Fenestrated repair improves perioperative outcomes but lacks a hospital volume association for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

Outcomes following fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair for failed open infrarenal aortic repair compared with primary fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Because aneurysmal disease is progressive, proximal disease progression and para-anastomotic aneurysms are complications experienced after open infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. As such, fenestrated or branched endovascular repair (F/BEVAR) may be indicated in these patients. Data describing fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair after prior open surgical repair (OSR) are limited to institutional databases. The aim of our study is to describe the safety and efficacy of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) in patients with prior OSR compared with primary F/BEVAR using the Vascular Quality Initiative.

METHODS

Using the VQI complex endovascular AAA module from 2014 to 2022, we identified all single-staged F/BEVAR repair in patients having prior OSR or no prior aortic surgery (primary F/BEVAR). The primary outcomes were perioperative mortality and completion endoleaks. Secondary outcomes were 5-year survival and 1-year sac dynamics. Between the two cohorts, differences in the primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and χ2 analysis for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression were used to examine 5-year mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 3331 primary F/BEVAR patients and 102 prior OSR patients. Patients with prior OSR were more likely to have peripheral arterial disease (22.0% vs 7.4%), prior smoking (67% vs 56%), and undergo F/BEVAR with medium-/high-volume physicians (74% vs 62%), but less likely to be female (8.8% vs 23.0%) (all P < .05). Patients with prior OSR were also more likely to have a more proximal aneurysm extent (median zone 7 [interquartile range (IQR), zones 6-8] vs zone 8 [IQR, zones 7-8]), larger AAA diameters (62 mm [IQR, 56-66 mm] vs 58 mm [IQR, 55-63 mm]), receive a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) vs commercial custom-made device (36% vs 20% physician-modified endograft), have longer surgery times (240 minutes [IQR, 186-308 minutes] vs 206 minutes [IQR, 155-272 minutes]), and have a higher rate of celiac artery (51% vs 26%) and superior mesenteric artery (86% v 73%) artery involvement (all P < .05). Patients with prior OSR had lower rates of completion endoleaks (25% vs 36%), driven by lower rates of type II leaks (11% vs 20%) despite higher rates of indeterminate leaks (11% vs 5.1%) (all P < .01). There was, however, no difference in perioperative mortality (2% vs 2.9%; P = .78). They had similar 1-year sac dynamics (48% vs 50% regression; 12% vs 8% expansion; P > .5) and 5-year mortality (23% vs 18%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [IQR, 0.89-2.31]; P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on VQI data, F/BEVAR after prior OSR seems to be well-tolerated and safe. Prior OSR patients also had lower rates of completion type II endoleaks and similar sac dynamics and 5-year mortality compared with primary F/BEVAR patients.

Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair of Complex Aneurysm Using the Anaconda Fenestrated Device: 1-Year Results From the French Multicenter Registry

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of the fenestrated Anaconda device for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms over 1 year in daily clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who received the graft between October 2019 and October 2020 were prospectively enrolled in an observational, multicenter national registry. The primary endpoint was the aneurysm-related 1-year mortality rate. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, technical success, device-related adverse events (AEs) and major complications, secondary reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel (TV) outcomes, and a center-volume analysis comparing mortality and secondary reintervention rate between expert centers (>15 F/BEVAR per year) and nonexpert centers (≤15 F/BEVAR per year).

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients from 28 centers were treated. Aneurysms types included juxta-renal and short neck (84.6%), pararenal (5.2%), paravisceral (3.1%), and type IV thoracoabdominal (2.5%). Configurations with 1, 2, 3, and 4 fenestrations were used in 2, 12, 18, and 65 cases, respectively, totaling 350 TVs. Technical success was 98.0%, with 1 type Ic and 1 type IIIc endoleak. Mean follow-up was 468 days. Ten patients died, with 8 deaths (8.2%) due to non-aortic causes and 2 deaths (2.1%) from unknown causes. The estimated 1-year survival rate was 92.7% (95% CI: 87.8-98.1%). The reintervention rate at 30 days was 11.3% and the estimated reintervention rate at 1 year was 21.6% (95% CI: 12.7-29.6%). No type Ia endoleak occurred during follow-up. Three type III endoleaks occurred and required reintervention. Three TV occlusion occurred, yielding a 1-year TVI-free rate of 92.4% (95% CI: 89.4-99.3). No device-related major complication was recorded, and 3 device-related AEs occurred: 1 limb migration, 1 limb kinking and 1 limb thrombosis. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality and survival without reintervention between expert and nonexpert centers (Log rank p=0.52 and p=0.16, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The fenestrated Anaconda device demonstrated acceptable early and at 1-year safety and efficacy for treating primarily juxta-renal and short-neck aortic aneurysms, in centers with varying levels of experience.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The Anaconda Fenestrated, as the second commercially available custom-made device for complex endovascular aortic surgery, might adress some anatomical challenges. Following market authorization, this registry presents the 1-year outcomes of real-world device usage in a large number of centers, including small clinics. The results indicate that the device provided adequate efficacy and safety for treating mostly juxta-renal and short neck aneurysms, with notable improvement in technical success rate compared to older reports.

