Determinants of Follow-Up Failure in Patients Undergoing Vascular Surgery Procedures

Identifying barriers and facilitators to follow-up after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR): Qualitative study design and protocol

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is now first line therapy for most patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) as it reduces perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery. However, up to 40 % of patients do not undergo recommended follow-up, increasing risk of subsequent rupture. Risk factors for loss to follow-up have been studied retrospectively, however, qualitative studies assessing perceived barriers and facilitators to follow-up have not been performed and there are few qualitative protocols within the vascular surgery literature. This article presents a qualitative descriptive study protocol aimed at understanding and improving post-operative follow-up adherence after EVAR developed through an iterative process based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change. Steps include:•Selection of target behavior and study design•Development of study materials, sampling/recruitment strategy, and data collection•Qualitative data analysis and reporting findingsWe demonstrate the feasibility of this study by pilot testing of the semi-structured interview guides on a small group of patients, healthcare providers, and key personnel. This protocol aims to describe key stakeholder experiences within the healthcare system that will ultimately serve as the basis for future multi-institutional research piloting intervention strategies to improve EVAR follow-up.

Social Determinants of Health Factors and Loss-To-Follow-Up in the Field of Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that 22-57% of vascular patients are lost to follow-up (LTF) which is of concern as the Society of Vascular Surgery recommends annual patient follow-up. The purpose of this report was to identify social determinants of health factors (SDoH) and their relationship to LTF in vascular patients.

METHODS

The methods employed were a systematic literature review of 29 empirical articles and a retrospective quality improvement report with 27 endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) patients at the University of Chicago.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review resulted in 2,931 articles which were reduced to 29 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Demographic variables were more frequently cited than SDoH factors, but the most common were smoking, transportation, and socioeconomic status/insurance. Additionally, 176 EVAR and TEVAR patients were called resulting in 27 patients who completed a SDoH questionnaire. Twenty-six percent indicated they had missed at least 1 appointment with the top reasons being work or family responsibilities. Due to limited patient size no statistical analyses were performed, but frequencies of responses to SDoH questions were reported to augment the existing limited literature and guide future research into variables such as one's ability to pay for basics like food or mortgage.

CONCLUSIONS

SDoH factors are important yet understudied aspects of endovascular repairs that require more research to understand their impact on vascular surgery follow-up rates and outcomes. Additional research is needed as lack of consideration of such factors may impact the generalizability of existing research and such knowledge may help in informing clinician treatment plans.

The impact of completion and follow-up endoleaks on survival, reintervention, and rupture

OBJECTIVE

Endoleaks may be seen at case completion of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and the presence of an endoleak may impact outcomes. However, the clinical implications of various endoleaks seen during follow-up is not well-described. Therefore, we studied the impact of endoleaks at completion and at follow-up on mid-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed patients who underwent EVAR from 2003 to 2016 within the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare database and identified patients with endoleak at procedure completion and during follow-up, excluding those presenting with rupture. We stratified cohorts by presence of completion and follow-up endoleak subtypes. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, and secondary outcomes included 5-year freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to analyze differences in time-to-event endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 21,745 patients with completion endoleak data, 5085 (23%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, those with type I endoleaks had lower 5-year survival (69% vs 75%; P < .001), type II endoleaks had higher survival (79%; P < .001), and types III, IV, and indeterminate were not statistically different (73%, 73%, and 75%, respectively). Freedom from reintervention for types I and III endoleaks were significantly lower than no endoleak cohort (I: 76%; P < .001; III: 72%; P < .001 vs 83%), but freedom from rupture was higher for those with type II and III endoleak (95% and 97% vs 94%; P < .001). Of 14,479 patients with detailed follow-up endoleak data, 2290 (16%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, types I and III had significantly lower 5-year survival (I: 80%; P = .002; III: 66%; P < .001 vs 84%), but there were no differences for types II (82%) and indeterminate (77%). Those with any type of follow-up endoleak had lower 5-year freedom from reintervention (I: 70%; P < .001; II: 76%; P = .006; III: 36%; P < .001; indeterminate: 60%; P = .007 vs 84%), and lower freedom from rupture (I: 92%; P < .001; II: 91%; P = .16; III: 88%; P = .01; indeterminate: 90%; P = .11 vs 94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with patients with no endoleak, those with type I completion endoleaks have lower 5-year survival and freedom from reintervention. Patients with types I and III follow-up endoleaks also have lower survival, and any endoleak at follow-up is associated with lower freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. These data highlight the importance of careful patient selection and close postoperative follow-up after EVAR, as the presence of endoleaks, specifically type I and III, over time portends worse outcomes.

