Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

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.

Investigator attitudes on equipoise and practice patterns in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant variability in practice patterns and equipoise regarding treatment approach for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We aimed to assess treatment preferences of Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) investigators prior to and following the trial. METHODS: An electronic 60-question survey was sent to 1180 BEST-CLI investigators in 2022, after trial conclusion and before announcement of results. Investigators' preferences were assessed across clinical scenarios for both open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies. Vascular surgeon (VS) surgical and ENDO preferences were compared with a 2010 survey administered to prospective investigators before trial funding. RESULTS: For the 2022 survey, the response rate was 20.2% and was comprised of VSs (76.3%), interventional cardiologists (11.4%) and interventional radiologists (11.6%). The majority (72.6%) were in academic practice and 39.1% were in practice for >20 years. During initial CLTI work-up, 65.8%, 42.6%, and 55.9% of respondents always or usually ordered an arterial duplex, computed tomography angiography, and vein mapping, respectively. The most common practice distribution between ENDO and OPEN procedures was 70/30. Postoperatively, a majority reported performing routine duplex surveillance of vein bypass (99%), prosthetic bypass (81.9%), and ENDO interventions (86%). A minority reported always or usually using the wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) criteria (25.8%), GLASS (8.3%), and a risk calculator (14.8%). More than one-half (52.9%) agreed that the statement "no bridges are burned with an ENDO-first approach" was false. Intervention choice was influenced by availability of the operating room or ENDO suite, personal schedule, and personal skill set in 30.1%, 18.0%, and 45.9% of respondents, respectively. Most respondents reported routinely using paclitaxel-coated balloons (88.1%) and stents (67.5%); however, 73.3% altered practice when safety concerns were raised. Among surgeons, 17.8%, 2.9%, and 10.3% reported performing >10 annual alternative autogenous vein bypasses, composite vein composite vein bypasses, and bypasses to pedal targets, respectively. Among all interventionalists, 8%, 24%, and 8% reported performing >10 annual radial access procedures, pedal or tibial access procedures, and pedal loop revascularizations. The majority (89.1%) of respondents felt that CLTI teams improved care; however, only 23.2% had a defined team. The effectiveness of the teamwork at institutions was characterized as highly effective in 42.5%. When comparing responses by VSs to the 2010 survey, there were no changes in preferred treatment based on Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II classification or conduit preference. In 2022, OPEN surgery was preferred more for a popliteal occlusion. For clinical scenarios, there were no differences except a decreased proportion of respondents who felt there was equipoise for major tissue loss for major tissue loss (43.8% vs 31.2%) and increased ENDO choice for minor tissue loss (17.6% vs 30.8%) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of practice patterns among vascular specialists treating CLTI. The majority of investigators in BEST-CLI had experience in both advanced OPEN and ENDO techniques and represent a real-world sample of technical expertise. Over the course of the decade of the BEST-CLI trial, there was overall similar equipoise among VSs.