Outcomes of advanced EVAR versus open surgery in the management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open surgery is still acknowledged as the gold standard for complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (c-AAA). Recently, advanced-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for c-AAA has been developed, but its effectiveness compared to open surgery is still unclear.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed on the MEDLINE through PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. The search was aimed to investigate outcomes of both fenestrated- and chimney-EVAR (consider as advanced EVAR) compared to open surgery in c-AAA. Outcomes included postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, long-term mortality, and reintervention rate. Data were collected using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model with relative risk (RR) as the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies (n = 12,845 patients) were included in our study. The results demonstrated that advanced-EVAR correlated with diminished postoperative complications (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.49-0.57; p < 0.001) compared to open surgery. Advanced-EVAR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared to open surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53-0.82; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that fenestrated-EVAR resulted in superior outcomes (p < 0.001), whereas the chimney-EVAR subgroup did not show significant differences (p = 0.79), compared to open surgery in terms of 30-day mortality. Unfortunately, advanced-EVAR was associated with a higher long-term mortality rate (RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.78; p < 0.001) and a higher reintervention rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.01-1.59; p = 0.04) compared to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Advanced EVAR, especially fenestrated-EVAR, presented better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery; however, it failed to demonstrate superiority over open surgery in improving long-term outcomes.

Center-level outcomes following elective fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative database

OBJECTIVE

Hospital volume is associated with mortality after open aortic aneurysm repair. Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (B-FEVAR) has been increasingly used for repair of complex thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aneurysms, but evidence of a center-volume relationship is limited. We aimed to measure the association of center volume with in-hospital mortality, postoperative outcomes, and 1-year survival following B-FEVAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective endovascular thoracoabdominal and complex abdominal aneurysm repair with branch intervention (2014-2021) listed within the national Vascular Quality Initiative Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair/Complex EVAR database were analyzed. Centers were grouped into quartiles by mean annual procedure volume. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the effect of center volume on in-hospital mortality adjusting for baseline and procedural characteristics. Kaplan-Meier estimation, log rank test, and mixed effects Cox regression were used to evaluate 1-year survival.

RESULTS

A total of 4302 adult elective F-BEVAR procedures were identified at a total of 163 centers. In-hospital mortality did not differ by hospital volume (quartile [Q]1 = 35/1059 [3.3%]; Q2 = 30/1063 [2.8%]; Q3 = 33/1120 [2.9%]; and Q4 = 44/1060 [4.2%]; P = .308). The high volume group had a higher rate of major complication (Q1 = 14.9%; Q2 = 12.8%; Q3 = 13.3%; and Q4 = 20.1%; adjusted P < .001). Physician-modified grafts were more frequently employed in high-volume centers (Q1 = 4.5%; Q2 = 18.7%; Q3 = 11.3%; and Q4 = 19.2%; P < .001), with a decreased incidence of any endoleak noted at the end of the procedure (Q1 = 34.9%; Q2 = 32.8%; Q3 = 30.0%; and Q4 = 29.0%; P = .003). In the multivariable analysis, in-hospital mortality was not associated with center volume, comparing very low volume to medium- and high-volume centers (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] vs Q4: Q1 = 1.1 [0.6-1.9], Q2 = 0.6 [0.4-1.1], and Q3 = 0.9 [0.5-1.5]; all P > .05). No significant difference was found in 1-year survival between center volume groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital mortality is not associated with procedure volume within centers performing complex endovascular aortic repair. However, complication rates and endoleak may be associated with procedure volume. Long-term outcomes by annualized procedure volume, specifically graft durability and sac expansion, should be investigated.