Improved outpatient medical visit compliance with sociodemographic discrepancies in vascular telehealth evaluations

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic has led to a rapid expansion in the use of telemedicine across all medical fields but has also exposed telehealth care disparities with differing access to technology across racial and ethnic groups. The objective of our study was to investigate the effects of telehealth on vascular visit compliance and to explore the effects of sociodemographic factors on vascular surgery outpatient telehealth usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who had undergone an outpatient vascular surgery evaluation between February 24, 2020 (the launch of our telemedicine program) and December 31, 2020, were reviewed. The baseline demographic and outcomes were obtained from the electronic medical records. Telehealth and in-person evaluations were defined according to the patient's index visit during the study period. Medical visit compliance was established on completion of the telehealth or in-person encounter. We used χ² tests and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 23,553 outpatient visits had been scheduled for 10,587 patients during the study period. Of the outpatient visits, 1559 had been scheduled telehealth encounters compared with 21,994 scheduled in-person encounters. Of the scheduled outpatient encounters, 13,900 medical visits (59.0%) had been completed: 1183 telehealth visits and 12,717 in-person visits. The mean travel distance saved for the telehealth visits was 22.1 ± 27.1 miles, and the mean travel time saved was 46.3 ± 41.47 minutes. We noted no sociodemographic differences between the patients scheduled for telehealth vs in-person visits. We found a trend toward a lower proportion of African-American patients in the telehealth group vs the in-person group (7.8% vs 10.6%; P = .116), without statistical significance. A significantly higher rate of medical visit completion was found for the telehealth group compared with the in-person group (79.5% vs 59.4%; P < .001). Among the patients scheduled for an outpatient medical visit, a scheduled telemedicine evaluation (vs in-person) was associated with 2.3 times the odds of completing the medical visit (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.05-2.61), adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, language, and the distance between the patient's home zip code and the outpatient vascular center's zip code. Selecting for scheduled telemedicine visits, African-American race was associated with a decreased odds of telemedicine usage (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.90) after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, language, and visit type.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the vascular surgery outpatient telehealth evaluation appeared to improve medical visit completion in our region with apparent sociodemographic disparities. Further studies are needed to confirm whether telemedicine expansion has improved access to care in other geographic areas.

Loss of follow-up after carotid revascularization is associated with worse long-term stroke and death

OBJECTIVES

Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines recommend surveillance with duplex ultrasound scanning at baseline (within 3 months from discharge), every 6 months for 2 years, and annually afterward following carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting. There is a growing concern regarding the significance of postoperative follow-up after several vascular procedures. We sought to determine whether 1-year loss to follow-up (LTF) after carotid revascularization was associated with worse outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) linked to Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent carotid revascularization in the VQI VISION database between 2003 and 2016 were included. LTF was defined as failure to complete 1-year follow-up in the VQI long-term follow-up dataset. Data about stroke and mortality were captured in the VISION dataset using a list of Current Procedural Terminology, International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision), and International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Revision) codes linked to index procedures in VQI. Kaplan-Meier life-table methods and Cox proportional hazard modeling were used to compare 5- and 10-year outcomes between patients with no LTF and those who were LTF.

RESULTS

A total of 58,840 patients were available for analysis. The 1-year LTF rate was 43.8%. Patients who were LTF were older and more frequently symptomatic, with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, chronic kidney diseases, and congestive heart failure. Also, patients who underwent carotid artery stenting were more likely to be LTF compared with carotid endarterectomy patients (54.5% vs 42.3%; P < .001). The incidence of postoperative (30 days) stroke was higher in the LTF group (2.9% vs 1.7%; P < .001). Cox regression analysis revealed that LTF was associated with an increased risk of long-term stroke at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.6; P < .001) and 10 years (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2-1.5; P < .001). It was also associated with significantly higher mortality at 5 years (HR: 2.5, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8; P < .001) and 10 years (HR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.9-2.5; P < .001). Stroke or death was significantly worse in the LTF group at 5 years (HR: 2.3, 95% CI: 2.1-2.5; P < .001) and up to 10 years (HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.8-2.3; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year follow-up after carotid revascularization procedures was found to be associated with better stroke- and mortality-free survival. Surgeons should emphasize the importance of follow-up to all patients who undergo carotid revascularization, especially those with multiple comorbidities and postoperative neurological complications.

