A comprehensive deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis regimen in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

Objectives: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is a known surgical complication that can lead to pulmonary embolism with subsequent morbidity and mortality. The incidence of DVT following coronary artery bypass grafting is unclear. Prophylaxis regimens vary and some guidelines advocate against use of routine chemoprophylaxis in patients at low-moderate risk for venous thromboembolism. We utilized postoperative lower extremity venous ultrasound to determine the incidence of DVT following coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low- to moderate-risk of venous thromboembolism receiving aggressive postoperative DVT prophylaxis. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study of all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting between April 2022 and January 2023. All patients who completed postoperative venous ultrasound of the bilateral lower extremities were initially included. Patients who underwent concurrent valve or aortic surgery, were at high risk of venous thromboembolism, or were receiving anticoagulation therapy for nonvenous thromboembolism indications were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital incidence of DVT. Secondary outcomes were rates of mortality, postoperative bleeding, and thromboembolic events from discharge to 30 days postoperatively and from 30 days to 3 months postoperatively. Results: No DVTs were observed in 211 included patients. In hospital, there were 3 significant bleeding events and 1 stroke. Following discharge there were 3 additional bleeding events, 1 death, 1 transient ischemic attack, and 1 pulmonary embolism. Conclusions: We observed a 0% rate of DVT in low- to moderate-risk patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and receiving a comprehensive DVT prophylaxis regimen. In hospital bleeding and other thromboembolic event rates were 2.84% and 0.47% respectively.

Case report: management of refractory cardiogenic shock with Impella 5.5 in patients with transcatheter aortic valves.

Background: Impella is a transaortic valvular pump commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, its use with transcatheter aortic valves (TAVI) remains rare. We present two cases where surgical Impella 5.5 was placed across both Sapien 3 Ultra and Evolute Pro+ valves. Case summary: Patient 1: A 74-year-old male with history of ischaemic cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 20-25% status post-cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator, severe aortic stenosis (AS) status post-recent Sapien 3 Ultra TAVI presented with cardiogenic shock. Due to persistent unstable haemodynamic status, Impella 5.5 was placed and was utilized as a bridge to left ventricular assist device. Patient 2: A 74-year-old male with a history of alcoholic cirrhosis and AS underwent Evolute Pro+ TAVI at outside facility. The implantation was complicated by left main coronary artery occlusion, leading to cardiogenic shock. Patient required femoral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support and emergent single vessel coronary bypass of a saphenous venous graft to the left anterior descending artery. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was decannulated on Day 20 and Impella 5.5 was placed as a bridge to recovery. In both cases, there were no procedural complications or residual aortic or perivalvular regurgitation. Discussion: Impella 5.5 implanted via the axillary surgical cutdown is safe and feasible approach to manage refractory cardiogenic shock in patients with TAVI including different types of valves, Sapien 3 Ultra, and Evolute Pro+. As it can provide full haemodynamic support, Impella 5.5 can be used as bridge to recovery or durable mechanical support.

Outcomes of the Ross procedure in patients older versus younger than 50 years old.

OBJECTIVES: The Ross procedure is traditionally considered for young adult patients with aortic valve disease. This study compares long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure who are ≥50 and <50-years old. METHODS: Data were collected from 225 patients undergoing Ross procedure at a single centre from 1994 to 2019. Patients were categorized into younger (<50-years old; n = 156) and older (≥50-years old; n = 69) cohorts. Baseline demographics clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The mean age was 36 ± 8.1 and 55 ± 4.2 years in the younger and older cohort, respectively. Both groups were predominantly male (58.5% vs 69.6%; P = 0.59). The younger group had a higher rate of aortic insufficiency (51% vs 26.1%; P < 0.01), and bicuspid aortic valve (81.4% vs 58.0%; P < 0.01). Aortic stenosis was more prevalent in the older cohort (25.6% vs 58.0%; P < 0.01). Operative mortality was acceptable in both groups (1.3% vs 4.3%; P = 0.15). Survival up to 10 years was not statistically different between 2 groups (96.2% vs 91.3% P = 0.16), whereas survival up to 15 years for younger patients was significantly higher (94.9% vs 85.5%; P = 0.03). After non-cardiac related deaths were excluded, survival up to 15 years (98.7% vs 91.3%; P = 0.02) was significantly lower than younger patients. In both groups, survival after the Ross procedure was similar to the age- and sex-matched US population. CONCLUSIONS: Survival up to 10 years after Ross procedure were similar, but up to 15 years was significantly higher in younger patients. The Ross procedure restored patients from both groups to expected survival. Our results suggest that at experienced centres, the Ross procedure is a safe and reasonable option for patients who are 50 years and older.

