Unplanned 30-day readmissions after endovascular aneurysm repair: An analysis using the Nationwide Readmissions Database

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.

Preoperative risk score for mortality within 3 years of visceral segment fenestrated endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to create a risk score for the event of mortality within 3 years of complex fenestrated visceral segment endovascular aortic repair utilizing variables existing at the time of preoperative presentation.

METHODS

After exclusions, 1916 patients were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative who were included in the analysis. The first step in development of the risk score was univariable analysis for the primary outcome of mortality within 3 years of surgery. χ2 analysis was performed for categorical variables, and comparison of means with independent Student t-test was performed for ordinal variables. Variables that achieved a univariable P value less than 0.1 were then placed into Cox regression multivariable time dependent analysis for the development of mortality within 3 years. Variables that achieved a multivariable significance of less than 0.1 were utilized for the risk score, with point weighting based on the beta-coefficient. Variables with a beta coefficient of 0.25 to 0.49 were assigned 1 point, 0.5 to 0.74 2 points, 0.75 to 0.99 3 points, and 1.0 to 1.25 4 points. A cumulative score for each patient was then summed, the percentage of patients at each score experiencing mortality within 3 weeks was then calculated, and a comparison of score outcomes was conducted with binary logistic regression. Area under the curve analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of mortality within 3 years of surgery occurred in 12.8% of patients (245/1916). The mean age for the study population was 73.35 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.26 years). The mean maximal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter was 60.43 mm (SD, 10.52 mm). The mean number of visceral vessels stented was 3.3 (SD, 0.76). Variables present at the time of surgery that were included in the risk score were: hemodialysis (3 points); age >87, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, AAA diameter >77 mm (all 2 points); and body mass index <20 kg/m2, female sex, congestive heart failure, active smoking, chronic renal insufficiency, age 80 to 87 years, and AAA diameter 67 to 77 mm (all 1 point). BMI >30 kg/m2 (mean, 34.46 kg/m2) and age <67 years were protective (-1 point). Testing the model resulted in an area under the curve of 0.706. Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test for logistic regression utilizing the 15 different risk score total groups revealed a model predictive accuracy of 87.3%. Significant escalations in 3-year mortality were noted to occur at scores of 6 and greater. Mean AAA diameter was significantly larger for patients who had higher risk scores (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel risk score for mortality within 3 years of fenestrated visceral segment aortic endograft has been developed that has excellent accuracy in predicting which patients will survive and derive the strongest benefit from intervention. This facilitates risk-benefit analysis and counseling of patients and families with realistic long-term expectations. This potentially enhances patient-centered decision-making.

Risk for surgical interventions following endovascular aneurysm repair with Endologix AFX or AFX2 Endovascular AAA Systems compared to other devices

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk for 90-day returns to care and long-term subsequent surgical interventions following primary endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with an Endologix AFX Endovascular AAA System compared to three other high-volume endograft devices.

METHODS

We conducted a matched cohort study using data from an integrated healthcare system's Endovascular Stent Graft Registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary EVAR for AAA in the healthcare system from 1/1/2011-12/31/2017 comprised the eligible study sample. The treatment group included patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device (n=470). Patients who received one of three other high-volume endograft devices used within the healthcare system comprised the eligible comparison group (n=2122). These patients were 2:1 propensity score matched without replacement to patients who received an Endologix device based on a number of patient and procedure characteristics. After the application of matching, conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the likelihood for 90-day emergency department (ED) visit and readmission. Cause-specific Cox regression was used to evaluate the long-term risk of endoleak, graft revision, secondary reintervention (not including revision), conversion to open repair, and rupture during follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of mortality (overall and aneurysm-related).

RESULTS

The final matched study sample included 470 patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device and 940 patients who received a different high-volume device. Compared to the other devices, AFX/AFX2 had a higher risk for type III endoleak (hazard ratio [HR]=38.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]=14.51-103.67), revision surgery more than 1-year following the primary EVAR (HR=4.50, 95% CI=3.10-6.54), rupture (HR=6.52, 95% CI=1.73-24.63), and aneurysm-related mortality (HR=2.43, 95% CI=1.32-4.47) was observed with use of AFX/AFX2.

