hospitals. In contrast to traditional risk-adjustment, 2016-2017 DAA evenly divided centers into quality quartiles which predicted 2018-2019 performance with increased mortality rate associated with each decrement in quality quartile (Q1 3.2%, Q2 4.0%, Q3 5.1%, Q4 6.0%). There was a significantly higher risk of mortality at worst quartile open repair hospitals compared to best quartile hospitals (OR 2.01, [95% CI 1.07-3.76], P=0.03). Using 2016-2019 DAA to define quality, highest quality quartile open repair hospitals had lower median DAA compared to lowest quality quartile hospitals (-1.18 DAA vs +1.32 DAA, P<0.001), correlating with lower median reliability-adjusted mortality rates (3.6% vs 5.1%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for differences in hospital volume is essential when measuring hospital-level outcomes. Earned outcomes accurately categorize hospital quality and correlate with reliability-adjustment but are easier to calculate and interpret. From 2016-2019, highest quality open AAA repair hospitals prevented >40 perioperative deaths compared to the average hospital, and >80 perioperative deaths compared to lowest quality hospitals.

Cross-Seal IDE Trial: Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of the Cross-Seal Suture-Mediated Vascular Closure Device System.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of interventional procedures require large-sheath technology (>12F) with a favorable outcome with endovascular rather than open surgical access. However, vascular complications are a limitation for the management of these patients. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device in obtaining hemostasis at the target limb access site following interventional procedures using 8F to 18F procedural sheaths. METHODS: The Cross-Seal IDE trial (Investigational Device Exemption) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study in subjects undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheaths. The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis at the target limb access site. The primary safety end point was freedom from major complications of the target limb access site within 30 days post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 147 subjects were enrolled between August 9, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 53.7% (79/147) and percutaneous endovascular abdominal/thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 46.3% (68/147) of subjects. The mean sheath ID was 15.5±1.8 mm. The primary effectiveness end point of time to hemostasis was 0.4±1.4 minutes. An adjunctive intervention was required in 9.2% (13/142) of subjects, of which 2.1% (3/142) were surgical and 5.6% (8/142) endovascular. Technical success was achieved in 92.3% (131/142) of subjects. Freedom from major complications of the target limb access site was 94.3% (83/88). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheath, Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device achieved favorable effectiveness and safety in the closure of the large-bore arteriotomy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03756558.

Using administrative data to better treat chronic limb threatening ischemia.

Chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) is the most severe manifestation of peripheral arterial disease represents a particularly high-risk subgroup of patients. As such, efforts to better understand this complex patient population through well-designed clinical research studies are critical to improving CLTI care. Prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard in clinical research, but these trials are resource-intensive and have highly selective patient populations, which limit their feasibility and generalizability. Alternatively, retrospective studies are less expensive than RCTs, have a larger sample size, and are more generalizable owing to a broader patient population. Health care administrative data provide rich sources of information that may be used for research purposes and are increasingly being used for the study of vascular surgery conditions, including CLTI. Although administrative data are collected for billing purposes, they may be leveraged to study a broad range of topics in vascular surgery including those related to health care delivery, epidemiology, health disparities, and outcomes. This review provides an overview of administrative data available for CLTI research, the strengths and limitations of these data sources, current areas of investigation, and future opportunities for further study with the goal of improving outcomes in this high-risk population.

The Effect of Controlled versus Uncontrolled Hypertension on Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension has been implicated as a strong predictive factor for poorer outcomes in patients undergoing various vascular procedures. However, limited research is available that examines the effect of uncontrolled hypertension on outcomes after carotid revascularization. We aimed to determine which carotid revascularization procedure yields the best outcome in this patient population. METHODS: We studied patients undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA), Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS), or Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) from April 2020 to June 2022 using data from Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Patients were stratified into two groups: those with controlled hypertension (cHTN) and those with uncontrolled hypertension (uHTN). Patients with cHTN were those with HTN treated with medication and a blood pressure <130/80. Patients with uHTN had a blood pressure >130/80. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative hypotension/hypertension, reperfusion syndrome, prolonged length of stay (PLOS; >1 day), stroke/death and stroke/death/MI. We used logistic regression models for the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34,653 CEA (uHTN= 11,347, 32.7%), 8,199 TFCAS (uHTN=2,307, 28.1%), and 17,309 TCAR (uHTN=4,990, 28.8%) patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in age between cHTN and uHTN patients for each carotid revascularization procedure. However, compared to cHTN, patients with uncontrolled HTN had significantly more comorbidities. Uncontrolled HTN was associated with an increased risk of combined in-hospital stroke/death/MI following CEA (aOR=1.56 [95% CI: 1.30-1.87]; p<0.001), TFCAS (aOR=1.59 [95% CI: 1.21-2.08]; p<0.001) and TCAR (aOR=1.39 [95% CI: 1.12-1.73]; p=0.003) compared to controlled HTN. Additionally, uHTN was associated with PLOS following all carotid revascularization methods. For the sub-analysis of patients with uHTN, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR=1.82 [95% CI: 1.39-2.37]; p<0.001), in-hospital death (aOR=3.73 [95% CI: 2.25-6.19]; p<0.001), reperfusion syndrome (aOR=6.24 [95% CI: 3.57-10.93]; p<0.001), and extended LOS (aOR=1.87 [95% CI: 1.51-2.32]; p<0.001) compared to CEA. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of TCAR compared to CEA. CONCLUSION: The results from this study show that patients with uncontrolled hypertension are at a higher risk of stroke and death postoperatively compared to patients with controlled hypertension; highlighting the importance of treating HTN before undergoing elective carotid revascularization. Additionally, in patients with uHTN, TFCAS yields the worst outcomes while CEA and TCAR proved to be the safer interventions. Uncontrolled hypertensive patients with symptomatic carotid disease treated with CEA or TCAR have better outcomes compared to those treated with TFCAS.

