Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Outcomes following Vascular Procedure in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases morbidity and mortality in most vascular procedures. However, a binary classification of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, which is often used in both modeling and clinical trials, may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Determine the optimal eGFR cutoff for use in risk stratification and prediction models. METHODS: Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data for non-emergent, first-time OAR, EVAR, TEVAR, CEA, CAS, PVI, Supra- and infra-inguinal bypass were analyzed from to 2013-2023 and divided into cohorts based on eGFR (≥60, 45-59, 30-44, <30, and preoperative dialysis). χ2 and logistic regression were used to evaluate perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to patients with eGFR ≥60, those with eGFR 45-59 had similar odds of mortality following all procedures, except TEVAR. Driven by this group, the combined cohort showed a slight increase in the odds of mortality for eGFR 45-59 (0.6% vs. 0.7%, aOR 1.16, P=0.002). Those in the 30-44 group demonstrated increased odds of mortality both overall and in the individual procedure groups (0.6% vs. 1.2%, aOR 1.78, P<0.001). The odds of mortality continued to increase with worsening eGFR. The overall rate of new permanent dialysis was low for all eGFR cohorts, with a 0.02% difference between those with eGFR >60 and those in the 45-59 cohort (0.04% vs. 0.06%; a OR 1.65, P<0.001). The odds of permanent dialysis likewise continued to increase with decreasing eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than a binary eGFR cutoff of ≥60 and <60 to stratify patient risk, better risk stratification may be achieved by using five groups of ≥60, 45-59, 30-44, <30, and preoperative dialysis.

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.

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.

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.

Factors associated with nonhome discharge after endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify preoperative factors associated with nonhome discharge (NHD) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). NHD has implications for patient care, readmission, and long-term mortality; nevertheless, the existing literature lacks information regarding factors associated with NHD for patients undergoing EVAR. In contrast, our study assesses preoperative factors associated with NHD for this population by using national data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: We identified adult patients who underwent elective EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2022) and excluded those who were not living at home preoperatively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify preoperative factors associated with NHD. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox-regression analyses were used to assess the impact of NHD on 5-year survival as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: We included 61,792 patients, of which 3155 (5.1%) had NHD. NHD patients were more likely to be older (79 years [interquartile range, 73-18 years] vs 73 years [interquartile range, 67-79 years]), female (33.7% vs 18.2%; P < .001), non-White (16.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), and have more comorbidities. NHD patients had higher rates of postoperative complications (acute kidney injury, 11.9% vs 2.0% [P < .001]; myocardial infarction, 3.8% vs 0.5% [P < .001]; and in-hospital reintervention, 4.7% vs 0.5% [P = .033]). Multivariable analysis revealed many preoperative characteristics were associated with higher odds of NHD: most notably, age (per additional decade: odds ratio [OR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.03-2.28; P < .001), female sex (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.63-1.95; P < .001) and aneurysm diameter >65 mm (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.98-2.39; P < .001), along with potentially modifiable factors, including anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, weight, and diabetes. In contrast, aspirin, statin, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocekr use were associated with lower odds of NHD. NHD was associated with higher hazards of 5-year mortality, even after adjusting for confounders (40% vs 14%; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.86-2.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors were associated with higher odds of NHD after elective EVAR, including nonmodifiable factors such as female sex and larger aortic diameter, and potentially modifiable factors such as anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, body mass index, and diabetes. Special attention should be given to populations with nonmodifiable factors, and efforts at optimizing medical conditions with higher NHD likelihood seems appropriate to improve patient outcomes and quality of life after EVAR.

One-year aneurysm-sac dynamics are associated with reinterventions and rupture following infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: One-year aneurysm sac changes have previously been found to be associated with mortality and may have the potential to guide personalized follow-up following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In this study, we examined the association of these early sac changes with long-term reintervention and rupture. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We included patients with an imaging study at 1 year postoperatively. Aneurysm sac behavior was defined as per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines: stable sac (<5 mm change), sac regression (≥5 mm), and sac expansion (≥5 mm). Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and rupture within 8 years, which were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondarily, we utilized polynomial spline interpolation to demonstrate the continuous relationship of diameter change to 8-year hazard of reintervention, rupture, or mortality as a composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 31,185 EVAR patients, 16,102 (52%) had an imaging study at 1 year and were included in this study. At 1 year, 44% of sacs remained stable, 49% regressed, and 6.2% displayed expansion. Following risk adjustment, compared with a stable sac at 1 year, sac regression was associated with lower 8-year mortality (49% vs 53%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99; P = .036), reintervention rate (8.9% vs 15%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68; P < .001), and rupture rate (2.0% vs 4.0%; HR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.29-0.69; P < .001). Conversely, compared with a stable sac, sac expansion was associated with higher 8-year mortality (64% vs 53%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51; P < .001) and reintervention rate (27% vs 15%; HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.57-2.51; P < .001), but similar risk of rupture (7.2% vs 4.0%; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.88-2.96; P = .12). Polynomial spline interpolation demonstrated that, compared with no diameter change at 1 year, increased sac regression was associated with an incrementally lower risk of late outcomes, whereas increased sac expansion was associated with an incrementally higher risk of late outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following EVAR, compared with a stable sac at 1-year imaging, sac regression and expansion are associated with a lower and higher risk respectively of long-term mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures. Moreover, the amount of regression or expansion seems to be incrementally associated with these late outcomes, too. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve 1-year sac regression, and whether it is safe to extend follow-up intervals for patients with regressing sacs.

