Thirty-day readmission after endovascular or surgical revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia: Insights from the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

There are limited contemporary data on readmission after revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). This study aimed to determine the rates, reasons, predictors, and costs of 30-day readmission after endovascular or surgical revascularization for CMI. Patients with CMI discharged after endovascular or surgical revascularization during 2013 to 2014 were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. The rates, reasons, length of stay, and costs of 30-day all-cause, non-elective, readmission were determined using weighted national estimates. Independent predictors of 30-day readmission were determined using hierarchical logistic regression. Among 4671 patients with CMI who underwent mesenteric revascularization, 19.5% were readmitted within 30 days after discharge at a median time of 10 days. More than 25% of readmissions were for cardiovascular or cerebrovascular conditions, most of which were for peripheral or visceral atherosclerosis and congestive heart failure. Independent predictors of 30-day readmission included non-elective index admission, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and discharge to home healthcare or to a skilled nursing facility. Revascularization modality did not independently predict readmission. In a nationwide, retrospective analysis of patients with CMI undergoing revascularization, approximately one in five were readmitted within 30 days. Predictors were largely non-modifiable and included non-elective index admission, CKD, and discharge disposition.

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Endovascular or Surgical Therapy for Critical Limb Ischemia: Analysis of the 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Databases.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day readmission rates have gained increasing importance as a key quality metric. A significant number of patients are hospitalized for the management of critical limb ischemia (CLI), but limited data are available on the incidence, predictors, and causes of 30-day readmission after hospitalization for CLI. METHODS: Hospitalizations for a primary diagnosis of CLI during which patients underwent endovascular or surgical therapy (revascularization and/or amputation) and were discharged alive were identified in the 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Databases. Incidence, reasons, and costs of 30-day unplanned readmissions were determined. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: We included 60 998 (national estimate, 135 110) index CLI hospitalizations (mean age, 68.9±11.9 years; 40.8% women; 24.6% for rest pain, 37.2% for ulcer, and 38.2% for gangrene). The 30-day readmission rate was 20.4%. Presentation with ulcer or gangrene, age ≥65 years, female sex, large hospital size, teaching hospital status, known coronary artery disease, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, anemia, coagulopathy, obesity, major bleeding, acute myocardial infarction, vascular complications, and sepsis were identified as independent predictors of 30-day readmission. Mode of revascularization was not independently associated with readmissions. Infections (23.5%), persistent or recurrent manifestations of peripheral artery disease (22.2%), cardiac conditions (11.4%), procedural complications (11.0%), and endocrine issues (5.7%) were the most common reasons for readmission. The inflation-adjusted aggregate costs of 30-day readmissions for CLI during the study period were $624 million. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 5 patients hospitalized for CLI and undergoing revascularization is readmitted within 30 days. Risk of readmission is influenced by CLI presentation, patient demographics, comorbidities, and in-hospital complications, but not by the mode of revascularization.

Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair After TAVR: A Nationwide Analysis.

Patients with persistent severe mitral regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may benefit from mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we identified patients who had M-TEER within 6 months after TAVR and compared their outcomes with patients who had M-TEER without previous recent TAVR during the same calendar year between 2014 and 2020. Because Nationwide Readmission Database data do not cross years, analysis was restricted to the last half of each calendar year. End points included in-hospital mortality and 30-day and 90-day postdischarge rehospitalization rates. In 23,885 M-TEER patients, 396 (1.7%) had a previous recent TAVR. The number of post-TAVR M-TEER procedures increased progressively over time from 16 in 2014 to 92 in 2020. Patients who had M-TEER after a recent TAVR versus those without previous TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.23, p = 0.11), but higher rates of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization (adjusted odds ratios 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.79, p = 0.04 and 1.63, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.36, p = 0.009, respectively). Nonetheless, in patients who underwent M-TEER post-TAVR, the cumulative 90-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization rates were less after M-TEER compared with before M-TEER (from 45.7% to 31.5%, p = 0.007, and from 29.0% to 16.6%, respectively, both p = 0.005). In conclusion, M-TEER procedures after TAVR in the United States are increasing. Patients with M-TEER after TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality as those who underwent M-TEER without recent TAVR, but higher 30-day hospitalization rates. Nonetheless, 90-day hospitalization rates were decreased after M-TEER in patients with previous TAVR.

Endovascular Versus Surgical Revascularization for Acute Limb Ischemia: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for acute limb ischemia (ALI) remains unclear, and contemporary comparative effectiveness data on endovascular versus surgical revascularization are lacking. METHODS: We used the 2010 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample databases to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of ALI. Patients were propensity-score matched on the likelihood of undergoing endovascular versus surgical revascularization using a logistic regression model. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke, any amputation, fasciotomy, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, transfusion, vascular complications, length of stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: Of 10 484 (weighted national estimate=51 914) hospitalizations for ALI, endovascular revascularization was performed in 5008 (47.8%) and surgical revascularization in 5476 (52.2%). In the propensity-score matched cohort (n=7746; 3873 per group), patients who underwent endovascular revascularization had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (2.8% versus 4.0%; P=0.002), myocardial infarction (1.9% versus 2.7%; P=0.022), composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (5.2% versus 7.5%; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (10.5% versus 11.9%; P=0.043), fasciotomy (1.9% versus 8.9%; P<0.001), major bleeding (16.7% versus 21.0%; P<0.001), and transfusion (10.3% versus 18.5%; P<0.001), but higher vascular complications (1.4% versus 0.7%; P=0.002), compared with those undergoing surgical revascularization. Rates of any amputation were similar between the 2 groups (4.7% versus 5.1%; P=0.43). Median length of stay was shorter and hospital costs higher with endovascular versus surgical revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALI, endovascular revascularization was associated with better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared with surgical revascularization. Contemporary randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for ALI.

Endovascular Versus Surgical Revascularization for Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia: Insights From the National Inpatient Sample Database.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) following endovascular therapy with open surgery for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). BACKGROUND: There are limited contemporary data on in-hospital cardiovascular outcomes among patients with CMI undergoing revascularization via endovascular therapy versus open surgery in the United States. METHODS: Patients with CMI undergoing endovascular or surgical (mesenteric bypass or endarterectomy) revascularization between 2007 and 2014 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Weighted national estimates were obtained. Primary and secondary endpoints were MACCE (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac post-operative complications) and composite in-hospital complications (MACCE + post-operative peripheral vascular complications, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, major bleeding, and bowel resection), respectively. Propensity score matching was used to obtain a balanced cohort of 880 unweighted patients in each group. RESULTS: Of 4,150 patients with CMI, 3,206 (77.2%) underwent endovascular therapy and 944 (22.8%) underwent surgery (weighted national estimates of 15,850 and 4,687, respectively). In the propensity-matched cohort, MACCE and composite in-hospital complications occurred significantly less often after endovascular therapy than surgery (8.6% vs. 15.9%; p < 0.001; and 15.3% vs. 20.3%; p < 0.006). Endovascular therapy was also associated with lower median hospital costs ($20,807.00 [interquartile range: $13,640.20 to $32.754.50] vs. $31,137.00 [interquartile range: $21,680.40 to $52,152.20]; p < 0.001, respectively) and shorter length of stay (5 [interquartile range: 2 to 10] vs. 10 [interquartile range: 7 to 17] days, respectively; p < 0.001) compared with open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, retrospective analysis of patients with CMI, endovascular therapy remained the dominant revascularization modality, and was associated with lower rates of MACCE, composite in-hospital complications, lower costs, and shorter length of stay compared with surgery.