The Impact of Clinical Follow-Up After Revascularization on the Outcomes of Patients with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for optimal follow-up for patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization (LER) for peripheral arterial disease recommend multiple visits with imaging during the first year followed by yearly monitoring thereafter. Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients are at a greater risk for mortality and limb amputation than claudicants and thus necessitate closer monitoring. The goal of this article is to study the effects of compliance with follow-up after revascularization for patients with CLTI on major amputation rates and mortality.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review of consecutive patients undergoing LER for CLTI was performed. Patients were stratified based on compliance with follow-up to compliant or noncompliant cohorts. Patient characteristics, reinterventions, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 356 patients undergoing LER and 61% (N = 218) were compliant. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Noncompliant patients were more likely to undergo endovascular interventions compared to compliant patients (92.8% vs. 79.4%, P = 0.03). There was no difference in perioperative outcomes between the 2 groups with overall 30-day mortality of 0.6%. After mean follow-up of 2.7 years, compliant patients had greater ipsilateral reintervention rates (49.1% vs. 34.1%, P = 0.005) and overall reintervention rates (61% vs. 44.2%, P = 0.002) compared to noncompliant patients. There was no significant difference in mortality or ipsilateral major amputations between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who were compliant with follow-up after LER for CLTI underwent more reinterventions with no difference in mortality or major limb amputation. Further research regarding the threshold for reintervention and the optimal schedule for follow-up in patients with CLTI is needed.

Long-term Outcomes Associated With Open vs Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Medicare-Matched Database

IMPORTANCE

Endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with a significant reduction in perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with open aneurysm repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, this benefit decreases over time owing to increased reinterventions and late aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study used deidentified data with 6-year follow-up from the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. Patients undergoing first-time elective endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2018 were propensity score matched. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, concomitant procedures, or prior history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2018.

EXPOSURES

First-time elective endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary long-term outcome of interest was 6-year all-cause mortality, rupture, and reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

Among a total of 32 760 patients (median [IQR] age, 75 [70-80] years; 25 706 [78.5%] men) who underwent surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, 28 281 patients underwent endovascular repair and 4479 patients underwent open repair. After propensity score matching, there were 2852 patients in each group. Open repair was associated with significantly lower 6-year mortality compared with endovascular repair (548 deaths [35.6%] vs 608 deaths [41.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94; P = .002), with increases in mortality starting from 1 to 2 years (84 deaths [4.3%] vs 126 deaths [6.7%]; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83; P = .001) and 2 to 6 years (211 deaths [25.8%] vs 241 deaths [30.6%]; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P = .001). Open repair, compared with endovascular repair, also was associated with significantly lower rates of 6-year rupture (117 participants [5.8%] vs 149 participants [8.3%]; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P < .001) and reintervention (190 participants [11.6%] vs 267 participants [16.0%]; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; P < .001). Open repair was associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.41-5.26; P < .001) and complications.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that overall mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was higher with endovascular repair than open repair despite reduced 30-day mortality and perioperative morbidity after endovascular repair. Endovascular repair additionally was associated with significantly higher rates of long-term rupture and reintervention. These findings emphasize the importance of careful patient selection and long-term follow-up surveillance for patients who undergo endovascular repair.

Long-term Reintervention After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To describe the long-term reintervention rate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR), and identify factors predicting reintervention.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

EVR is the most common method of aneurysm repair in America, and reintervention after EVR is common. Clinical factors predicting reintervention have not been described in large datasets with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We studied patients who underwent EVR using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry linked to Medicare claims. Our primary outcome was reintervention, defined as any procedure related to the EVR after discharge from the index hospitalization. We used classification and regression tree modeling to inform a multivariable Cox-regression model predicting reintervention after EVR.