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.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

Association between diabetes status and long-term outcomes following open and endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Current literature reports conflicting findings regarding the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. In this study we examined the effect of DM and its management on outcomes after open AAA repair (OAR) and endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing OAR or EVAR for infrarenal AAA between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry data linked with Medicare claims. We excluded patients with missing DM status. Patients were stratified by their preoperative DM status, and then further stratified by DM management: dietary, noninsulin antidiabetic medications (NIMs), or insulin. Outcomes of interest included 1-year aneurysm sac dynamics, 8-year aneurysm rupture, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. These outcomes were analyzed with the χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier methods, and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 34,021 EVAR patients and 4127 OAR patients, of whom 20% and 16% had DM, respectively. Of all DM patients, 22% were managed by dietary management, 59% by NIM, and 19% by insulin. After EVAR, DM patients were more likely to have stable sacs, whereas non-DM patients were more likely to have sac regression at 1 year. Compared with non-DM, DM was associated with a significantly lower risk for 8-year rupture in EVAR (EVAR hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.92). Compared with non-DM, NIM was associated with lower risk of rupture within 8-years for both EVAR and OAR (EVAR HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.94; OAR HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80), whereas dietary control and insulin had a similar rupture risk compared with non-DM. However, compared with non-DM, DM was associated with a higher risk of 8-year all-cause mortality after EVAR and OAR (DM vs non-DM: EVAR HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; OAR HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36). After further DM management substratification, compared with non-DM, management with NIM and insulin were associated with a higher 8-year mortality in EVAR and OAR (EVAR: NIM HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20; insulin: HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.26-1.55; OAR: NIM HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54; and insulin: HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15-2.13). Finally, there was a similar risk of reintervention across the DM and non-DM populations for EVAR and OAR. CONCLUSIONS: DM was associated with a lower adjusted risk of rupture after EVAR as well as OAR in patients managed with NIM. Nevertheless, just as in patients without AAA, preoperative DM was associated with a higher adjusted risk of all-cause mortality. Further study is needed to evaluate for differences in aneurysm-related mortality between DM and non-DM patients, and studies are planned to evaluate the independent effect of NIM on aneurysm-related outcomes.

