Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery on Patients Transferred from Other Hospitals is Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality

Investigation of center-specific saphenous vein utilization rates in femoral popliteal artery bypass and associated impact of conduit on outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate variation in great saphenous vein (GSV) use among the various centers participating in the Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass modules. Further, differences in outcomes in femoral-popliteal artery bypass with single segment GSV conduit vs prosthetic conduit will be documented. Center GSV use rate impact on outcomes will be investigated.

METHODS

Primary exclusions were patients undergoing redo bypass, urgent or emergent bypass, and those in whom prosthetic graft was used while having undergone prior coronary artery bypass grafting. The distribution of GSV use across the 260 centers participating in Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass module was placed into histogram and variance in mean GSV use evaluated with analysis of variance analysis. Centers that used GSV in >50% of bypasses were categorized as high use centers and centers that used the GSV in <30% of cases were categorized as low use centers. Baseline differences in patient characteristics and comorbidities in those undergoing bypass with GSV vs prosthetic conduit were analyzed with χ2 testing and the Student t test, as were those undergoing treatment in high vs low use centers. Multivariable time-dependent Cox regression analyses were then performed for the primary outcomes of major amputation ipsilateral to the operative side and mortality in long-term follow-up. High vs low use center was a dichotomous variable in these regressions. Secondary outcomes of freedom from graft infection and freedom from loss of primary patency were performed with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Among centers with >50 patients meeting inclusion criteria for this study, GSV use ranged from 15% to 93% (analysis of variance P < .001). When considering all centers irrespective of number of patients, the range was 0% to 100%. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, GSV conduit use was associated with improved freedom from loss of primary or primary assisted patency, improved freedom from major amputation after index hospitalization, improved freedom from graft infection after the index hospitalization, and improved freedom from mortality in long-term follow-up (log-rank P < .001 for all four outcomes). Both low use center (hazard ratio, 1.35; P < .001) and prosthetic graft use (hazard ratio, 1.24; P < .001) achieved multivariable significance as risks for mortality in long-term follow-up. Other variables with a multivariable mortality association are presented in the manuscript. Low use center and prosthetic bypass were significant univariable but not multivariable risks for major amputation after index hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

There is remarkably wide variation in GSV use for femoral popliteal artery bypass among various medical centers. GSV use is associated with enhanced long-term survival as well as freedom from loss of bypass patency and graft infection. The data herein indicate institutional patterns of prosthetic conduit choice, which has the potential to be altered to enhance outcomes.

Interfacility Transfer Patients With Pelvic, Acetabular, and Lower Extremity Fractures Are at Higher Risk for Major Complications and Readmissions

OBJECTIVE

To compare the adverse event profile and patient comorbidity profile of lower extremity orthopaedic trauma patients admitted via interfacility transfer (IT) to direct admission (DA) patients from home.

METHODS

A total of 39,497 patients from 2012 to 2019 were identified in the American College of Surgeon National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. DA patients were compared with IT patients for differences in preoperative comorbidities, adverse events, length of stay, and readmissions in the 30-day postoperative period. Student t tests were used to assess continuous variables. Pearson χ 2 test and odds ratios (ORs) were used for categorical variables.

RESULTS

The IT group comprised 7167 patients, and the DA group comprised 32,330 patients. IT patients were on average older (65.5 vs. 58.8 years, P < 0.01), more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists Status >2 ( P < 0.01), and had a worse comorbidity profile for numerous preoperative risk factors. IT patients had significantly higher rates of mortality [3.3% vs. 1.4%; odds ratio (OR) 2.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-2.77], major complications (10.2% vs. 6.1%; OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.60-1.91), significantly higher readmission rates (5.8% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.01, OR 1.22 95% CI, 1.09-1.36), and more infectious complications (7% vs. 4.7%; OR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.38-1.71) than DA patients. Transfer remained a significant factor predicting major adverse events in regression analysis controlling for patient characteristics and fracture type ( P < 0.01; B 1.197; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that IT patients undergoing operative management of pelvic, acetabular, and lower extremity fractures are at a significantly increased risk of major complications, readmission, and have a higher morbidity burden than DA patients. As healthcare transitions to value-based care and bundled payments, hospitals that accept a high volume of ITs will face exposure to added risk and financial penalties without adequate policy protections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

High Rates of Recurrent Revascularization in Acute Limb Ischemia - a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study

OBJECTIVES

We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database to review outcomes of acute limb ischemia (ALI) patients following open surgical intervention for ALI.

METHODS

A previously validated tool was used to identify ALI patients in NSQIP undergoing open surgical revascularization from 2012-2017. Multivariable analysis was performed for the primary outcome of reoperation and secondary outcome of readmission and infection.