Female patients have fewer limb amputations compared to male patients in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Female patients are less likely to be diagnosed with and treated for peripheral artery disease. When treated, there are also reported sex disparities in short- and long-term outcomes. We designed this study to compare outcomes after open and endovascular revascularization in the Best Endovascular vs best Surgical Therapy in patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) trial between females and males, and to examine outcomes of each revascularization type in an all-female cohort. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of cohorts 1 and 2 of the BEST-CLI Trial, patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) undergoing open surgical bypass (with or without adequate conduit) and endovascular therapy were stratified by sex. In addition, in a female-only cohort, we evaluated differences in outcomes between treatment arm (combined all bypasses from cohorts 1 and 2 and compared with all endovascular treatment in cohorts 1 and 2). Outcomes included major amputation, reintervention, major adverse limb event (MALE, a composite of major amputation and reintervention), all-cause death, and composite outcome of MALE or all-cause death. Univariable and adjusted Cox regressions were used to assess outcome between males and females. Similar methods were used to assess differences in outcomes between treatment arm in females. RESULTS: Among 1830 patients, females were significantly underrepresented, comprising only 28% (n = 519) of the BEST-CLI cohort. Overall, the characteristics of females enrolled in the trial had some differences compared with males: females were more likely to have rest pain alone (72% vs 60%; P < .0001) and when presenting with an ischemic wound, were less likely to have a wound infection (38% vs 47%; P = .01). Females were less likely to have an adequate single-segment greater saphenous vein (SSGSV) available (82% vs 89%; P = .01). Controlled for baseline clinical factors, at 1 year, females had significantly lower rates of major limb amputation compared with males (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; P = .023), which drove better amputation- and MALE-free survival rates. All-cause death at 1 year was not statistically different between sexes (11.8% vs 11.2%; P = .286). In the all-female cohort, results paralleled the overall trial; open surgical bypass (with any conduit) had significantly better outcomes compared with endovascular therapy. Specifically, among females undergoing endovascular therapy, the rate of major reintervention was particularly high compared with females undergoing open surgical bypass (24.8% vs 10.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being underrepresented in BEST-CLI, the primary results of the trial, namely, improved MALE-free survival with open surgical bypass with SSGSV, were mirrored in the all-female subset. Female patients enrolled in BEST-CLI had better amputation-free survival at 1 year compared with male patients. These findings suggest that in treating female patients with CLTI considered appropriate for both open and endovascular revascularization, surgical bypass with optimal conduit is the preferred treatment option and can potentially ameliorate poor limb preservation outcomes associated with sex.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Surgery or endovascular therapy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia requiring infrapopliteal interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The recent publication of randomized trials comparing open bypass surgery to endovascular therapy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, namely, Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) and Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2), has resulted in potentially contradictory findings. The trials differed significantly with respect to anatomical disease patterns and primary end points. We performed an analysis of patients in BEST-CLI with significant infrapopliteal disease undergoing open tibial bypass or endovascular tibial interventions to formulate a relevant comparator with the outcomes reported from BASIL-2. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients in BEST-CLI with adequate single segment saphenous vein conduit randomized to open bypass or endovascular intervention (cohort 1) who additionally had significant infrapopliteal disease and underwent tibial level intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse limb event (MALE) or all-cause death. MALE included any major limb amputation or major reintervention. Outcomes were evaluated using Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: The analyzed subgroup included a total of 665 patients with 326 in the open tibial bypass group and 339 in the tibial endovascular intervention group. The primary outcome of MALE or all-cause death at 3 years was significantly lower in the surgical group at 48.5% compared with 56.7% in the endovascular group (P = .0018). Mortality was similar between groups (35.5% open vs 35.8% endovascular; P = .94), whereas MALE events were lower in the surgical group (23.3% vs 35.0%; P<.0001). This difference included a lower rate of major reinterventions in the surgical group (10.9%) compared with the endovascular group (20.2%; P = .0006). Freedom from above ankle amputation or all-cause death was similar between treatment arms at 43.6% in the surgical group compared with 45.3% the endovascular group (P = .30); however, there were fewer above ankle amputations in the surgical group (13.5%) compared with the endovascular group (19.3%; P = .0205). Perioperative (30-day) death rates were similar between treatment groups (2.5% open vs 2.4% endovascular; P = .93), as was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (5.3% open vs 2.7% endovascular; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and fewer major amputation compared with endovascular intervention. Amputation-free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomical extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 reported outcomes.

Comparative outcomes of open mesenteric bypass after a failed endovascular or open mesenteric revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines have recommended an endovascular-first approach (ENDO) for the management of patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), whereas an open mesenteric bypass (OMB) is proposed for subjects deemed to be poor ENDO candidates. However, the impact of a previous failed endovascular or open mesenteric reconstruction on a subsequent OMB is unknown. Accordingly, this study was designed to examine the results of a remedial OMB (R-OMB) after a failed ENDO or a primary OMB (P-OMB) for patients with recurrent CMI. METHODS: All patients who underwent an OMB from 2002 to 2022 at the University of Florida were reviewed. Outcomes after an R-OMB (ie, history of a failed ENDO or P-OMB) and P-OMB were compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality, whereas secondary outcomes included complications, reintervention, and survival. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from reintervention and all-cause mortality, whereas multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling identified predictors of death. RESULTS: A total of 145 OMB procedures (R-OMB, n = 48 [33%]; P-OMB, n = 97 [67%]) were analyzed. A majority of R-OMB operations were performed for a failed stent (prior ENDO, n = 39 [81%]; prior OMB, n = 9 [19%]). R-OMB patients were generally younger (66 ± 9 years vs P-OMB, 69 ± 11 years; P = .09) and had lower incidence of smoking exposure (29% vs P-OMB, 48%; P = .07); however, there were no other differences in demographics or comorbidities. R-OMB was associated with less intraoperative transfusion (0.6 units vs P-OMB, 1.4 units; P = .01), but there were no differences in conduit choice or bypass configuration.The overall 30-day mortality and complication rates were 7% (n = 10/145) and 53% (n = 77/145), respectively, with no difference between the groups. Notably, R-OMB had decreased cardiac (6% vs P-OMB, 21%; P < .01) and bleeding complication rates (2% vs P-OMB, 15%; P = .01). The freedom from reintervention (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 95% ± 4%, 83% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 97% ± 2%, 93% ± 5%, respectively; log-rank P = .21) and survival (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 82% ± 6%, 68% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 84% ± 4%, 66% ± 7%; P = .91) were similar. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included new postoperative hemodialysis requirement (hazard ratio [HR], 7.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-17.3; P < .001), pulmonary (HR, 2.7, 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) and cardiac (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .04) complications, and female sex (HR, 2.1, 95% CI, 1.03-4.8; P = .04). Notably, R-OMB was not a predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative and longer-term outcomes for a remedial OMB after a failed intraluminal stent or previous open bypass appear to be comparable to a P-OMB. These findings support the recently updated clinical practice guideline recommendations for an endovascular-first approach to treating recurrent CMI due to the significant perioperative complication risk of OMB. However, among the subset of patients deemed ineligible for endoluminal reconstruction after failed mesenteric revascularization, R-OMB results appear to be acceptable and highlight the utility of this strategy in selected patients.