Factors associated with and outcomes of respiratory adverse events following thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory adverse events (RAEs) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remain poorly characterized owing to the lack of comprehensive studies that identify individuals prone to these complications. This study aims to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and outcomes of RAEs after TEVAR. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing TEVAR isolated to zones 0 to 5 from 2010 to 2023 for nontraumatic pathologies. After determining the incidence of postoperative RAEs, we assessed baseline characteristics, pathology, procedural details, and postoperative complications stratified by respiratory complication status: none, pneumonia only, reintubation only, or both. We then examined preoperative and intraoperative variables independently associated with the development of postoperative RAEs using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine associations between postoperative RAEs and 5-year survival adjusting for preoperative variables and other nonrespiratory postoperative complications in a separate model. RESULTS: Of 10,708 patients, 8.3% had any RAE (pneumonia only, 2.1%; reintubation only, 4.8%; both, 1.4%). Patients with any RAE were more likely to present with aortic dissection (any respiratory complication, 46% vs no respiratory complication, 35%; P < .001), and be symptomatic (58% vs 48%; P < .001). Developing RAEs after TEVAR was associated with male sex (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.41; P = .037), obesity (aRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; P = .009), morbid obesity (aRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.32; P = .002), renal dysfunction (aRR, estimated glomerular filtration rate 30-45, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.15-1.82; P = .002; estimated glomerular filtration rate <30/hemodialysis, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.37-2.11; P < .001), anemia (aRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.58; P = .003), aortic diameter >65 mm (aRR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.25-1.89; P < .001), proximal disease in the aortic arch (aRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48; P = .025) or ascending aorta (aRR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.19-2.14; P = .002), acute aortic dissection (aRR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.72-2.63; P < .001), ruptured presentation (aRR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.43-3.87; P < .001), same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment (aRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.82; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen (aRR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.08-2.25; P = .014), limited self-care or bed-bound status (aRR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.45-3.03; P < .001), and intraoperative transfusion (aRR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.40; P < .001). Patients who developed postoperative RAEs had higher 30-day mortality (27% vs 4%; P < .001) and 5-year mortality than patients without respiratory complications (46% vs 20%; P < .001). After adjusting for preoperative and postoperative variables, the 5-year mortality was higher in patients who developed any postoperative RAE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6, 2.1; P < .001), postoperative pneumonia only (aHR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0, 1.8; P = .046), reintubation only (aHR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8, 2.6; P < .001) or both (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1, 2.0; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: RAEs after TEVAR are common, more likely to occur in male patients with obesity, renal dysfunction, anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, acute aortic dissection, ruptured presentation, same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment, who received intraoperative transfusion, and are associated with a two-fold increase in 5-year mortality regardless of the development of other postoperative complications. Considering these factors in assessing the risks and benefits of TEVAR procedures, along with implementing customized postoperative care, can potentially improve clinical outcomes.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) remain understudied. Prior research has not reported the outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in patients with previous CAS. In this study, we compared the peri-operative outcomes of TCAR, transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS using the Vascular Quality Iniatitive. METHODS: Using Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2016 to 2023, we identified patients who underwent TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA after prior ipsilateral CAS. We included covariates such as age, race, sex, body mass index, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary artery disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia), symptom status, urgency, ipsilateral stenosis, and contralateral occlusion into a regression model to compute propensity scores for treatment assignment. We then used the propensity scores for inverse probability weighting and weighted logistic regression to compare in-hospital stroke, in-hospital death, stroke/death, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and cranial nerve injury (CNI) after TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA. We also analyzed trends in the proportions of patients undergoing the three revascularization procedures over time using Cochrane-Armitage trend testing. RESULTS: We identified 2137 patients undergoing revascularization after prior ipsilateral carotid stenting: 668 TCAR patients (31%), 1128 tfCAS patients (53%), and 341 CEA patients (16%). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a lower yet not statistically significant in-hospital stroke/death than tfCAS (TCAR vs tfCAS: 0.7% vs 2.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.05; P = .06), and similar odds of stroke/death with CEA (TCAR vs CEA: 0.7% vs 0.9%; aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.16-3.98; P = .8). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with lower odds of postoperative MI (0.1% vs 14%; aOR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.10; P < .001), stroke/death/MI (0.8% vs 15%; aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001), and CNI (0.1% vs 3.8%; aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.30; P = .002) in this patient population. In symptomatic patients, TCAR had an unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rate of 5.1%, with lower rates of CNI than CEA. We also found an increasing trend in the proportion of patients undergoing TCAR following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting (2016 to 2023: 14% to 41%), with a relative decrease in proportions of tfCAS (61% to 45%) and CEA (25% to 14%) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with tfCAS, with comparable stroke/death but lower postoperative MI and CNI rates compared with CEA. In symptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with unacceptably higher in-hospital stroke/death rates. In line with the postprocedure outcomes, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of patients with prior ipsilateral stenting undergoing TCAR over time.