RESULTS

We studied 12,911 patients treated from 2003 to 2015. Mean age was 75.5 ± 7.3 years, 79.9% were male, and 89.1% of operations were elective. The 3-year reintervention rate was 15%, and the 10-year rate was 33%. Five factors predicted reintervention: operative time ≥3.0 hours, aneurysm diameter ≥6.0 cm, an iliac artery aneurysm ≥2.0 cm, emergency surgery, and a history of prior aortic surgery. Patients with no risk factors had a 3-year reintervention rate of 12%, and 10-year rate of 26% (n = 7310). Patients with multiple risk factors, such as prior aortic surgery and emergent surgery, had a 3-year reintervention rate 72%, (n = 32). Modifiable factors including EVR graft manufacturer or supra-renal fixation were not associated with reintervention (P = 0.76 and 0.79 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

All patients retain a high likelihood of reintervention after EVR, but clinical factors at the time of repair can predict those at highest risk.

Inadequate Adherence to Imaging Surveillance and Medical Management in Patients with Duplex Ultrasound-Detected Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that patients with ≥50% carotid artery stenosis undergo surveillance imaging and atherosclerotic risk reduction medical therapies, regardless of whether revascularization is performed. The objective of this study was to determine rates of adherence to these recommended measures and to identify risk factors for nonadherence.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all carotid duplex ultrasound (DUS) from 2016 to 2017 at a single institution. Patients with unilateral or bilateral ≥50% carotid stenosis were included. Primary outcomes were rates and timing of surveillance imaging and medication regimen. Patient and study characteristics were compared using univariate and multivariable analyses. A subgroup analysis of patients with a new finding of carotid stenosis was also performed.

RESULTS

Carotid stenosis >50% was detected in 340 patients. Overall, 182 patients (54%) had follow-up imaging (median 261 days [IQR 166-366]) and 158 patients (46%) had no imaging follow-up (NIFU). NIFU patients had similar rates of aspirin use (86% vs. 88%, P = 0.6) and tobacco cessation counseling (71% vs. 71%, P = 0.8) but had less statin use (85% vs. 94%, P = 0.01) compared to those with imaging follow-up. Subsequent carotid revascularization was more common in patients with imaging follow-up (18% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). NIFU patients were less likely to have Medicare or commercial insurance (54% vs. 75%, P < 0.001). The indication for DUS in NIFU patients, compared to those in follow up, was less commonly neurologic symptoms (11% vs. 14%), more commonly other clinical findings (35% vs. 16%), and more commonly as work up before nonvascular surgery (25% vs. 4%, P < 0.001), respectively. NIFU rates decreased with increasing degree of carotid stenosis. Prior carotid intervention, prior DUS, or DUS ordered by a vascular surgeon were characteristics associated with imaging follow-up (P < 0.05 for all). In a subgroup of 160 patients with new carotid stenosis, a majority (64%) had NIFU and statin use was lower in these patients (82% vs. 96%, P = 0.007). On multivariable analysis, preop indication was predictive of NIFU (odds ratio [OR] 8.1 [95% confidence interval, CI 2.5-26.4], P < 0.001) whereas protective factors included: 70-80% stenosis (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.14-0.76], P = 0.01), study ordered by vascular surgeon (OR 0.40 [95% CI 0.19-0.83], P = 0.01), and Medicare/commercial insurance (OR 0.36 [95% CI 0.2-0.66], P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of patients found to have ≥50% carotid stenosis on DUS had no imaging follow-up; these patients were less likely to be on recommended statin therapy. The benefits of nonrevascularization-based treatments for carotid disease require adherence to therapy. Forgoing surveillance imaging in patients with hemodynamically significant carotid stenosis should be a shared decision between provider and patient and does not obviate the need for medical therapies.

Predictors and Consequences of Loss to Follow-up after Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

Loss to follow-up (LTF) after surgery impacts quality of care and can adversely affect short- and long-term clinical outcomes. This study identifies modifiable factors contributing to LTF after vascular surgery and the factors' effect on short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center cohort study of 440 consecutive adult patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy, infrainguinal bypass, percutaneous lower extremity revascularization, or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair at Northwestern Memorial Hospital between November 2011 and November 2013. Twenty-six patients who died within 9 months after surgery were excluded because of competing risks with the study end points. Demographics, medical history and medications, hospitalization and procedure-related factors, and postoperative complications were collected from the medical record. The primary end point was LTF 1 month after surgery (LTF1M), defined as lack of an in-person outpatient visit with a vascular surgeon 1 month after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes were LTF 1 year after surgery (LTF1Y), defined as lack of an in-person outpatient visit with a vascular surgeon between 9 and 22 months after discharge, and overall 5-year survival.