RESULTS

2,878 ALI patients underwent open revascularization; 35.7% were transfers from another acute care hospital. 13.8% required reoperation and 7.9% required readmission within 30 days. 32% of reoperations were recurrent revascularization, representing 4.4% of all ALI patients. 58.7% of patients were female and either overweight or obese. Younger age (OR 0.991 [0.984-0.999], p=0.02), underweight patients (OR 1.159 [0.667-2.01], p=0.05), pre-operative steroid use (OR 1.61 [1.07-2.41], p=0.02), and perioperative transfusion (OR 2.02 [1.04-3.95], p=0.04) predicted reoperations.

CONCLUSIONS

This registry series demonstrates all-cause ALI patients are a different population than PAD with different risk factors. Despite being a time-critical condition, ALI has higher interhospital transfer rates than ACS or ruptured aneurysm. Following open revascularization, ALI outcomes are worse than ACS but better than ruptured AAA. These outcomes do not appear related to patient factors in contrast to revascularization for chronic PAD.

Frailty as a Predictor of Adverse Outcomes After Peripheral Vascular Surgery in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease

BACKGROUND

Frailty and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are each independently associated with adverse outcomes in patients who undergo lower extremity vascular bypass operations (LEOs). It is not known whether frailty imparts additional risk to patients with ESRD having LEO.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective cohort study of 29 203 patients without ESRD and 1718 with ESRD who had LEO surgery between the years 2014 and 2018 extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Preoperative frailty was assessed using a simplified frailty index based on a history of diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and functional status. Adverse outcomes measured were 30-day mortality, surgical complications, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, discharge destination, and any ("composite") adverse outcome. Odds ratios (ORs) for adverse outcomes were calculated with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among patients with ESRD, the OR for having the composite adverse outcome was greater for frailty than for any of the other preoperative risk factors studied (OR 2.191, CI 1.569-3.061, P < .001). Adverse outcomes occurred in 84.3% of frail patients with ESRD, but in only 39.6% of the non-frail patients without ESRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty imparts additional risk for adverse outcomes to patients with ESRD undergoing LEO.

Direct admission versus transfer to a tertiary hospital for definitive management of lower extremity injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delays in definitive management for traumatic lower extremity injuries may result in morbidity. We compared patients with lower extremity injuries directly admitted to a tertiary hospital for definitive care with patients transferred to that hospital following initial treatment elsewhere.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Participants sustained lower extremity injuries, definitively treated at a tertiary hospital. Interventions were direct admission to a tertiary hospital for definitive care and patients transferred to that hospital for definitive care after initial management at another location. PRISMA, Cochrane, and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation certainty-evidence guidelines were implemented.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies published from 1991 to 2020 compared 3,367 patients directly admitted with 1,046 patients transferred to a hospital for definitive management of lower extremity injuries. Direct admission to a tertiary center, compared with transfer, decreased time to first definitive surgical procedure (standard mean difference, -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.57 to -0.16; p = 0.0006; participants, 788; studies, 6; I2 = 34%; high-certainty evidence) and wound infections (risk ratio [RR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.77; p = 0.007; participants, 475; studies, 7; I2 = 27%; high-certainty evidence). Risks for diabetic patients (RR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.77-0.98; p = 0.03; participants, 2,973; studies, 4; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), total number of surgeries (standard mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.36; p < 0.0001; participants, 259; studies, 4; I2 = 35%; moderate-certainty evidence), osteomyelitis (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80; p = 0.006; participants, 212; studies, 2; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and total complications (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.67; p < 0.0001; participants, 729; studies, 5; I2 = 32%; moderate-certainty evidence) are likely lower for direct admits compared with transfers. Direct admission may reduce risks for systemic infections (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; p = 0.007; participants, 198; studies, 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.73; p = 0.02; participants, 94; studies, 1; low-certainty evidence), and postoperative bleeding (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93; p = 0.01; participants, 2,725; studies, 3; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), compared with transfer.

CONCLUSION

Earlier admission to a definitive tertiary center avoids morbidity associated with transfer delays.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/meta-analysis, level III.

Rehabilitation progress after lower-extremity bypass surgery in patients with peripheral arterial disease with different occlusive lesions

[Purpose] To examine the differences in rehabilitation progress after lower-extremity bypass surgery for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) depending on the occlusive lesions. [Participants and Methods] This was a retrospective study. We included 50 patients (61 limbs; 38 males and 12 females; mean age, 73 years) who underwent lower-extremity bypass surgery for Fontaine stage 2–3 PAD. The patients were assigned to the aortoiliac (A-I) group (n=23), femoropopliteal (F-P) group (n=18), and below-knee group (n=9). We evaluated the postoperative rehabilitation progress and length of hospital stay of these groups. [Results] The postoperative ankle-brachial pressure index (ABI) of the A-I group was significantly lower than that of the F-P group, although there were no differences before surgery. The progress of rehabilitation and the length of hospitalization showed no significant differences among the three groups. The postoperative date of independent walking was significantly later in the presence of complications than in the absence of complications. [Conclusion] The progress of rehabilitation after lower-extremity bypass surgery did not differ depending on the occlusive lesions, and patients may acquire independent walking ability in approximately 5 days in the absence of postoperative complications.