Race, neighborhood disadvantage, and survival of Medicare beneficiaries after aortic valve replacement and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Race, neighborhood disadvantage, and the interaction between these 2 social determinants of health remain poorly understood with regards to survival after aortic valve replacement with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (AVR+CABG). METHODS: Weighted Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to evaluate the association between race, neighborhood disadvantage, and long-term survival in 205,408 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing AVR+CABG from 1999 to 2015. Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using the Area Deprivation Index, a broadly validated ranking of socioeconomic contextual disadvantage. RESULTS: Self-identified race was 93.9% White and 3.2% Black. Residents of the most disadvantaged quintile of neighborhoods included 12.6% of all White beneficiaries and 40.0% of all Black beneficiaries. Black beneficiaries and residents of the most disadvantaged quintile of neighborhoods had more comorbidities compared with White beneficiaries and residents of the least disadvantaged quintile of neighborhoods, respectively. Increasing neighborhood disadvantage linearly increased the hazard for mortality for Medicare beneficiaries of White but not Black race. Residents of the most and least disadvantaged neighborhood quintiles had weighted median overall survival of 93.0 and 82.1 months, respectively, a significant difference (P < .001 by Cox test for equality of survival curves). Black and White beneficiaries had weighted median overall survival of 93.4 and 90.6 months, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (P = .29 by Cox test for equality of survival curves). A statistically significant interaction between race and neighborhood disadvantage was noted (likelihood ratio test P = .0215) and had implications on whether Black race was associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was linearly associated with worse survival after combined AVR+CABG in White but not Black Medicare beneficiaries; race, however, was not independently associated with postoperative survival.

Vein Graft Use and Long-Term Survival Following Coronary Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Although placement of at least 1 arterial graft during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has a proven survival benefit, it is unknown what degree of revascularization with saphenous vein grafting (SVG) is associated with improved survival. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine whether undergoing surgery performed by a surgeon who is liberal with vein graft utilization is associated with improved survival in patients undergoing single arterial graft CABG (SAG-CABG). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study of SAG-CABG performed in Medicare beneficiaries from 2001 to 2015. Surgeons were stratified by number of SVG utilized per SAG-CABG into conservative (≥1 SD below mean), average (within 1 SD of mean), and liberal (≥1 SD above mean). Long-term survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared among surgeon groups before and after augmented inverse-probability weighting. RESULTS: There were 1,028,264 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SAG-CABG from 2001 to 2015 (mean age 72.0 ± 7.9 years, 68.3% male). Over time, 1-vein and 2-vein SAG-CABG utilization increased, whereas 3-vein and ≥4-vein SAG-CABG utilization decreased (P < 0.001). Surgeons who were conservative vein graft users performed a mean 1.7 ± 0.2 vein grafts per SAG-CABG, whereas those who were liberal vein graft users performed a mean 2.9 ± 0.2 vein grafts per SAG-CABG. Weighted analysis demonstrated no difference in median survival among patients undergoing SAG-CABG by liberal vs conservative vein graft users (adjusted median survival difference 27 days). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SAG-CABG, there is no association between surgeon proclivity for vein graft utilization and long-term survival, suggesting that a conservative approach to vein graft utilization is reasonable.

Impact of preoperative Impella support on destination left ventricular assist device outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is associated with improved heart failure survival, the impact of pre-implantation Impella support on outcomes is unknown. We undertook this study to evaluate the impact of preoperative Impella support on LVAD outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all Heartmate 3 LVAD implants. Primary stratification was by the need for preoperative Impella support with the 5.0/5.5 device. Longitudinal survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were developed to evaluate mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in laboratory values during Impella support. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2021, 87 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Sixteen were supported with a single inotrope, 36 with dual inotropes, 27 with Impella, and 3 with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). When stratified by the need for Impella, there was no difference in survival at 30-days (98.3 [88.2-99.8]% vs. 96.3 [76.5-99.5]%, p = .59), 1-year (91.0 [79.8-96.2] vs. 74.9 [51.7-88.2], p = .10), or at 2 years (87.9 [74.3-94.5] vs. 74.9 [51.7-88.2], p = .15). On multivariable modeling, the need for preoperative Impella was not associated with an increased hazard of 1-year (1.24 [0.23-6.73], p = .81) or 2-year mortality (1.05 [0.21-5.19], p = .95). After 7 (5-10) days of Impella support, recipient creatinine (p < .01), creatinine clearance (p = .02), and total bilirubin (p = .053) improved and lactic acidosis resolved (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative Impella support is not associated with increased short or long-term mortality but is associated with improved renal and hepatic function as well as total body perfusion before LVAD implantation.