CONCLUSION

In our matched cohort study, patients who received an Endologix AFX System during their primary EVAR had a higher risk for several adverse longitudinal outcomes, as well as aneurysm-related mortality, when compared to patients who received other high-volume devices. Patients who have received these devices should be closely monitored following EVAR.

Decreasing Trends in Reintervention and Readmission After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in a Multiregional Implant Registry

OBJECTIVES

As endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) matures into its third decade, measures such as long-term reintervention and readmission have become a focus of quality improvement efforts. Within a large United States integrated healthcare system, we describe time trends in the rates of long-term reinterventions utilization measures.

METHODS

Data from a US multiregional EVAR registry was used to perform a descriptive study of 3,891 adults who underwent conventional infrarenal EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2010 to 2019. Three-year follow-up was 96.7%. Outcomes included 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft revision (defined as a procedure involving placement of a new endograft component), secondary interventions (defined as a procedure necessary for maintenance of EVAR integrity, e.g., coil embolization and balloon angioplasty/stenting), conversion to open, interventions for type II endoleaks alone, and 90-day readmission. Crude cause-specific reintervention probabilities were calculated by operative year using the Aalen-Johansen estimator, with death as a competing risk and December 31, 2020 as the study end date.

RESULTS

Excluding interventions for type II endoleak alone, 1-year secondary intervention incidence decreased from 5.9% for EVARs in 2010 to 2.0% in 2019 (p<0.001) and 3-year incidence decreased from 7.2% to 3.6% from 2010 to 2017 (p=0.03). The 3-year incidences of graft revision (mean incidence 3.4%) and conversion to open remained fairly stable (mean incidence 0.6%) over time. The 3-year incidence of interventions for type II endoleak alone also decreased from 3.4% in 2010 to 0.7% in 2017 (p=0.01). 90-day readmission rates decreased from 19.3% for index EVAR in 2010 to 9.2% in 2019 (p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive data from a multiregional healthcare system demonstrates decreasing long-term secondary intervention and readmission rates over time in patients undergoing EVAR. These trends are not explained by evolving management of type II endoleaks and suggest improving graft durability, patient selection or surgical technique. Further study is needed to define implant and anatomic predictors of different types of long-term reintervention.

30-Day Readmission and Outcomes after Fenestrated versus Traditional Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for repairing complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Comparisons of outcomes for FEVAR and traditional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are limited. We evaluated outcomes following elective endovascular AAA repair with FEVAR or EVAR.

METHODS

Hospitalizations for elective nonruptured AAA repair from 2014-2016 were selected from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) using ICD-9 and ICD-10 procedure and diagnosis codes. In-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), complications, 30-day readmission, and charges were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for confounding between groups.

RESULTS

We identified 23,262 EVAR and 2,373 FEVAR with nonruptured elective procedures. In-hospital mortality was 0.14% for both groups (p=.99). Of those at risk for readmission (21,152 EVAR, 1,915 FEVAR), index LOS was greater for FEVAR compared to EVAR, 1.8 days vs. 1.7 days (p=0.028). There was no difference in procedure type based on hospital location (p=0.37), teaching status (p=0.17) or hospital size (p=0.26). During the index hospitalization, pneumonia, renal, and respiratory complications were similar between groups (all p>0.05). FEVAR patients were more likely to experience cardiac complications (p=0.0098) or hemorrhage (p=0.029). Total charges for the index stay were greater for FEVAR compared to EVAR ($125,381 vs. $113,513, p<.0001). All-cause 30-day readmission was similar between groups (7.0% EVAR vs. 8.0% FEVAR, p=0.37), as were time to readmission (11.9 vs. 13.3 days, p=0.16) and readmission charges ($53,967 vs $56,617, p=0.75). Renal failure was the most common readmission stay complication, with similar rates for EVAR and FEVAR patients (p=0.22). Pneumonia was a more common complication during the readmission stay for EVAR patients (p=0.004). Renal disease and chronic pulmonary disease were the most common comorbidities in the readmission stay for both groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with nonruptured elective AAA , FEVAR was not associated with increased mortality, length of stay, readmission, or most complications compared to traditional EVAR. Despite increased technical complexity of cannulating and stenting visceral arteries with FEVAR, these data demonstrate that FEVAR carries similar risk of renal, respiratory, and infectious complications compared to traditional EVAR. FEVAR patients were more likely to experience hemorrhagic and cardiac complications during the index hospitalization. EVAR patients were more likely to have pneumonia during readmission. Overall risk for readmission after endovascular aortic repair was associated with female sex, greater age, chronic pulmonary disease, malignancy, and loss of function. Further investigation into causes and prevention of 30-day readmissions are needed for both procedures.