The rise of endovascular repair for abdominal, thoracoabdominal, and thoracic aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Given changes in intervention guidelines and the growing popularity of endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms, we examined the trends in admissions and repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs), and thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs). METHODS: We identified all patients admitted with ruptured aortic aneurysms and intact aortic aneurysms repaired in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2019. We then examined the use of open, endovascular, and complex endovascular repair (OAR, EVAR, and cEVAR) for each aortic aneurysm location (AAA, TAAA, and TAA), alongside their resulting in-hospital mortality, over time. cEVAR included branched, fenestrated, and physician-modified endografts. RESULTS: 715,570 patients were identified with AAA (87% intact repairs and 13% rupture admissions). Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions decreased significantly between 2004 and 2019 (intact 41,060-34,215, P < .01; ruptured 7175-4625, P = .02). Of all AAA repairs performed in a given year, the use of EVAR increased (2004-2019: intact 45%-66%, P < .01; ruptured 10%-55%, P < .01) as well as cEVAR (2010-2019: intact 0%-23%, P < .01; ruptured 0%-14%, P < .01). Mortality after EVAR of intact AAAs decreased significantly by 29% (2004-2019, 0.73%-0.52%, P < .01), whereas mortality after OAR increased significantly by 16% (2004-2019, 4.4%-5.1%, P < .01). In the study, 27,443 patients were identified with TAAA (80% intact and 20% ruptured). In the same period, intact TAAA repairs trended upward (2004-2019, 1435-1640, P = .055), and cEVAR became the most common approach (2004-2019, 3.8%-72%, P = .055). A total of 141,651 patients were identified with ascending, arch, or descending TAAs (90% intact and 10% ruptured). Intact TAA repairs increased significantly (2004-2019, 4380-10,855, P < .01). From 2017 to 2019, the mortality after OAR of descending TAAs increased and mortality after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair decreased (2017-2019, OAR 1.6%-3.1%; thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair 5.2%-3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions significantly decreased between 2004 and 2019. The use of endovascular techniques for the repair of all aortic aneurysm locations, both intact and ruptured, increased over the past two decades. Most recently in 2019, 89% of intact AAA repairs, infrarenal through suprarenal, were endovascular (EVAR or cEVAR, respectively). cEVAR alone increased to 23% of intact AAA repairs in 2019, from 0% a decade earlier. In this period of innovation, with many new options to repair aortic aneurysms while maintaining arterial branches, endovascular repair is now used for the majority of all intact aortic aneurysm repairs. Long-term data are needed to evaluate the durability of these procedures.

The association between sex and outcomes after thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has found worse outcomes for female patients after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and mixed findings after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) is not fully elucidated. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent TEVAR for aTBAD (<30 days) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022. We excluded patients with an entry tear or stent seal within the ascending aorta or aortic arch and patients with an unknown proximal tear location. Included patients were stratified by biological sex, and we analyzed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed adjusted variables for interaction with female sex. RESULTS: We included 1626 patients, 33% of whom were female. At presentation, female patients were significantly older (65 [interquartile range: 54, 75] years vs 56 [interquartile range: 49, 68] years; P = .01). Regarding indications for repair, female patients had higher rates of pain (85% vs 80%; P = .02) and lower rates of malperfusion (23% vs 35%; P < .001), specifically mesenteric, renal, and lower limb malperfusion. Female patients had a lower proportion of proximal repairs in zone 2 (39% vs 48%; P < .01). After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with comparable odds of perioperative mortality to males (8.1 vs 9.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.20]). Regarding perioperative complications, female sex was associated with lower odds for cardiac complications (2.3% vs 4.7%; aOR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.26-0.97]), but all other complications were comparable between sexes. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar risk for 5-year mortality (26% vs 23%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.77-1.32]). On testing variables for interaction with sex, female sex was associated with lower perioperative and 5-year mortality at older ages relative to males (aOR: 0.96 [0.93-0.99] | adjusted hazard ratio: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) and higher odds of perioperative mortality when mesenteric malperfusion was present (OR: 2.71 [1.04-6.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Female patients were older, less likely to have complicated dissection, and had more distal proximal landing zones. After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with similar perioperative and 5-year mortality to male sex, but lower odds of in-hospital cardiac complications. Interaction analysis showed that females were at additional risk for perioperative mortality when mesenteric ischemia was present. These data suggest that TEVAR for aTBAD overall has a similar safety profile in females as it does for males.

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 after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive 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 syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA 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, patients with GA 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%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

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.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for nonruptured open conversion after endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies comparing the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair suggest that the RP approach may result in lower rates of perioperative mortality and morbidity. However, data comparing these approaches for open conversion are lacking. This study aims to evaluate the association between the type of approach and outcomes following open conversion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: We included all patients who underwent open conversion after EVAR between 2010 and 2022 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients presenting with rupture were excluded. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and 5-year mortality. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for factors with statistical or clinical significance. Logistic regression was used to assess perioperative mortality and complications in the weighted cohort. The 5-year mortality was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: We identified 660 patients (39% RP) who underwent open conversion after EVAR. Compared with TP, RP patients were older (75 years [interquartile range, 70-79 years] vs 73.5 years [interquartile range, 68-79 years]; P < .001), and more frequently had prior myocardial infarction (33% vs 22%; P = .002). Compared with the TP approach, the RP approach was used less frequently in cases of associated iliac aneurysm (19% vs 27%; P = .026), but more frequently with associated renal bypass (7.8% vs 1.7%; P < .001) and by high-volume physicians (highest quintile, >7 AAA annually: 41% vs 17%; P < .001) and in high-volume centers (highest quintile, >35 AAA annually: 36% vs 20%; P < .001). RP patients, compared with TP patients, were less likely to have external iliac or femoral distal anastomosis (8.2% vs 21%; P < .001), and an infrarenal clamp (25% vs 36%; P < .001). Unadjusted perioperative mortality was not significantly different between approaches (RP vs TP: 3.8% vs 7.5%; P = .077). After risk adjustment, RP patients had similar odds of perioperative mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-1.10; P = .082), and lower odds of intestinal ischemia (aOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.86; P = .028) and in-hospital reintervention (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.85; P = .015). No significant differences were found in the other perioperative complications or 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.47-1.32; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the RP approach may be associated with a lower adjusted odds of perioperative complications compared with the TP approach. The RP approach should be considered for open conversion after EVAR when feasible.