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.

A registry-based study of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis of the femoral-popliteal artery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of a prospective, single-arm, registry-based study assessing the safety and performance of a paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) or popliteal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) in a United States population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, multi-center, single-arm, post-market registry of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB for the treatment of ISR lesions in the SFA or popliteal artery at 43 sites within the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Registry from December 2016 to January 2020. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included technical success, target vessel revascularization, major limb amputation, and all-cause mortality. Results are presented as survival probabilities based on Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS: Patients (N = 300) were 58% male, with a mean age of 68 ± 10 years. Diabetes was present in 56%, 80% presented with claudication, and 20% with rest pain. Lesions included ISR of the SFA in 68%, SFA-popliteal in 26%, and popliteal arteries in 7%. The mean lesion length was 17.8 ± 11.8 cm. Lesions were categorized as occlusions in 43% (mean occluded length, 16 ± 10 cm). TASC type was A (17%), B (29%), C (38%), and D (15%). Technical success was 99%. Re-stenting was performed in 5% and thrombolysis in 0.6% of patients. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from target lesion revascularization were 90%, 72%, and 62% at 12, 24, and 36 months. Freedom from target vessel revascularization was 88%, 68%, and 59% and freedom from major target limb amputation was 99.6%, 98.9%, and 98.9%, respectively, at 12, 24, and 36 months. Survival was 95%, 89%, and 85% at 12, 24, and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: This post-market registry-based study shows promising results in treating femoral-popliteal ISR with paclitaxel DCB in comparison to the results of plain balloon angioplasty reported in the literature. These results demonstrate the ability of the SVS VQI to conduct post-market evaluation of peripheral devices in partnership with industry and federal regulators.

Retrograde Tibio-Pedal Access for Endovascular Interventions for Treating Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Retrograde tibio-pedal access represents a feasible method for endovascular revascularization when antegrade methods fail. The article offers an extensive review of retrograde tibio-pedal access, emphasizing the technique and documented outcomes.

Distal embolic protection use during transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Despite current guidelines recommending the use of distal embolic protection during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) to prevent periprocedural stroke, there remains significant variation in the routine use of distal filters. We sought to assess in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing tfCAS with and without embolic protection using a distal filter. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing tfCAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2021 and excluded those who received proximal embolic balloon protection. We created propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tfCAS with and without attempted placement of a distal filter. Subgroup analyses of patients with failed vs successful filter placement and failed vs no attempt at filter placement were performed. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using log binomial regression, adjusted for protamine use. Outcomes of interest were composite stroke/death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hyperperfusion syndrome. RESULTS: Among 29,853 patients who underwent tfCAS, 28,213 (95%) had a filter attempted for distal embolic protection and 1640 (5%) did not. After matching, 6859 patients were identified. No attempted filter was associated with significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death (6.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.23; P < .001), stroke (3.7% vs 2.5%; aRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .022), and mortality (3.5% vs 1.7%; aRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.42-3.020; P < .001). In a secondary analysis of patients who had failed attempt at filter placement vs successful filter placement, failed filter placement was associated with worse outcomes (stroke/death: 5.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21; P = .001 and stroke: 5.3% vs 1.8%; aRR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.78-4.61; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes in patients with failed vs no attempted filter placement (stroke/death: 5.4% vs 6.2%; aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.61-1.63; P = .99; stroke: 4.7% vs 3.7%; aRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.79-2.48; P = .20; death: 0.9% vs 3.4%; aRR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.01; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: tfCAS performed without attempted distal embolic protection was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke and death. Patients undergoing tfCAS after failed attempt at filter placement have equivalent stroke/death to patients in whom no filter was attempted, but more than a two-fold higher risk of stroke/death compared with those with successfully placed filters. These findings support current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommending routine use of distal embolic protection during tfCAS. If a filter cannot be placed safely, an alternative approach to carotid revascularization should be considered.