Outcomes of aortic root enlargement during isolated aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic root enlargement (ARE) lowers the risk of patient prosthesis mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with small annular size. Whether ARE is associated with increased operative mortality is controversial. This study compares the early and intermediate outcomes in patients undergoing SAVR with and without ARE. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated SAVR with and without ARE from 2015 to 2020 were analyzed. Propensity-matching was used to adjust for possible confounding variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to estimate and compare overall outcomes and survival in the study cohorts. RESULTS: Among 868 isolated SAVRs, ARE was performed in 54 (6.2%) patients. Before matching, mean age was similar but female sex (67.4% vs. 29.6%; SD: -0.82) and previous AVR (18.9% vs. 3.9%; SD: -0.48) were more common in patients undergoing SAVR + ARE versus SAVR alone. A bovine pericardial patch was used for 81.5% (44 of 54) of ARE, with a Dacron patch in the rest. After propensity matching, the average cardiopulmonary bypass (138.2 ± 34.9 vs. 102.9 ± 33.0 min; p < 0.01) and cross-clamp times (113.8 ± 26.7 vs. 83.0 ± 28.4 min; p < 0.01) were longer in the SAVR + ARE group. There were no significant differences in postoperative stroke, new-onset dialysis, pacemaker placement, reoperation for bleeding, length of hospital stay, or 30-day readmission. Thirty-day mortality (0% vs. 0.6%, p = 1.0) and 5-year survival (96.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.86) were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: ARE during surgical AVR can be safely performed without an increase in complications with excellent early and intermediate-term survival.

Inducing systemic hyperkalemia for cardiac arrest during cardiopulmonary bypass with patent cardiac circulation.

In any cardiac patient, efforts should be made to avoid volume overload, especially around the time of surgery. Continuous retrograde Del Nido cardioplegia, a common practice for maintaining cardiac arrest during a procedure when a patient has patent circulation, has the unintended side effect of significantly adding to the net fluid infused into the patient. Systemic hyperkalemia has been induced to reduce the amount of cardioplegia needed to maintain cardiac electromechanical arrest. To supplement knowledge regarding this technique, we report our experiences using systemic hyperkalemia in the context of the use of Del Nido cardioplegia.

Surgical debranching versus branched endografting in zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization has been recommended for patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal zone 2 landing requiring coverage of the LSA. The clinical standard of care remains surgical LSA revascularization. However, recently, the feasibility of using branched endografts has been demonstrated. We compared the perioperative and mid-term outcomes of these approaches. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent TEVAR with a proximal zone 2 landing at a single center from 2014 to 2020. The patients were divided into cohorts for comparison: those who underwent surgical revascularization (SR-TEVAR group) and those who underwent thoracic branched endografting with an investigational device (TBE group). Those patients who did not undergo LSA revascularization were excluded. Perioperative outcomes, including procedural success, death, stroke, limb ischemia, and length of stay, were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. The cumulative incidence of device-related endoleak (types I and III) and device-related reintervention, accounting for death as a competing hazard, were compared using the Fine-Gray test. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included: 31 (56%) in the SR-TEVAR group and 24 (44%) in the TBE group. The preoperative demographics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. Procedural success was 100% in both cohorts, with no periprocedural strokes or left upper extremity ischemic events. One operative or 30-day death (TBE, 4.2%; vs SR-TEVAR, 3.2%; P = .99) occurred in each cohort. The total operative time (TBE, 203 ± 79 minutes; vs SR-TEVAR, 250 ± 79 minutes; P = .03) and total length of stay (TBE, 5.2 ± 3.6 days; vs SR-TEVAR, 9.9 ± 7.2 minutes; P = .004) were both significantly shorter in the TBE group. No difference was found in mid-term survival (log-rank test, P = .50) nor the cumulative incidence of device-related endoleak (Fine-Gray test, P = .51) or reintervention (Fine-Gray test, P = .72). No occlusions of the TBE graft or surgical bypass or transpositions had occurred after a mean follow-up of 28 ± 16 and 34 ± 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TBE can be performed with procedural success rate and safety profile comparable to those of TEVAR with surgical revascularization, with a decreased total length of stay, for patients requiring proximal zone 2 coverage. The mid-term outcomes for each approach were also similar. Prospective, randomized comparisons of these techniques are warranted.