Predictors of Prolonged Length of Stay after Elective Carotid Revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of > 1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of > 1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the 3 procedures. Age, female sex, nonwhite race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all 3 procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (< 11 cases/year) and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all 3 procedures; CEA (HR,1.64; 95%CI, 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95%CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR,1.33; 95%CI,1.08-1.64) (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients are risk for pLOS highlight quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

Carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are considered a high-risk population, and the optimal approach to the treatment of carotid disease remains unclear. Thus, we compared outcomes following carotid revascularization for patients with CKD by operative approach of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was analyzed for patients undergoing carotid revascularizations (CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with normal renal function (estimated glomular filtration rate >90 mL/min/1.72 m2) were excluded. Asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis were assessed separately. Preoperative demographics, operative details, and outcomes of 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite variable of stroke/death were compared. Multivariable analysis adjusted for differences in groups, including CKD stage. RESULTS: A total of 90,343 patients with CKD underwent revascularization (CEA, n = 66,870; TCAR, n = 13,459; and TFCAS, n = 10,014; asymptomatic, 63%; symptomatic, 37%). Composite 30-day mortality/stroke rates were: asymptomatic: CEA, 1.4%; TCAR, 1.2%; TFCAS, 1.8%; and symptomatic: CEA, 2.7%; TCAR, 2.3%; TFCAS, 3.7%. In adjusted analysis, TCAR had lower 30-day mortality compared with CEA (asymptomatic: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7; symptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), and no difference in stroke, MI, or the composite outcome of stroke/death in both symptom cohorts. TCAR had lower risk of other cardiac complications compared with CEA in asymptomatic patients (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) and had similar risk in symptomatic patients. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR patients had lower 30-day mortality (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.95; symptomatic: aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4), stroke (symptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97), and stroke/death (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97; symptomatic: aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), but no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. Patients treated with TFCAS had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and stroke risk (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.7) in symptomatic patients compared with CEA. There were no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD, TCAR and CEA showed rates of stroke/death less than 2% for asymptomatic patients and less than 3% for symptomatic patients. Given the increased risk of major morbidity and mortality, TFCAS should not be performed in patients with CKD who are otherwise anatomic candidates for TCAR or CEA.

Bailout Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenting after Carotid Endarterectomy: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Distal internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting may be employed as a bailout maneuver when an inadequate end point or clamp injury is encountered at the time of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a surgically inaccessible region of the distal ICA. We sought to characterize the indications, technique, and outcomes for this infrequently encountered clinical scenario. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent distal ICA stenting at the time of CEA at our institution between September 2008 and July 2022. Procedural details and postoperative follow-up were reviewed for each patient. RESULTS: Six patients were identified during the study period. All were male with an age range of 63 to 82 years. Five underwent carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and one patient was treated for amaurosis fugax. Three patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy preoperatively, whereas 2 were on aspirin monotherapy, and one was on aspirin and low-dose rivaroxaban. Five patients underwent CEA with patch angioplasty, and one underwent eversion CEA. The indication for stenting was distal ICA dissection due to clamp or shunt injury in 2 patients and an inadequate distal ICA end point in 4 patients. In all cases, access for stenting was obtained under direct visualization within the common carotid artery, and a standard carotid stent was deployed with its proximal aspect landing within the endarterectomized site. Embolic protection was typically achieved via proximal common carotid artery and external carotid artery clamping for flow arrest with aspiration of debris before restoration of antegrade flow. There was 100% technical success. Postoperatively, 2 patients were found to have a cranial nerve injury, likely occurring due to the need for high ICA exposure. Median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-7 days) with no instances of perioperative stroke or myocardial infarction. All patients were discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy with no further occurrence of stroke, carotid restenosis, or reintervention through a median follow-up of 17 months. CONCLUSIONS: Distal ICA stenting is a useful adjunct in the setting of CEA complicated by inadequate end point or vessel dissection in a surgically inaccessible region of the ICA and can minimize the need for high-risk extensive distal dissection of the ICA in this situation.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Learning curve of transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the vascular quality initiative registry.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. Because approximately 30% of perioperative strokes/deaths post-CAS occur after discharge, appropriate thresholds for in-hospital event rates have been suggested to be <4% for symptomatic and <2% for asymptomatic patients. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data. METHODS: We identified VQI patients who underwent tfCAS between 2005 and 2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day mortality, in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (stroke/TIA), and access site complications. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines. Our results were then validated using a generalized estimating equations model to account for the variability between physicians. RESULTS: We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2%-1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8%-1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6%-2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0%-1.1%), and access site complications (4.1%-1.1%) as physician experience increased (all P values < .05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1%-1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6%-1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7%-0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8%-1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all P values <.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates after tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. Nevertheless, a substantially high rate of in-hospital stroke/death was found in physicians' first 25 procedures. With the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased postoperative complications.

Why selective screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is currently appropriate: a special report.

INTRODUCTION: Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program. AREAS COVERED: The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates. EXPERT OPINION: Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs. METHODS: We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs. RESULTS: We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is. METHODS: We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends. RESULTS: A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.