Relationship between WIfI stage and quality of life at revascularization in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: The WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection) stage measures the extent of wounds, ischemia, and foot infection in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) and has been associated with the risk of major amputation. Patients with CLTI have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be multifactorial. We hypothesized that the severity of the limb threat (WIfI stage) would be associated with poor HRQoL among patients with CLTI presenting for revascularization. METHODS: The dataset of the BEST-CLI (best endovascular versus best surgical therapy in patients with CLTI) trial, a prospective, randomized trial comparing open and endovascular revascularization strategies, was queried for HRQoL assessments at patient enrollment. The HRQoL assessments included (1) Vascular Quality of Life; (2) 12-item short form survey (SF-12), containing the utility index score (short-form six-dimension R2 utility index, incorporating physical, emotional, and mental well-being) and mental and physical components; and (3) the EQ-5D. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify the independent associations with the baseline HRQoL assessments. RESULTS: A total of 1568 patients with complete WIfI data were analyzed, of whom 71.5% were men. The WIfI distribution was 35.5% with stage 4, 29.6% with stage 3, 28.6% with stage 2, and 6.3% with stage 1. Patients presenting with WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, were more often men (74.9% vs 69.6%) and current smokers (25.4% vs. 17.6%), had had end-stage renal disease (13.3% vs 8.5%) and diabetes (83.6% vs 60.2%), were not independently ambulatory (56.8% vs 38.5%), and had had higher median morbidity scores (4 vs 3; P < .05 for all). On multivariable analysis, WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, was associated with lower SF-12 mental component scale scores (estimate, -2.43; 95% confidence interval, -3.73 to -1.13; P < .001) and short-form six-dimension R2 utility index scores (estimate, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 0.001; P = .04). The WIfI stage was not independently associated with the baseline Vascular Quality of Life, SF-12 physical component scale, or EQ-5D assessments. CONCLUSIONS: WIfI stage was independently associated with poorer quality of life because of mental, rather than physical, health for patients with CLTI. Clinicians should be aware of the burden of mental stress borne by those with the greatest limb impairment.

Complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms remain high compared with elective repair.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms is associated with increased perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with intact repair. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the factors associated with the presentation of ruptured aneurysms and adverse outcomes after repair. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry was queried (2010-2020) to identify patients who had undergone TEVAR for ruptured and intact thoracic aortic aneurysms. The primary outcome was to identify the factors associated with ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms. The secondary outcomes included perioperative mortality and morbidity, 5-year survival, and the identification of factors associated with adverse outcomes after TEVAR. RESULTS: Of the 3039 patients identified with a thoracic aortic aneurysm, 2806 (92%) had undergone repair for an intact aneurysm and 233 (8%) had undergone repair for a ruptured aneurysm. Chronic kidney disease was associated with a greater odds of a presentation with a ruptured aneurysm (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.9; P < .001). The factors associated with a lower odds of rupture included prior aortic aneurysm repair (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; P = .05), prior smoker (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53; P < .001), preoperative beta-blocker therapy (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001), and preoperative statin therapy (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94; P = .020). TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms was associated with higher perioperative mortality (rupture vs intact, 27% vs 4.6%; OR, 6.6; 95% CI 4.3-10; P < .001) and the composite outcome of mortality, new dialysis, paralysis, and stroke (38% vs 9.5%; OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.5-7.4; P < .001). The 5-year survival was significantly lower after TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms (50% vs 76%; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.52; P < .001). Preoperative statin therapy was associated with higher 5-year survival (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms results in increased perioperative mortality and morbidity and lower 5-year survival compared with TEVAR for intact aneurysms. Patients with prior aortic aneurysm repair, prior smoking, and preoperative beta-blocker or statin therapy were less likely to present with ruptured thoracic aneurysms. This correlation might be attributed to increased exposure to cardiovascular healthcare providers and, thus, subsequently increased screening and surveillance, allowing for elective repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Factors associated with lower preoperative quality of life in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: There are few contemporary data regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLI). METHODS: The Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLI (BEST-CLI) trial is an ongoing, National Institutes of Health-sponsored, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLI. BEST-CLI baseline HRQOL measures were evaluated for patient-specific variables that were associated with poor HRQOL and then compared with published outcomes. The HRQOL measures Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascQOL), European Quality of Life 5D (EQ-5D), and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Index score, physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) were aggregated from preoperative questionnaires completed by trial patients at baseline visits. Multivariable linear regression models were fit to determine which baseline characteristics were associated with poor HRQOL. RESULTS: We randomized 1830 patients into BEST-CLI. The majority (94.9%, 95.8%, and 95.8%) completed the VascQOL, EQ-5D, and SF-12 instruments at baseline, respectively. In the VascQOL, female sex, smoking history, opioid use, and nonindependent ambulation predicted lower HRQOL scores. Overall, VascuQOL scores were similar to those of participants in the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischemia of the Leg (mean, 3.07 ± 1.2 vs mean, 2.9 ± 1.1; P = .07). In EQ-5D, nonindependent ambulation predicted lower HRQOL scores. In the SF-12, female sex, opioid use, nonindependent ambulation, and a history of smoking predicted lower HRQOL scores. The mean SF-12 PCS for all patients in the study was 33.0 ± 8.5 and for the MCS was 46.4 ± 12.0), significantly lower than the national SF-12 scores for US population ages more than 60 years, which is a PCS of 46.5 ± 11.4 and an MCS of 52.9 ± 8.7. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CLI entering the BEST-CLI trial have very low HRQOL scores, comparable with patients suffering from other chronic conditions characterized by physical limitations and chronic pain. A history of smoking, impaired ambulation, opioid use, and female sex predicted lower HRQOL in patients with CLI, using multiple HRQOL measurement tools.

Female Sex is Associated with More Reinterventions after Endovascular and Open Interventions for Intermittent Claudication.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent claudication (IC) is a commonly treated vascular condition. Patient sex has been shown to influence outcomes of interventions for other vascular disorders; however, whether outcomes of interventions for IC vary by sex is unclear. We sought to assess the association of patient sex with outcomes after IC interventions. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2010-2020 for all peripheral endovascular interventions (PVI), infra-inguinal bypasses (IIB), and supra-inguinal bypasses (SIB) for any degree IC. Univariable and multivariable analyses compared peri-operative and long-term outcomes by patient sex. RESULTS: There were 24,701 female and 40,051 male patients undergoing PVI, 2,789 female and 6,525 male patients undergoing IIB, and 1,695 female and 2,370 male patients undergoing SIB for IC. Guideline-recommended pre-operative medical therapy differed with female patients less often prescribed aspirin for PVI (73.4% vs. 77.3%), IIB (71.5% vs. 74.8%), and SIB (70.9% vs. 74.3%) or statins for PVI (71.8% vs. 76.7%) and IIB (73.1% vs. 76.0%) (all P < 0.05). Female compared with male patients had lower 1-year reintervention-free survival after PVI (84.4% ± 0.3% vs. 86.3% ± 0.2%, P < 0.001), IIB (79.0% ± 0.9% vs. 81.2% ± 0.6%, P = 0.04), and SIB (89.4% ± 0.9% vs. 92.6% ± 0.7%, P = 0.005), but similar amputation-free survival and survival across all procedures. Multivariable analysis confirmed that female sex was associated with increased 1-year reintervention for PVI (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.24, P < 0.001), IIB, (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, P = 0.02), and SIB (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.20-2.13, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Female patients undergoing interventions for IC were less often pre-operatively medically optimized than male patients, though the difference was small. Furthermore, female sex was associated with more reinterventions after interventions. Interventionists treating female patients should increase their efforts to maximize medical therapy. Future research should clarify reasons for poorer intervention durability in female patients.