Long-Term Survival After On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may be associated with increased hazard for long-term mortality as compared with on-pump CABG. We sought to evaluate risk-adjusted long-term survival after off-pump and on-pump CABG, particularly among high-volume and low-volume CABG surgeons. METHODS: We evaluated 1,235,089 isolated CABGs (off pump = 209,085; on pump = 1,026,004) performed in Medicare beneficiaries from 2001 to 2015. Long-term hazard for mortality after off-pump versus on-pump CABG was compared with Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis among all CABG surgeons as well as among high-volume and low-volume CABG surgeons, before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Among all surgeons, off-pump CABG was associated with a statistically significant hazard for mortality as compared with on-pump CABG before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (median survival: off pump 9.8 years vs on pump 10.2 years; difference in median survival -134 days; log-rank P < .001). Cox regression analysis confirmed an interaction between surgeon volume and long-term mortality. The hazard for mortality associated with off-pump CABG was decreased among high-volume surgeons (difference in median survival -84 days; log-rank P < .001) and increased among low-volume surgeons (difference in median survival -240 days; long-rank P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump CABG was associated with a significant, but clinically modest, increased hazard for mortality as compared with on-pump CABG. The hazard was reduced when off-pump CABG was performed by high-volume CABG surgeons.

Long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure in adults.

BACKGROUND: The optimal aortic valve replacement for young and middle-aged adults remains elusive. Although several high-volume international centers and surgeons have demonstrated excellent long-term results with the pulmonary autograft (Ross procedure) in adult patients, current guidelines from the United States do not favor this technique. We evaluated long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of adult patients undergoing the Ross procedure at our center. METHODS: A retrospective review of 225 consecutive adult patients undergoing the Ross procedure was completed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate overall survival, which was then compared to an age- and sex-matched general population with the log-rank test. Accounting for death as a competing hazard, the cumulative incidence of reintervention and autograft or homograft dysfunction were estimated over the long-term. RESULTS: Mean age was 42±11 years, and 62 (28%) patients were at least 50 years old. A bicuspid aortic valve was present in 179 (80%) patients. The most common indications for surgery were aortic insufficiency (n=94, 43%), aortic stenosis (n=81, 36%), and mixed etiology (n=46, 21%). In-hospital mortality was 0.9%. Overall survival (with 95% confidence intervals) at 1-, 10- and 20-year was 97.8% (95.9-99.7%), 94.2% (91.0-97.4%), and 81.3% (74.8-88.3%), respectively. Overall survival approximated that of the general population (log-rank P=0.32). The cumulative incidence (with 95% confidence intervals) of any autograft or homograft reintervention at 10-, 15-, and 20-year was 16% (12-20%), 28% (21-35%), and 45% (36-54%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Ross procedure restores a normal life expectancy to young and middle-aged adults with severe aortic valve disease. The need for reintervention increases steadily during the second decade after the Ross procedure, but less than half of patients require any reintervention for up to 20-year.

Comparison of the Bentall procedure versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

Bentall and valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) procedures are established treatments for aortic root disease. We present a single-center retrospective analysis comparing outcomes of bioprosthetic Bentall (BB), mechanical Bentall (MB), and VSRR patients from November 2007 to October 2016. Survival analysis was performed to evaluate the composite endpoint of freedom from recurrent aortic insufficiency, reoperation, or death. Of the 170 patients, BB was performed in 36 patients, MB in 63 patients, and VSRR in 71 patients. For BB, MB, and VSRR, the mean age was 63.8, 45.5, and 49.2 years (P < 0.001), respectively. Additionally, significantly more patients in the MB group (n = 32, 50.8%, P < 0.001) than in the BB and VSRR groups had prior cardiac surgeries. Cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time were significantly longer in the VSRR group (P = 0.04 and 0.0005, respectively). Despite the complexity of the procedure, VSRR patients had higher combined freedom from death and reoperation than patients in the BB or MB groups. Elective Bentall root replacement is an excellent option for patients with root disease. Patients undergoing Bentall tend to have more severe or emergent cases, making them unlikely candidates for VSRR. VSRR in experienced centers carries equivalent morbidity and mortality and improved survival.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) valve-in-valve (VIV) therapy has been approved for select patients with surgically inoperable bioprosthetic valves that need replacement. Bioprosthetic valve fracturing (BVF) used in conjunction with VIV TAVR can reduce transvalvular gradients and increase the aortic valve area. Twelve patients who underwent BVF VIV TAVR at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Measurements of hemodynamics and aortic valve area were performed at baseline, after VIV TAVR, after BVF, and at 30-day follow-up. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.12 ± 3.5%, with 75% of patients deemed high risk by the heart team. Mean gradients decreased from 44 mm Hg to 15 mm Hg following VIV TAVR, and to 7 mm Hg following BVF. The mean aortic valve area increased from 0.6 cm2 to 1 cm2 following VIV TAVR, and to 1.3 cm2 following BVF. There were no postoperative permanent pacemaker implantations or vascular complications, and at 30 days, only one patient had died. While we report intraoperative mortality, BVF with VIV TAVR can be performed to reduce transvalvular gradients and increase effective aortic valve area in high-surgical-risk patients with failed bioprosthetic valves.