RESULTS

Overall LTF1M and LTF1Y rates were 27.3% and 46.8%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in survival based on the LTF1M status (P = 0.72), but patients who were LTF1Y had significantly worse survival at 5 years (P < 0.001). Seeing a nonvascular surgeon specialist at our institution (odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-0.94, P = 0.03) and having a reintervention (OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08-0.37, P < 0.001) were associated with decreased LTF1Y in a multivariable model. Overall mortality was more likely with LTF1Y (hazard ratio (HR) 3.27, 95% CI: 1.86-5.76, P < 0.001) and less likely with seeing another specialist at our institution (HR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

LTF rates after vascular surgery are high and associated with poor long-term outcomes. Patients who did not see a nonvascular surgeon specialist at our institution had higher rates of LTF1Y and worse overall mortality, suggesting that improved integration of care can improve LTF and survival.

Five-year reintervention after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Patients who undergo endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) remain at risk for reintervention and rupture. We sought to define the 5-year rate of reintervention and rupture after EVR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).

METHODS

We identified all patients in the VQI who underwent EVR from 2003 to 2015. We linked patients in the VQI to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We stratified patients on baseline clinical and procedural characteristics to identify those at risk for reintervention. Our primary outcomes were 5-year rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture after EVR. We assessed these with Kaplan-Meier survival estimation.

RESULTS

We studied 12,911 patients who underwent EVR. The mean age was 75.5 years, 79.9% were male, 3.9% were black, and 89.1% of operations were performed electively. The 5-year rate of reintervention for the entire cohort was 21%, and the 5-year rate of late aneurysm rupture was 3%. Reintervention rates varied across categories of EVR urgency. Patients who underwent EVR electively had the lowest 5-year rate of reintervention at 20%. Those who underwent surgery for symptomatic aneurysms had higher rates of reintervention at 25%. Patients undergoing EVR emergently for rupture had the highest rate of reintervention, 27% at 4 years (log-rank across the three groups, P < .001). Black race and aneurysm size of 6.0 cm or greater were associated with significantly elevated reintervention rates (black, 31% vs white, 20% [log-rank, P < .001]; aneurysm size 6.0 cm or greater, 27% vs all others, <20% [log-rank, P < .001]). There were no significant associations between age or gender and the 5-year rate of reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one in five Medicare patients undergo reintervention within 5 years after EVR in the VQI; late rupture remains low at 3%. Black patients, those with large aneurysms, and those who undergo EVR urgently and emergently have a higher likelihood of adverse outcomes and should be the focus of diligent long-term surveillance.

Analysis of Thirty-Day Readmission after Infrainguinal Bypass

BACKGROUND

The Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) conducted a pilot study evaluating the feasibility of 30-day data collection in patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass (INFRA) which was subsequently expanded to include a limited number of additional sites within the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). The purpose of our study was to use these data to evaluate the incidence of 30-day readmission after infrainguinal bypass. A secondary goal of the study was to perform a critical appraisal of the data elements and definitions in the 30-day dataset.

METHODS

All infrainguinal bypass procedures performed during the pilot study period (7/2008 and 4/2016) were identified and merged with a dataset containing the 30-day data. Incidence and types of readmission were assessed. The primary endpoint was 30-day readmission, defined as any hospital readmission within 30 days of index operation; unplanned 30-day readmission was the secondary endpoint. Covariates tested for association with the primary and secondary endpoints included patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural, and postoperative characteristics. Variables significant on univariate screen (P < 0.2) were evaluated with logistic regression to identify independent determinants.

RESULTS

Of 9,847 infrainguinal bypass patients, 5,842 (59%) patients were identified with 30-day data, and 907 (16%) were readmitted within 30 days. Of readmissions, 675 (85%) were unplanned. Potentially modifiable independent determinants of any 30-day readmission included 30-day surgical site infection (SSI) (odds ratio [OR]: 10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.2-12, P < 0.0001), postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2-2.5, P = 0.002), and discharge anticoagulation (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.04-1.5; P = 0.02). Predictors of unplanned 30-day readmission were very similar but identified in-hospital major amputation as an additional independent predictor (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6-4.9, P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the interest in, and value of, 30-day data collection in VSGNE/VQI and documents the frequency of readmission after infrainguinal bypass. Readmission within 30 days is strongly associated with SSI, stressing the importance of efforts to decrease this complication. Given that many other predictors are unmodifiable, 30-day readmission is only appropriate as a quality metric if it is risk adjusted using large, real-world datasets such as VQI. Lessons learned from this analysis can be used to select optimal 30-day data elements.