Effect of ischemia-reperfusion on outcomes after open mesenteric bypass for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Significant physiologic perturbations can occur in patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) undergoing open mesenteric bypass (OMB). These events have frequently been attributed to ischemia-reperfusion events and have been directly implicated in the occurrence of multiple organ dysfunction (MOD). Scoring systems (MOD score [MODS] and sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA]) have been derived within the critical care field to provide a composite metric for these pathophysiologic changes. The purpose of the present study was to describe the early pathophysiologic changes that occur after OMB for CMI and determine whether these are predictive of the outcomes. METHODS: Patients with CMI who had undergone elective OMB from 2002 to 2018 at a single institution were reviewed. Changes in the hemodynamic, pulmonary, hepatic, renal, and hematologic parameters in the first 96 hours postoperatively were analyzed. The MODSs and SOFA scores were calculated. Cox regression was used to determine the association of the MODSs and SOFA scores with the outcomes. RESULTS: The use of OMB was analyzed for 72 patients (age, 66 ± 11 years; 68% women; body mass index, 23.8 ± 6 kg/m2; 48 ± 34-lb weight loss in 59%). Previous mesenteric stent placement or bypass had been performed in 39% [stenting in 21; bypass in 8; (one patient had both)]. An antegrade configuration (93%) was most common (retrograde configuration, 7%), with revascularization of the superior mesenteric artery/celiac vessels in 85% (superior mesenteric artery only in 15%). Postoperative pathophysiologic and metabolic changes were common, and the mean MODSs and SOFA scores were 3.6 ± 2.4 (range, 1-10) and 4.0 ± 2.7 (range, 1-13), respectively. The median length of stay was 14 days (interquartile range, 9-21). The 30-day mortality was 4% (n = 3) and in-hospital morbidity was 53% (n = 38; gastrointestinal, 25%; infectious, 22%; cardiac, 18%; pulmonary, 18%; renal, 11%). The clinical follow-up period was 16 ± 20 months. The MODSs and SOFA scores correlated linearly with overall mortality (MODS: odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.7; P < .01; SOFA score: OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7; P < .01 per unit), with a score of ≥5 the inflection point most predictive of mortality (MODS: OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.9; P ≤ .01; SOFA score: OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.6; P = .02). The 1- and 3-year primary bypass patency and freedom from reintervention was 91% ± 5% and 83% ± 7%, respectively, with no association with the MODSs or SOFA scores. The 1- and 3-year survival was 86% ± 4% and 71% ± 6% with significantly worse outcomes for patients with higher MODSs and/or SOFA scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most CMI patients undergoing OMB will experience significant metabolic derangements resulting from sequelae of the ischemia-reperfusion phenomenon postoperatively. These can be objectively assessed in the early postoperative period using simply applied scoring systems to reliably predict the early and long-term outcomes. A derivation of the MODS and/or SOFA score after OMB for CMI can identify the most vulnerable patients at the greatest risk of mortality.