Safe implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are gaining wide acceptance. We evaluated ERAS protocol implementation in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients. The ERAS protocol included (1) moderate sedation or general anesthesia with on-table extubation, (2) no pulmonary artery or urinary catheters, (3) arterial line removal within 4 hours, (4) no postoperative narcotics, (5) mobilization at 4 hours and ambulation within 8 hours, and (6) antihypertensive reinstitution without nodal blockers. Patients who received TAVR before and after ERAS implementation were compared (N = 121 and N = 368, respectively). The primary endpoint was total hospital length of stay (LOS). ERAS patients had a lower mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (6.7% vs 7.5%; P = 0.04). Unadjusted analysis demonstrated that ERAS was associated with significantly decreased mean LOS (2.8 vs 4.0 days, P < 0.001), decreased 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 5.0%; P = 0.003), and increased discharge home (90.2% vs 79.3%, P = 0.002) with no increase in 30-day readmission (11.1% vs 14.0%, P = 0.39). After risk adjustment, ERAS patients had a 1.87-day shorter LOS (P = 0.001) and trended toward increased discharge home (odds ratio 1.76, P = 0.078) without increased readmission (odds ratio 0.74, P = 0.4). An ERAS protocol for TAVR is safe and is associated with shorter LOS without increased readmission.

Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: For the management of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, recent evidence has suggested that outcomes of open surgical repair may surpass thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in as early as 2 years. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of TEVAR and open surgical repair in the treatment of intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Using the Medicare database, a retrospective study using regression discontinuity design and propensity score matching was performed on patients with intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms who underwent TEVAR or open surgical repair between 1999 and 2010 with follow-up through 2014. Survival was assessed with restricted mean survival time. Perioperative mortality was assessed with logistic regression. Reintervention was evaluated as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Matching created comparable groups with 1,235 open surgical repair patients matched to 2,470 TEVAR patients. The odds of perioperative mortality were greater for open surgical repair: high-volume center, odds ratio (OR): 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 2.61); low-volume center, OR: 3.62 (95% CI: 2.88 to 4.51). The restricted mean survival time difference favored TEVAR at 9 years, -209.2 days (95% CI: -298.7 to -119.7 days; p < 0.001) for open surgical repair. Risk of reintervention was lower for open surgical repair, hazard ratio: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.60; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical repair was associated with increased odds of early postoperative mortality but reduced late hazard of death. Despite the late advantage of open repair, mean survival was superior for TEVAR. TEVAR should be considered the first line for repair of intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms in Medicare beneficiaries.

Impact of Discordant Views in the Management of Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has a lower perceived risk than open surgical repair and has become an increasingly popular alternative. Whether general consensus exists regarding candidacy for either operation among open and endovascular specialists is unknown. A retrospective review of isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm at our institution between January 2005 and October 2015 was performed, excluding trauma and dissection. Two cardiac surgeons, 2 cardiovascular surgeons, 1 vascular surgeon, and 1 interventional radiologist gave their preference for open vs endovascular repair. Interobserver agreement was assessed with the kappa coefficient. k-means clustering agnostically grouped various patterns of agreement. The mean rating was predicted using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression. Negative binomial regression predicted the discrepancy between our panel of raters and the historical operation. Generalized estimating equation modeling was then used to evaluate the association between the extent of discrepancy and the adverse perioperative outcome. There were 77 patients with preoperative imaging studies. Pairwise interobserver agreement was only fair (median weighted kappa 0.270 [interquartile range 0.211-0.404]). Increasing age and proximal neck length predicted an increasing preference for thoracic endovascular aortic repair in our panel; larger proximal neck diameter predicted a general preference for open surgical repair. Increasing proximal neck diameter predicted a larger discrepancy between our panel and the historical operation. Greater discrepancy was associated with adverse outcome. Substantial disagreement existed among our panel, and an exploratory analysis of the effect of increasing discrepancy demonstrated an association with adverse perioperative outcome. An investigation of the effect of a thoracic aortic team with open and endovascular specialists is warranted.