Loss to follow-up 1 year after lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention is associated with worse survival

Loss to follow-up (LTF) has been associated with worse outcomes after procedures. We sought to identify differences in lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) patients with and without LTF, and to determine if LTF impacted survival. Patients in the PVI registry of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) were included (n = 39,342), where t-test and chi-squared analysis were used to compare those with and without LTF. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with LTF while Cox regression analysis was applied to compare survival among those with and without LTF. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 91.6%. LTF patients were more often male, Hispanic, of black race, and had a higher rate of diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and dialysis. LTF patients had a higher prevalence of critical limb ischemia, underwent popliteal or distal intervention, and were intervened upon urgently. There was also a higher rate of postoperative complications, and a lower rate of technical success for LTF patients. After controlling for center effects, the independent variables associated with LTF included male sex, age, diabetes, dialysis dependence, ASA class 3 or greater, as well as complications requiring admission. Preoperative aspirin, preadmission home living status, prior carotid intervention, and discharge aspirin were protective against LTF. Adjusted survival analysis showed decreased survival in LTF, with those returning face-to-face surviving longer than those with phone follow-up. Efforts should be focused on understanding these differences to improve follow-up rates and help improve overall survival.

Claims-based surveillance for reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair among non-Medicare patients

OBJECTIVE

Many patients who undergo endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) also undergo repeat procedures, or reinterventions, to address suboptimal device performance and prevent aneurysm rupture. Quality improvement initiatives measuring reintervention after EVR has focused on fee-for-service Medicare patients. However, because patients aged less than 65 years and those with Medicare Advantage represent an important growing subgroup, we used a novel approach leveraging a state data source that captures patients of all ages and with all types of insurance.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent EVR (2011-2015) within the Vascular Quality Initiative registry and were also listed in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System all-payer claims database of New York. We linked patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative to their Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System claims file at the patient level with a 96% match rate. We compared outcomes between fee-for-service Medicare eligible, defined as age 65 or older or on dialysis, versus ineligible patients, defined as those younger than 65 and not on dialysis. Our primary outcome was reintervention. We used Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching for risk adjustment.

RESULTS

We studied 1285 patients with a median follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-57 months). The mean age was 74 years, 79% were male, and 84% of procedures were elective. Nearly one in six patients were not Medicare eligible (14%), and the remainder (86%) were Medicare eligible. Medicare-eligible patients were less likely to be male (77% vs 91%; P < .001), have a history of smoking (79% vs 93%; P < .001), and have a nonelective procedure (15% vs 23%; P = .013). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier rate of reintervention was 21%. We found similar rates of reintervention between Medicare-eligible patients and those who were not (19% vs 20%, log-rank P = .199; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-1.16). This finding persisted in both the adjusted and propensity-matched analyses (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; propensity-matched HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.36-1.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention can be monitored using administrative claims from both Medicare and non-Medicare payers, and serve as an important outcome metric after EVR in patients of all ages. The rate of reintervention seems to be similar between older, Medicare-eligible individuals, and those who are not yet eligible.

A comparison of reintervention rates after endovascular aneurysm repair between the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, Medicare claims, and chart review

OBJECTIVE

The accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention.

RESULTS

VQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

Chart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review.

Open and endovascular aneurysm repair in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative is a patient safety organization and a collection of procedure-based registries that can be utilized for quality improvement initiatives and clinical outcomes research. The Vascular Quality Initiative consists of voluntary participation by centers to collect data prospectively on all consecutive cases within specific registries which physicians and centers elect to participate. The data capture extends from preoperative demographics and risk factors (including indications for operation), through the perioperative period, to outcomes data at up to 1-year of follow-up. Additionally, longer-term follow-up can be achieved by matching with Medicare claims data, providing long-term longitudinal follow-up for a majority of patients within the Vascular Quality Initiative registries. We present the unique characteristics of the Vascular Quality Initiative registries and highlight important insights gained specific to open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.