Contemporary management and outcomes of complex vascular surgical groin wound infections.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgical groin wound infection (VS-GWI) has multiple causes and frequently is manifested as a limb- or life-threatening problem, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. For patients undergoing operative extirpation, in situ repair, extra-anatomic bypass, or ligation can be used; however, limited data exist describing comparative results of the different operative choices or conduit subtypes. Therefore, we sought to describe our experience with management of VS-GWI and to detail outcomes of the different strategies. METHODS: Patients (2003-2017) undergoing surgical treatment of VS-GWI (Szilagyi grade III) secondary to primary infectious arteritis or infected pseudoaneurysm after percutaneous intervention as well as previous prosthetic graft placement were reviewed. The primary end point was major adverse limb events (MALEs; major amputation, graft occlusion, or unplanned reintervention). Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, wound healing, amputation-free survival (AFS), and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine relative risk of end points; Kaplan-Meier methodology was employed to estimate freedom from outcomes. RESULTS: There were 149 patients (age, 65 ± 11 years; body mass index, 27 ± 6 kg/m2; 70% male; 32% diabetes) identified, of whom 120 (81%) had unilateral and 29 (19%) had bilateral VS-GWI. Indications included infected prosthetic bypass (88% [n = 131]; infrainguinal, 107; suprainguinal, 24) and primary infectious femoral artery complications (12% [n = 18]). A majority underwent single-stage operations (87% [n = 129]). In situ reconstruction occurred in 87% (n = 129); 9% (n = 13) underwent ligation, and 6% (n = 7) received extra-anatomic revascularization. Autogenous conduit was used most commonly (68% [n = 101/149]; 88% single stage), of which 81% (n = 80) were femoral vein. The remaining patients received cadaveric (15% [n = 23]; 87% single stage) or prosthetic (8% [n=12]; 67% single stage) grafts. Adjunctive myocutaneous flap was used in 37% (n = 54). Length of stay was 19 ± 15 days and 30-day mortality was 7% (n = 10), with no difference between conduit repair types. All femoral wounds healed (mean follow-up, 17 ± 11 months); however, 33% (n = 49) underwent reoperation (unplanned graft reintervention, 33%; graft occlusion, 16%; wound débridement, 15%; major amputation, 11%). Reinfection occurred in 17% (n = 27), with no difference between groups. MALE rate was 22% (n = 33; most were arterial reinterventions, 19%), with no difference in single-stage vs multistage, in situ vs extra-anatomic, or autogenous vs nonautogenous conduit strategies Predictors of MALE included younger age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6 per decade; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.5; P = .02) and lower body mass index (<25 kg/m2; HR, 1.6 per BMI category; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5; P = .02). Overall, 1- and 3-year freedom from MALE, AFS, and survival were as follows: MALE, 74% ± 5% and 63% ± 6%; AFS, 68% ± 4% and 58% ± 5%; survival, 78% ± 3% and 70% ± 4%. Autogenous conduit use was associated with better survival (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; 1-year: 83% ± 4% vs nonautogenous, 78% ± 4%; 3-year: 68% ± 8% vs 53% ± 9%; log-rank, P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: An individualized approach to operative strategy and conduit choice leads to comparable outcomes in this challenging group of patients. VS-GWI can be safely managed with in situ, autogenous reconstruction in a majority of patients with acceptable mortality, excellent wound healing rates, and improved overall survival. However, a significant proportion of patients experience reinfection and MALEs, the preponderance of which are arterial reintervention, mandating need for close follow-up and graft surveillance.

A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Databases are essential in evaluating surgical outcomes and gauging the implementation of new techniques. However, there are important differences in how data from administrative databases and surgical quality improvement (QI) registries are collected and interpreted. Therefore, we aimed to compare trends, demographics, and outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in an administrative database and two QI registries. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing open and endovascular repair of intact and ruptured AAAs between 2012 and 2015 within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). We described the differences and trends in overall AAA repairs for each data set. Moreover, patient demographics, comorbidities, mortality, and complications were compared between the data sets using Pearson χ2 test. RESULTS: A total of 140,240 NIS patients, 10,898 NSQIP patients, and 26,794 VQI patients were included. Ruptured repairs composed 8.7% of NIS, 11% of NSQIP, and 7.9% of VQI. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rates for intact repair (range, 83%-84%) and ruptured repair (range, 51%-59%) were similar in the three databases. In general, rates of comorbidities were lower in NIS than in the QI registries. After intact EVAR, in-hospital mortality rates were similar in all three databases (NIS 0.8%, NSQIP 1.0%, and VQI 0.8%; P = .06). However, after intact open repair and ruptured repair, in-hospital mortality was highest in NIS and lowest in VQI (intact open: NIS 5.4%, NSQIP 4.7%, and VQI 3.5% [P < .001]; ruptured EVAR: NIS 24%, NSQIP 20%, and VQI 16% [P < .001]; ruptured open: NIS 36%, NSQIP 31%, and VQI 26% [P < .001]). After stratification by intact and ruptured presentation and repair strategy, several discrepancies in morbidity rates remained between the databases. Overall, the number of cases in NSQIP represents 7% to 8% of the repairs in NIS, and the number of cases in VQI grew from 12% in 2012 to represent 23% of the national sample in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: NIS had the largest number of patients as it represents the nationwide experience and is an essential tool to evaluate trends over time. The lower in-hospital mortality seen in NSQIP and VQI questions the generalizability of the studies that use these QI registries. However, with a growing number of hospitals engaging in granular QI initiatives, these QI registries provide a valuable resource to potentially improve the quality of care provided to all patients.