Adoption and clinical outcomes of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair in a regional, multistate community hospital system

OBJECTIVE

Complex endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair techniques have evolved over the last decade, yet patterns of physician and hospital system adoption of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) remain poorly defined. We investigated clinical outcomes, use trends, and surgeon and hospital experience for FEVAR in a large community hospital system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all FEVAR procedures within our 5-state hospital system between April 2012 and June 2021. AAA repair volumes (open, EVAR, and FEVAR) were captured at the hospital and surgeon levels using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. Clinical and outcomes data were collected for FEVAR patients. To consider if surgeon or hospital experience influenced outcomes, sequential case number was used to divide patients into surgeon experience and hospital experience groups. Inverse probability weighted and generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, were built to examine risk-adjusted outcomes for surgeon and hospital experience groups.

RESULTS

Of 3850 patients treated with AAA procedures of any kind between 2012 and 2021, 160 (4.2%) underwent FEVAR. FEVAR procedures were performed by 34 different surgeons at 12 hospitals, with intraoperative complications and unplanned adjunctive procedures occurring in 18.8% (n = 30) and 19.4% (n = 31) of patients, respectively. Among FEVAR patients, in-hospital mortality was 1.3% (n = 2) and postoperative morbidity was 16.9% (n = 27). Renal function decline occurred postoperatively in 5.1% of patients. Early (<30 day) postoperative endoleaks occurred in 15.3% of patients (n = 21). Target vessel patency was 95.6% on initial postoperative imaging. Surgeon and hospital experience had a small positive impact on outcomes after the first one to three cases. Significant decreases in operative time, fluoroscopy time, and estimated blood loss were observed with increased surgeon experience, relative to a surgeon's first case (P < .05). There were lower odds of intraoperative complications after a surgeon's first case (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.77, for cases 2-3) or after a hospital's first one to three cases (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.89, for cases 4-8; OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.55 for cases 9-49).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes of FEVAR across our hospital system compare favorably with previously published reports. Although system-wide FEVAR adoption increased 3-fold over the last decade, FEVAR continued to be performed by a minority of hospitals in our system. The results from this cohort demonstrate low rates of adverse events, high rates of technical efficiency, and a small impact of surgeon and hospital experience, thereby supporting this advanced endovascular technology as a safe, efficacious, and generalizable treatment alternative to open repair for patients with complex aortic anatomy.

Staging reinterventions for remodeling of residual aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study

Objective

Inadequate remodeling of residual aortic dissection (RAD) following repair of Stanford A or B aortic dissections has been identified as a significant predictor of patient mortality. This study evaluates the short- to mid-term outcomes of staged reinterventions for RAD at a single center with prospective follow-up.

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RAD who underwent staged reinterventions or received none-surgery treatment in the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of our hospital between July 2019 and December 2021. The cohort included 54 patients with residual distal aortic dissection post-primary surgery, comprising 28 who underwent open surgery and 26 who received thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent staged stent interventions for distal dissection [staged reintervention (SR) group] and those who did not undergo surgery (non-surgery group). For the SR group, second or third staged stent interventions were performed. The study assessed distal remodeling of aortic dissection between the groups, focusing on endpoints such as mortality (both general and aortic-specific), occurrences of visceral branch occlusion, necessity for further interventions, and significant adverse events. Morphological changes were analyzed to determine the therapeutic impact.

Results

The study encompassed 54 participants, with 33 in the SR group and 21 in the non-surgical control group. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were statistically comparable across both groups. During an average follow-up of 31.5 ± 7.0 months, aortic-related mortality was 0% in both groups; all-cause mortality was 3% (one case) and 5% (one case) in the SR and control groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference noted. In the SR group, a single patient experienced complications, including renal artery thrombosis, leading to diminished blood flow. An increased true lumen (TL) area and a decreased false lumen area at various aortic planes were observed in the SR group compared to the control group.

Conclusion

The staged reintervention strategy for treating RAD is safe and provides promising early results.