Artificial intelligence's role in vascular surgery decision-making

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the next great advance informing medical science. Several disciplines, including vascular surgery, use AI-based decision-making tools to improve clinical performance. Although applied widely, AI functions best when confronted with voluminous, accurate data. Consistent, predictable analytic technique selection also challenges researchers. This article contextualizes AI analyses within evidence-based medicine, focusing on "big data" and health services research, as well as discussing opportunities to improve data collection and realize AI's promise.

Nationwide study in France investigating the impact of diabetes on mortality in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The aim of this nationwide study was to analyze the impact of diabetes on post-operative mortality in patients undergoing AAA repair in France. This 10-year retrospective, multicenter study based on the French National electronic health data included patients undergoing AAA repair between 2010 and 2019. In-hospital post-operative mortality was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curve survival and Log-Rank tests. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to calculate Hazard Ratios. Over 79,935 patients who underwent AAA repair, 61,146 patients (76.5%) had at least one hospital-readmission after the AAA repair, for a mean follow-up of 3.5 ± 2.5 years. Total in-hospital mortality over the 10-year study was 16,986 (21.3%) and 4581 deaths (5.8%) occurred during the first hospital stay for AAA repair. Age over 64 years old, the presence of AAA rupture and hospital readmission at 30-day were predictors of post-operative mortality (AdjHR = 1.59 CI 95% 1.51–1.67; AdjHR = 1.49 CI 95% 1.36–1.62 and AdjHR = 1.92, CI 95% 1.84–2.00). The prevalence of diabetes was significantly lower in ruptured AAA compared to unruptured AAA (14.8% vs 20.9%, P < 0.001 for type 2 diabetes and 2.5% vs 4.0%, P < 0.001 for type 1 diabetes). Type 1 diabetes was significantly associated with post-operative mortality (AdjHR = 1.30 CI 95% 1.20–1.40). For type 2 diabetes, the association was not statistically significant (Adj HR = 0.96, CI 95% 0.92–1.01). Older age, AAA rupture and hospital readmission were associated with deaths that occurred after discharge from the first AAA repair. Type 1 diabetes was identified as a risk factor of post-operative mortality. This study highlights the complex association between diabetes and AAA and should encourage institutions to report long-term follow-up after AAA repair to better understand its impact.

Healthcare Warranty Policies Optimization for Chronic Diseases Based on Delay Time Concept

Warranties for healthcare can be greatly beneficial for cost reductions and improvements in patient satisfaction. Under healthcare warranties, healthcare providers receive a lump sum payment for the entire care episode, which covers a bundle of healthcare services, including treatment decisions during initial hospitalization and subsequent readmissions, as well as disease-monitoring plans composed of periodic follow-ups. Higher treatment intensities and more radical monitoring strategies result in higher medical costs, but high treatment intensities reduce the baseline readmission rates. This study intends to provide a systematic optimization framework for healthcare warranty policies. In this paper, the proposed model allows healthcare providers to determine the optimal combination of treatment decisions and disease-monitoring policies to minimize the total expected healthcare warranty cost over the prespecified period. Given the nature of the disease progression, we introduced a delay time model to simulate the progression of chronic diseases. Based on this, we formulated an accumulated age model to measure the effect of follow-up on the patient's readmission risk. By means of the proposed model, the optimal treatment intensity and the monitoring policy can be derived. A case study of pediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus is presented to illustrate the applicability of the proposed model. The findings could form the basis of developing effective healthcare warranty policies for patients with chronic diseases.