Not all risk scores are created equal: A comparison of risk scores for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in administrative data and quality improvement registries.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate and contemporary prognostic risk prediction is essential to inform clinical decision-making surrounding abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) care. Therefore, we validated and compared three different in-hospital mortality risk scores in one administrative and two quality improvement registries. METHODS: We included patients who had undergone elective AAA repair from 2012 to 2015 in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI; excluding the New England region), and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) datasets to validate three risk scores: Medicare, the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE), and Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS). The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) of all risk scores was calculated, and their discrimination was compared within a dataset using the Delong test and between datasets using a Z test. We constructed graphic calibration curves for the Medicare and VSGNE risk scores and compared the calibration using an integrated calibration index, which indicates the weighted average of the absolute difference between the calibration curve and the diagonal line of perfect calibration. RESULTS: We identified a total of 25,461 NIS, 18,588 VQI, and 8051 NSQIP patients who had undergone elective open or endovascular AAA repair. Overall, the Medicare risk score was more likely to overestimate mortality in the quality improvement registries and the VSGNE risk score underestimated mortality in all the databases. After endovascular AAA repair, the Medicare risk score had a higher AUC in the NIS than in the GAS (P < .001) but not compared with the VSGNE risk score (P = .54). The VSGNE risk score was associated with a significantly higher receiver operating characteristic AUC compared with the Medicare (P < .001) and GAS (P < .001) risk scores in the VQI registry. Also, the VSGNE risk score showed improved calibration compared with the Medicare risk score across all three databases (P < .001 for all). After open repair, the Medicare risk score showed improved calibration compared with the VSGNE risk score in the NIS (P < .001). However, in the VQI registry, the VSGNE risk score compared with the Medicare risk score had significantly better discrimination (P = .008) and calibration (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the VSGNE risk score performed best in the quality improvement registries but underestimated mortality. However, the Medicare risk score demonstrated better calibration in the administrative dataset after open repair. Although the VSGNE risk score appeared to perform better in the quality improvement registries, its overly optimistic mortality estimates and its reliance on detailed anatomic and clinical variables reduces its broader applicability to other databases.

Association between surgeon case volume and years of practice experience with open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair has led to a consequential decline in the use of open aneurysm repair (OAR). This evolution has had significant ramifications on vascular surgery training paradigms and contemporary practice patterns among established surgeons. Despite being the subject of previous analyses, the surgical volume-outcome relationship has remained a focus of controversy. At present, little is known about the complex interaction of case volume and surgeon experience with patient selection, procedural characteristics, and postoperative complications of OAR. The purpose of the present analysis was to examine the association between surgeon annual case volume and years of practice experience with OAR. METHODS: All infrarenal OARs (n = 11,900; elective, 70%; nonelective, 30%) included in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2019 were examined. Surgeon experience was defined as years in practice after training. The experience level at repair was categorized chronologically (≤5 years, n = 1667; 6-10 years, n = 1887; 11-15 years, n = 1806; ≥16 years, n = 6540). The annual case volume was determined by the number of OARs performed by the surgeon annually (median, five cases). Logistic regression was used to perform risk adjustment of the outcomes across surgeon experience and volume (five or fewer vs more than five cases annually) strata for in-hospital major complications and 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Practice experience had no association with unadjusted mortality (30-day death: elective, P = .2; nonelective, P = .3; 1-year death: elective, P = .2; nonelective, P = .2). However, more experienced surgeons had fewer complications after elective OAR (25% with ≥16 years vs 29% with ≤5 years; P = .004). A significant linear correlation was identified between increasing surgeon experience and performance of a greater proportion of elective OAR (P-trend < .0001). Risk adjustment (area under the curve, 0.776) revealed that low-volume (five or fewer cases annually) surgeons had inferior outcomes compared with high-volume surgeons across the experience strata for all presentations. In addition, high-volume, early career surgeons (≤5 years' experience) had outcomes similar to those of older, low-volume surgeons (P > .1 for all pairwise comparisons). Early career surgeons (≤5 years) had operated on a greater proportion of elective patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥4 (35% vs 30% [≥16 years' experience]; P = .0003) and larger abdominal aortic aneurysm diameters (mean, 62 vs 59 mm [≥16 years' experience]; P < .0001) compared with all other experience categories. Similarly, the use of a suprarenal cross-clamp occurred more frequently (26% vs 22% [≥16 years' experience]; P = .0009) but the total procedure time, estimated blood loss, and renal and/or visceral ischemia times were all greater for less experienced surgeons (P-trend < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Annual case volume appeared to be more significantly associated with OAR outcomes compared with the cumulative years of practice experience. To ensure optimal OAR outcomes, mentorship strategies for "on-boarding" early career, as well as established, low-volume, aortic aneurysm repair surgeons should be considered. These findings have potential implications for widespread initiatives surrounding regulatory oversight and credentialing paradigms.