Real-world application of Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection scores in peripheral arterial disease patients

OBJECTIVE

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification system aims to risk stratify patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), predicting both amputation rates and the need for revascularization. However, real-world use of the system and whether it predicts outcomes accurately after open revascularization and peripheral interventions is unclear. Therefore, we sought to determine the adoption of the WIfI classification system within a contemporary statewide collaborative as well as the impact of patient factor, and WIfI risk assessment on short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Using data from a large statewide collaborative, we identified patients with CLTI undergoing open surgical revascularization or peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) between 2016 and 2022. The primary exposure was preoperative clinical WIfI stage. Patients were categorized according to the SVS Lower Extremity Threatened Limb Classification System into clinical WIfI stages 1, 2, 3, or 4. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year amputation and mortality rates. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate the association of WIfI stage on postrevascularization outcomes.

RESULTS

In the cohort of 17,417 patients, 83.4% (n = 14,529) had WIfI stage documented. PVIs were performed on 57.6% of patients, and 42.4% underwent an open surgical revascularization. Of the patients, 49.5% were classified as stage 1, 19.3% stage 2, 12.8% stage 3, and 18.3% of patients met stage 4 criteria. Stage 3 and 4 patients had higher rates of diabetes, congestive heart failure, and renal failure, and were less likely to be current or former smokers. One-half of stage 3 patients underwent open surgical revascularization, whereas stage 1 patients were most likely to have received a PVI (64%). As WIfI stage increased from 1 to 4, 1-year mortality increased from 12% to 21% (P < .001), 30-day amputation rates increased from 5% to 38% (P < .001), and 1-year amputation rates increased from 15% to 55% (P < .001). Finally, patients who did not have WIfI scores classified had significantly higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates, as well as higher 30-day and 1-year amputation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The SVS WIfI clinical stage is significantly associated with 1-year amputation rates in patients with CLTI after lower extremity revascularization. Because nearly 55% of stage 4 patients require a major amputation within 1 year of intervention, this finding study supports use of the WIfI classification system in clinical decision-making for patients with CLTI.

Perspectives of Patients and Professionals on Patient Education in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Misinterpretation of patient preferences in perioperative education can lead to an undesired treatment decision. This explorative interview study presents differences in perspectives of patients and professionals on patient education in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm management.

METHODS

Using convenience sampling, a cross-sectional interview study was performed among patients who were in various stages of the decision-making process for complex endovascular aortic repair. Five physicians were interviewed, representing the main providers of clinical information. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (mean age 76.6 [standard deviation: 6.4], 83% male) were interviewed. Ten (83%) felt like they had no other realistic option besides undergoing surgery, whereas all professionals (5/5) stressed the importance of delicate patient selection. Five patients out of 10 (50%) who commented on their preferred decisional role considered the professional's advice as decisive. All but 1 patient (11/12) reported that the information was easy to understand, whereas 4 out of 5 professionals (80%) doubted whether patients could fully comprehend everything. Patients experienced a lack of information on the recovery process, although professionals stated that this was addressed during consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Several differences were found in the perspectives of patients and professionals on education in complex aortic aneurysm management. In order to optimize patient involvement in decision-making, professionals should be aware of these possible discrepancies and address them during consultation. Future research could focus on these differences in more detail by including more patients depending on their treatment and decision stages.

Greater Patient Travel Distance is Associated with Perioperative and One-Year Cost Increases After Complex Aortic Surgery

BACKGROUND

With increasing regionalization of complex aortic surgery within fewer US centers, patients may face increased travel burden when accessing aortic surgery. Longer travel distances have been associated with inferior outcomes after major surgery; however, the impacts of distance on reinterventions and costs have not been described. This study aims to assess the association between patient travel distance and longer-term outcomes including costs and reinterventions after complex aortic surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair including internal iliac or visceral vessel involvement, complex thoracic endovascular aortic repair including Zone 0-2 proximal extent or branched devices, and complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair including suprarenal or higher clamp sites. Travel distance was stratified by Rural-Urban Commuting Area population-density category. Multinomial logistic regression models, negative-binomial models, and zero-inflated Poisson models were used to assess the association between travel distance and index procedural and comprehensive first-year costs, long-term imaging, and long-term reinterventions, respectively.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2018, 8,782 patients underwent complex aortic surgery in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database, including 4,822 complex endovascular aortic repairs, 2,672 complex thoracic endovascular aortic repairs, and 1,288 complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Median travel distance was 22.8 miles (interquartile range 8.6-54.8 miles, range 0-2,688.9 miles). Median age was 75 years for all distance quintiles. Patients traveling farther were more likely to be female (26.8% in quintile 5 [Q5] vs. 19.9% in Q1, P < 0.001) and to have had a prior aortic surgery (20.8% for Q5 vs. 5.9% for Q1, P < 0.001). Patients traveling farther had higher index procedural costs, with adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.86-2.94, P < 0.0001) of being in the highest cost tertile versus lowest for patients in Q5 vs. Q1. For patients with ≥ 1-year follow-up, those traveling farther had higher imaging costs, with adjusted Q5 OR 1.55 (95% CI 1.22-1.95, P = 0.0002), and comprehensive first-year costs, with adjusted Q5 OR 2.06 (95% CI 1.57-2.70, P < 0.0001). In contrast, patients traveling farther had similar numbers of reinterventions and imaging studies postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients traveling farther for complex aortic surgery have higher procedural costs, postoperative imaging costs, and comprehensive first-year costs. These patients should be targeted for increased care coordination for improved outcomes and healthcare system burden.

