Eligibility Rates for Ambulatory EVAR

Cutdown is Associated with Higher 30-day Unplanned Readmissions and Wound Complications than Percutaneous Access for EVAR

BACKGROUND

A 2023 Cochrane review showed no difference in bleeding/wound infection complications, short-term mortality and aneurysm exclusion between the percutaneous and cut-down approach for femoral access in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In contrast, single-center studies have shown bilateral cutdown resulting in higher readmission rates due to higher rates of groin wound infections. Whether 30-day readmission rates vary by type of access during EVAR procedures is unknown. The goal of this study was to ascertain which femoral access approach for EVAR is associated with the lowest risk of 30-day readmission.

METHODS

The Targeted Vascular Module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing EVAR for aortic disease from 2012-2021. All ruptures and other emergency cases were excluded. Cohorts were divided into bilateral cutdown, unilateral cutdown, failed percutaneous attempt converted to open and successful percutaneous access. The primary 30-day outcomes were unplanned readmission and wound complications. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test, Chi-Square test and the Student's t-test. Multivariable analysis was performed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, 14,002 patients met study criteria. Most (7,395 [53%]) underwent completely percutaneous access, 5,616 (40%) underwent bilateral cutdown, 849 (6%) underwent unilateral cutdown, and 146 (1%) had a failed percutaneous access which was converted to open. Unplanned readmissions by access strategy included 7.6% for bilateral cutdown, 7.3% for unilateral cutdown, 7.8% for attempted percutaneous converted to cutdown, and 5.7% for completely percutaneous access (P < 0.001, Figure 1). After multivariable analysis, unplanned readmissions compared to percutaneous access yielded: percutaneous converted to cutdown adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.38, 95% CI [0.76-2.53], P = 0.29; unilateral cutdown AOR: 1.18, 95% CI [0.92-1.51], P = 0.20; bilateral cutdown AOR: 1.26, 95% CI [1.09-1.43], P = 0.001. Bilateral cutdown was also associated with higher wound complications compared to percutaneous access (AOR: 4.41, CI [2.86-6.79], P < 0.001), as was unilateral cutdown (AOR: 3.04, CI [1.46-6.32], P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing cutdown for EVAR are at higher risk for 30-day readmission compared to completely percutaneous access. If patient anatomy allows for percutaneous EVAR, this access option should be prioritized.

Conversion From an Outpatient to an Inpatient Setting After an Endovascular Treatment for Lower Extremity Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Outpatient endovascular treatment (EVT) for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is increasing. Some patients will, nonetheless, unexpectedly stay hospitalized for the night after the procedure. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with a conversion from an outpatient setting (OS) to an inpatient setting (IS).

METHODS

From April 2017 to August 2019, we performed 745 EVT for LEAD. Patients scheduled for a same-day discharge procedure were retrospectively analyzed. The factors potentially associated with a conversion to an IS were assessed. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Among the 198 (26.6%) patients scheduled for outpatient EVT, mean age was 70.8±14.1 years old, 34.3% had an ASA score≥3 and 38.4% presented a chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Twenty-eight patients (14.1%) were converted from an OS to IS. Univariate analysis found that Rutherford stage≥4 (OR = 5.09 [2.11-12.27], P < 0.001), high blood pressure (OR = 3.19 [1.06-9.63], P = 0.040), ASA score≥3 (OR = 3.61 [1.58-8.24], P = 0.002), duration of procedure ≥90 min (OR = 2.36, [1.03-5.39], P = 0.042), anterograde puncture (OR = 2.94, [1.30-6.66], P = 0.009), arrival in the operating room ≥12:00 (OR = 13.05, [5.29-32.17], P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (OR = 3.89, [1.20-12.62], P = 0.024) were associated with a conversion. The multivariate analysis revealed that an arrival in the operative room ≥12:00 (OR = 11.71, [3.85-35.60], P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (OR = 6.76, [1.28-35.82], P = 0.009) were independent factors associated with a conversion.

CONCLUSION

Arrival in the operative room after 12:00 and general anesthesia represent two independent correctible factors associated with the risk of OS failure. No factor directly related to comorbidities or the LEAD severity was identified.

Outpatient Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Single-Center Experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of outpatient percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic repair (PEVAR) versus inpatient PEVAR without or with adjunct procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2012 and June 2019, a cohort of 359 patients comprising 168 (46.8%) outpatients and 191 (53.2%) inpatients who had undergone PEVAR were enrolled. All the patients were asymptomatic but had indications for endovascular aortic repair, ie, fit for intravenous anesthesia and anatomically feasible with standard devices. Patient sex, age, comorbidities, smoking status, type of anesthesia, adjunct procedures, type of graft device, operative times, mortality, complications, and readmissions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up period was 16.5 months (interquartile range, 9-31 months). Except for a higher percentage of tobacco use (42.6% vs 28.8%; P = .04), dyslipidemia (39.7% vs 19.2%; P < .01), and use of local anesthesia (99.4% vs 82.2%; P < .01) in the outpatients, there was no significant difference in the type of graft and adjunct procedures used. No outpatient mortality occurred. There was no difference in the number, severity, and onset of complications (all P > .05). Outpatient unexpected same-day admission, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit rates were 4.8%, 2.4% (P = .13), and 10% (P < .01), respectively. Operative times for outpatient PEVAR without adjunct procedures were shorter (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient PEVAR can be performed with a safety profile similar to that of inpatient PEVAR. The unexpected same-day admission, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit rates were low. The outpatient PEVARs without adjunct procedures took less time.

The long-term implications of access complications during endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Access issues are one of the most common complications of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, contemporary rates as well as risk factors for complications and the subsequent impact of access complications on mortality are poorly described.

METHODS

We studied all EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms without prior aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2011 and 2018. We studied factors associated with access complications (thrombosis, embolus, wound infection, hematoma, and conversion to cutdown), as well as the interaction with female sex and the impact on survival using multilevel logistic regression and propensity weighting. Multiple imputation was used for missing data.

RESULTS

There were 33,951 EVAR during the study period (91% elective, 9% symptomatic); most cases (70%) involved an attempt at percutaneous access on at least one side, with 30% bilateral cutdowns and 0.1% iliac conduits. There were 1553 patients (4.6%) who experienced at least one access complication. Access complications were almost twice as common in female patients (7.5% vs 3.9%; P < .001). The factors associated with access complications included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.6; P < .001), age (OR, 1.05 per 5 years; 95% CI, 1.02-1.1; P < .01), aortouni-iliac device (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P < .01), smoking (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P < .01), body mass index of less than 16 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5; P = .001), dual antiplatelet therapy (1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.6 P = .03), prior infrainguinal bypass (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .01), and beta blocker use (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.03-1.4; P = .02). Conversion from percutaneous access to open cutdown was associated with higher rates of complications than planned open cutdown (8.6% vs 2.9%; P < .001). In propensity-weighted analysis, percutaneous access was associated with significantly lower odds of access complications in women (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96; P = .03). Patients who experienced an access complication had more than four times the odds of perioperative death (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.5-7.1; P < .001), and a 60% higher risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P = .001). In addition to death, patients with access site complications had higher rates of other major complications, including reoperation during the index hospitalization (19% vs 1.2%; P < .001), myocardial infarction (3.5% vs 0.7%; P < .001), stroke (0.8% vs 0.2%; P < .001), acute kidney injury (12% vs 3%; P < .001), and reintubation (5.7% vs 0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although access complications are infrequent in the current era, they are associated with both perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality. Female patients in particular are at high risk of access complications, but may benefit from percutaneous access.