Comparison of Open and Endovascular Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and 5-year outcomes following endovascular (FEVAR) and open repair (OAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAA) in males and females separately, given the known sex related differences in perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We studied all elective cAAA repairs between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) registry. We stratified patients based on sex. We calculated propensity scores for assignment to either OAR or FEVAR. Covariates including age, race, diameter, baseline comorbidities, proximal extent of repair, annual center volumes, and annual surgeon volumes were introduced into the model for estimating propensity scores. Within matched cohorts, perioperative outcomes and 5-year outcomes (mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures) were evaluated using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. RESULTS: We identified 2,825 patients of whom 29% were female. Within both the sexes, OAR was more commonly performed (OAR vs FEVAR: males: 53% vs 47%; females: 63% vs 37%). After matching, among males (n=1326), FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality (FEVAR vs OAR: 2.3% vs 5.1%; p<.001). However, FEVAR was associated with comparable 5-year mortality (38% vs 28%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.2 [0.92-1.4]; p=.22) and a higher hazard of 5-year reintervention (19% vs 3.7%; aHR: 4.5 [2.6-7.6], p<.001). Among females (n=456), FEVAR and OAR showed similar perioperative mortality (8.3% vs 7.0%; p=.73). At 5 years, FEVAR was associated with higher hazards of mortality (43% vs 32%; aHR: 1.5 [1.03-2.2], p=.034) and reintervention (20% vs 3.0%; aHR: 4.8 [2.1-11], p<.001) compared with OAR. CONCLUSIONS: Among males, FEVAR was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared with OAR, though these advantages attenuate over time. However, among females, FEVAR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes, eventually leading to higher reinterventions and possibly higher mortality within 5 years. Future efforts should focus on determining the factors associated with these sex disparities to improve outcomes following FEVAR in females. Based on current evidence, females undergoing elective cAAA repair should be selected with due caution, especially for endovascular repair.

The impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcomes of revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Several observational studies have demonstrated an association between diabetes mellitus (DM) and above-ankle amputation after lower extremity revascularization (LER). However, data from prospective randomized trials is lacking. This analysis compares the outcomes of patients with and without DM enrolled in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: Baseline characteristics were compared between patients with and without DM in the BEST-CLI trial. Cox regression was used to determine the association between DM and major outcomes of major adverse limb events (MALE), reintervention, above-ankle amputation, and all-cause death. RESULTS: Among 1777 patients who underwent LER, 69.2% had DM. Compared with patients without DM, those with DM were significantly younger, less likely to be White, and more likely to be Hispanic. Patients with DM were more likely to have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal disease and be on optimal medical therapy (antiplatelets and statins), whereas patients without DM were significantly more likely to be smokers and have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with DM were significantly more likely to present with late Wound Ischemia foot Infection (WIfI) stages (3-4) (73.7% vs 45.9%; P < .001) that were driven predominantly by differences in wound and infection grade. Conversely, patients without DM had significantly lower ankle pressures and toe pressures and were significantly more likely to have WIfI ischemia grade 3 compared with patients with DM (60% vs 52.5%; P = .016). At 3 years, patients with DM exhibited higher rates of above-ankle amputation and all-cause death compared with patients without DM. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly higher MALE or all-cause death compared with patients without DM (3-year estimate: 53.5% vs 46.4%; P < .001). After adjusting for potential confounders, regression analysis demonstrated that DM was independently associated with increased above-ankle amputation (1.75 [1.22-2.51]), all-cause death (1.63 [1.31-2.03]), and MALE or all-cause death (1.24 [1.04-1.47]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DM undergoing LER for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experienced a greater incidence of MALE or all-cause death compared with patients without DM. The impact of DM seems to be mediated by more severe wounds and infections at the time of presentation, and a higher prevalence of cardiac and renal disease.