Two-Year Results on Real-World Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular Repair for Complex Aortic Abdominal Aneurysm in France

PURPOSE

To describe and compare mid-term outcomes from 2 real-world data collection efforts on fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (fbEVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in France and to evaluate the potential of health care databases for long-term post-market surveillance (PMS) and continued reimbursement approval.

METHODS

Two real-world studies were conducted in France: a retrospective health care database study (SNDS) and a prospective clinical study. In the SNDS study, data from implantation and/or hospital stays occurring during follow-up were extracted for all patients treated with the study devices from April 2012 to December 2018. In the clinical study, high-risk patients undergoing fbEVAR with the study devices were enrolled consecutively at 15 sites in France from December 2016 to November 2018.

RESULTS

Data from 1073 patients were extracted from SNDS and compared with analogous variables from 186 patients in the clinical study. Most demographic details were similar between studies (SNDS vs clinical: mean age, 71.9 vs 71.8 years; men, 91.0% vs 89.8%), as was 30-day mortality (SNDS: 5.5%, clinical: 4.3%). Patients received custom-made fenestrated or branched devices (SNDS: 80.7%, clinical: 96.2%) or CE-marked Zenith Fenestrated devices (SNDS: 19.3%, clinical: 3.8%). Initial or technical success was above 94% for both studies. Two-year freedom from all-cause mortality was 80.0% (SNDS) and 85.1% (clinical study). Two-year freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 93.8% (SNDS) and 94.6% (clinical study). Detailed imaging outcomes were not captured within SNDS; however, information on secondary procedures to restore patency was available and used as a surrogate measure for secondary interventions. Two-year freedom from secondary interventions was 73% for the SNDS study. In the clinical study, at 2 years, aneurysm stability or shrinkage was observed in 92.3% of patients, freedom from target vessel primary patency loss was above 95% for all visceral target vessels, and freedom from secondary interventions was 79.1%.

CONCLUSION

Real-world outcomes from the SNDS and clinical study suggest positive mid-term outcomes in high-risk populations following fbEVAR for complex AAAs. The similarities between these studies suggest that the use of health care databases may be an alternative to prospective clinical studies for long-term follow-up and PMS.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Positive results following endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms are observed from data extracted from both the French health care database and a post-market clinical study despite initial high-risk patient status and diverse center experience. These outcomes parallel more rigorously designed studies and suggest that with careful study design, real-world data collections have high translatable value to add to the clinical understanding of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (fbEVAR).

Longer patient travel distance is associated with increased non-index readmission after complex aortic surgery

OBJECTIVE

Recently evolving practice patterns in complex aortic surgery have led to regionalization of care within fewer centers in the United States, and thus patients may have to travel farther for complex aortic care. Travel distance has been associated with inferior outcomes after non-vascular surgery, particularly non-index readmission. This study aims to assess the impact of patient travel distance on perioperative outcomes and readmissions after complex aortic surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative and Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network databases undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) including internal iliac or visceral vessel involvement, complex thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) including zone 0 to 2 proximal extent or branched devices, and complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair including suprarenal or higher clamp sites. Travel distance was stratified by rural/urban commuting area (RUCA) population-density category. Wilcoxon and χ2 tests were used to assess relationships between travel distance quintiles and baseline characteristics, mortality, and readmission. Travel distance and other factors were included in multivariable Cox models for survival and Fine-Gray competing risk models for freedom from readmission.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2018, 8782 patients underwent complex aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative and Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network databases, including 4822 complex EVARs, 2672 complex TEVARs, and 1288 complex open AAA repairs. Median travel distance was 22.8 miles (interquartile range [IQR], 8.6-54.8 miles). Median age was 75 years for all distance quintiles, but patients traveling longer distances were more likely female (26.8% in quintile 5 [Q5] vs 19.9% in Q1; P < .001), white (93.8% of Q5 vs 83.8% of Q1; P < .001), to have larger-diameter AAAs (median 59 mm for Q5 vs 55 mm for Q1; P < .001), and to have had prior aortic surgery (20.8% for Q5 vs 5.9% for Q1; P < .001). Overall 30-day readmission was more common at farther distances (18.1% for Q5 vs 14.8% for Q1; P = .003), with higher non-index readmission (11.2% for Q5 vs 2.7% for Q1; P < .001) and conversely lower index readmission (6.9% for Q5 vs 12.0% for Q1; P < .001). Multivariable-adjusted Fine-Gray models confirmed greater hazard of non-index readmission with farther distance, with a Q5 hazard ratio of 3.02 (95% confidence interval, 2.12-4.30; P < .001). Multivariable-adjusted Cox models demonstrated no association between travel distance and long-term survival but found that non-index readmission was associated with increased long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.78; P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients traveling farther for complex aortic surgery demonstrate higher non-index readmission, which, in turn, is associated with increased long-term mortality risk. Aortic centers of excellence should consider targeting these patients for more comprehensive follow-up and care coordination to improve outcomes.

Chimney Versus Fenestrated Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Juxta/Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of the Short-term Results

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the short-term results of fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR), and open surgery (OS) for patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA/PAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1 July 2022. Any comparative studies investigating the results of two or three treatment strategies (ChEVAR, FEVAR, or OS) on clinical outcomes for patients with JAAA/PAAA were included. Analysed outcomes were 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and bowel ischaemia (BI).

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 8853 patients were included in the analysis. FEVAR (OR = 0.58, 95%CrI 0.36-0.82) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.56, 95%CrI 0.28-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day mortality than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.54, 95%CrI 0.33-0.85) was associated with lower risk of AKI than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.43, 95%CrI 0.20-0.89) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.34, 95%CrI 0.10-0.93) compared to OS were associated with lower rates of BI. FEVAR (OR = 0.67, 95%CrI 0.49-0.90) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.61, 95%CrI 0.35-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day MACE risk than OS. FEVAR was associated with a higher rate of SCI compared to OS (OR = 4.90, 95%CrI 1.55-19.17).

CONCLUSION

We found a clear benefit for FEVAR and ChEVAR versus OS in terms of reduced 30-day mortality, BI, and MACE, as well as AKI for FEVAR. This suggests that higher-risk patients might benefit from endovascular treatment of JAAA/PAAA; however, should be applied in clinical practice with caution, since long-term outcomes were outside of the scope of this review.

Underutilization of medical management of peripheral artery disease among patients with claudication undergoing lower extremity bypass

OBJECTIVE

First-line treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) involves medical therapy and lifestyle modification. Multiple professional organizations such as the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology make Class I recommendations for medical management including antiplatelet, statin, antihypertensive, and cilostazol medications, as well as lifestyle therapy including exercise and smoking cessation. Although evidence supports up-front medical and lifestyle management prior to surgical intervention, it is unclear how well this occurs in contemporary clinical practice. It is also unclear whether variability in first-line treatment prior to revascularization is associated with postoperative outcomes. This study examined the proportion of patients with claudication actively receiving evidence-based therapy prior to surgery in a statewide surgical registry.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing elective open lower extremity bypass for claudication from 2012 to 2021 within a statewide surgical quality registry. The primary exposure was optimal medical therapy, defined as an antiplatelet agent, a statin, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker (if the patient had hypertension) on the patient's home medication list on admission for surgery, all of which are Class I recommendations. Despite also being Class I recommendations, cilostazol was not included in the primary exposure due to its highly selective use and our inability to capture intolerance and/or contraindications that are common, and lifestyle therapies were not included as they were only recorded at the time of discharge rather than preoperatively. The primary outcomes were mortality, hospital readmission, amputation, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), non-patent bypass, and non-independent ambulatory status at 30 days and 1 year after surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate the association of receiving optimal vs non-optimal medical therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 3829 patients with claudication underwent bypass surgery during the study period, with a mean age of 64.8 years (standard deviation, 9.8 years); 2690 (70.3%) were males, and 1873 (48.9%) were current smokers. Of the patients, 1822 (47.6%) were on optimal medical therapy prior to surgery. Additionally, at discharge, 66.5% of smokers received referral to smoking cessation therapy, and 54.1% of patients received referral to exercise therapy. In a multivariable logistic regression, compared with patients not on optimal medical therapy, patients on optimal medical therapy prior to surgery had lower 30-day odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.78) and MI (aOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.76), lower 1-year odds of mortality (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.82), MI (aOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74), and lower readmission (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Although medical and lifestyle management is recommended as first-line treatment for patients with PAD, only one-half of patients were on optimal medical therapy prior to surgery. Patients receiving optimal therapy had a lower risk of postoperative mortality, MI, and readmission. This suggests that not only are there significant opportunities to improve clinical utilization of evidence-based treatment of PAD, but that doing so can benefit patients postoperatively.

Capturing the Complexity of Open Abdominal Aortic Surgery in the Endovascular Era

OBJECTIVE

Volume and quality benchmarks for open abdominal aortic surgery and particularly open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) in the endovascular era are guided by the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines, but the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) OAR module fails to capture the full spectrum of complex OAR. We hypothesized that VQI-ineligible complex OAR is the dominant form of open repairs performed at a VQI-participating tertiary center.

METHODS

All OAR cases performed at a single tertiary care center from 2007 to 2020 were reviewed. The VQI OAR criteria were applied with exclusions (non-VQI) defined as concomitant renal bypass, clamping above the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) or celiac artery, repairs performed for trauma, anastomotic aneurysm, isolated iliac aneurysm, or infected aneurysms. Linear regression was used to assess temporal trends.

RESULTS

Among a total of 481 open abdominal aortic operations, 355 (74%) were OAR. The average annual OAR volume remained stable over 14 years (25 ± 6; P = .46). Non-VQI OAR comprised 54% of all cases and persisted over time (R² = .047, P = .46). Supra-celiac clamping (35%) was often necessary. The proportion of endograft explantation cases significantly increased over time from 4% in 2007 to 20% in 2019 (P = .01). Infectious indications represented 20% (n = 70) of cases. Visceral branch grafts were performed in 16% of all cases. OAR for ruptured aneurysm constituted 10% of cases. Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in non-VQI vs. VQI-eligible OAR cases (10% vs. 4%; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Complex OAR comprises a majority of OAR cases in a contemporary tertiary referral hospital, yet these cases are not accounted for in the VQI. Creation of a "complex OAR" VQI module would capture these cases in a quality-driven national registry and help to better inform benchmarks for volume and outcomes in aortic surgery.

Association of Hospital Volume with Perioperative Mortality of Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms: A Nationwide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluate nationwide perioperative outcomes of complex EVAR and assess the volume-outcome association of complex EVAR.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Endovascular treatment with fenestrated (FEVAR) or branched (BEVAR) endografts is progressively used for excluding complex aortic aneurysms (complex AAs). It is unclear if a volume-outcome association exists in endovascular treatment of complex AAs (complex EVAR).

METHODS

All patients prospectively registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit who underwent complex EVAR (FEVAR or BEVAR) between January 2016 and January 2020 were included. The effect of annual hospital volume on perioperative mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Patients were stratified into quartiles based on annual hospital volume to determine hospital volume categories.

RESULTS

We included 694 patients (539 FEVAR patients, 155 BEVAR patients). Perioperative mortality following FEVAR was 4.5% and 5.2% following BEVAR. Postoperative complication rates were 30.1% and 48.7%, respectively. The first quartile hospitals performed <9 procedures/yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 9-12, 13-22, and ≥23 procedures/yr. The highest volume hospitals treated the significantly more complex patients. Perioperative mortality of complex EVAR was 9.1% in hospitals with a volume of < 9, and 2.5% in hospitals with a volume of ≥13 (P = 0.008). After adjustment for confounders, an annual volume of ≥13 was associated with less perioperative mortality compared to hospitals with a volume of < 9.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this nationwide mandatory quality registry shows a significant effect of hospital volume on perioperative mortality following complex EVAR, with high volume complex EVAR centers demonstrating lower mortality rates.

Opioid use in patients with peripheral arterial disease undergoing lower extremity bypass

OBJECTIVE

Opioid use is common among patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), given that pain is a defining symptom. Unfortunately, long-term opioid use places patients at dramatically increased risk of overdose and death. Although surgical revascularization is extremely effective in alleviating ischemic pain related to PAD, it is unclear whether this practice results in the discontinuation of opioids after surgery. Therefore, we conducted the following study to investigate trends in opioid use before and after surgical bypass in patients with PAD, as well as the risk factors for continued opioid use after surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing open lower extremity bypass for claudication or rest pain between June 1, 2017, and March 31, 2021. Patients were grouped according to whether they reported preoperative opioid use at the time of surgery. The primary outcome was continued opioid use at 30-day follow-up after discharge. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to estimate the association of continued opioid use with patient characteristics, preoperative opioid use, and receiving a postoperative opioid prescription.

RESULTS

Among 3873 patients undergoing surgery, the mean age was 65.7 (10.2) years and 2650 (68.4%) patients were male. There were 913 patients (23.6%) who used opioids preoperatively and hydrocodone was the most common preoperative opioid (583 [63.9%]). At discharge, 2506 patients (64.7%) received a postoperative opioid prescription. Postoperative opioid prescriptions were significantly more common for preoperative opioid users than opioid-naïve patients (813 [89.0%] vs 1693 [57.2%]; P < .001) and were significantly larger in size (24.3 [21.1] pills vs 19.9 [10.5] pills; P < .001). On 30-day follow-up, 522 preoperative opioid users (61.3%) and 616 opioid-naïve patients (28.4%) reported that they were still using opioids (P < .001). Continued opioid use at follow-up was associated with preoperative opioid use (adjusted odds ratio, 3.23; 95% confidence interval, 2.70-3.89) and receiving a postoperative opioid prescription (adjusted odds ratio, 10.83; 95% confidence interval, 7.96-15.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with PAD who use opioids preoperatively do not discontinue opioids after lower extremity bypass. Moreover, a significant proportion of previously opioid-naïve patients are still using opioids 1 month after surgery. In both cases, postoperative opioid prescriptions had the strongest association with continued opioid use. These findings underscore the need for improved prescribing practice and increased attentiveness to discontinuation of unnecessary medications after surgery.

Impact of a regional smoking cessation intervention for vascular surgery patients

OBJECTIVE

Tobacco use is common among vascular surgery patients and negatively impacts outcomes and longevity. In the second quarter of 2018, a statewide vascular quality collaborative launched an initiative across its 35 participating hospitals to promote smoking cessation at the time of surgery. This intervention was based on the Vascular Physician Offer and Report (VAPOR) trial and consisted of 3 components: brief physician-delivered advice, referral to telephone-based counseling, and nicotine replacement therapy. The goal of this study is to evaluate the results of this intervention.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing vascular surgery between 2018 and 2020. Procedures included open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, endovascular aneurysm repair, open vascular bypass, open thrombectomy, carotid endarterectomy, and carotid stenting. The primary explanatory variables were receipt of tobacco cessation interventions as documented in the medical record. The primary outcome was tobacco cessation, captured during 30-day and 1-year chart review and/or patient follow-up. A multivariable logistic regression model was calculated to estimate the association of covariates with smoking cessation while adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 13,890 patients underwent surgery during the study period. The mean age was 69.4 ± 10 years; 4687 patients (34%) were female, and 5158 patients (37%) were current smokers. At least one smoking cessation component was delivered to 2245 patients (44% of smokers). The quit rate was 35% among 4671 patients with 30-day follow-up and 43% among 2936 patients with 1-year follow up. On multivariable regression, at 30 days, receiving two intervention components was associated with 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.55) higher odds of quitting. At both time points, smoking cessation was also associated with undergoing an emergent procedure (30-day odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.16-1.99; 1-year OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.97) and undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (30-day OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.20-2.43; 1-year OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78).

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of vascular surgical patients where tobacco use was common, nearly one-half of patients quit smoking 1 year after surgery. Receiving two smoking cessation intervention components was associated with quitting at 30 days. Overall, these results demonstrate encouraging quit rates and identify an opportunity for longer-term intervention to maintain even greater 1-year tobacco cessation.