Racial disparities in treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Socioeconomic and regional variations in repair modality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Previous studies report that patients of racial/ethnic minorities more frequently present with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) than their counterparts. The distribution of rAAA treatment modality, whether open aneurysm repair (OAR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), by race/ethnicity classification remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate disparities, as represented by race/ethnic classification, median income, and insurance status, in the management of rAAA in a national cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients admitted with rAAA managed with either OAR or EVAR from 2002 to 2020 using the National Inpatient Sample, comparing repair type by race/ethnicity group. Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models, adjusted for patient- and system-level factors, were used to calculate difference in use of OAR or EVAR dependent on race/ethnicity classification.

RESULTS

We identified 10,788 admissions for rAAA repairs, of which 9506 (88.1%) were White, 605 (5.6%) were Black, 424 (3.9%) were Hispanic, and 253 (2.4%) were Asian/Native American. Asians/Native Americans underwent the highest frequency of OAR as compared with EVAR (61.7% vs 38.3%). In the adjusted model, there was no statistically significant difference in the use of OAR vs EVAR by race/ethnicity classification. In total, primary payer and median income were also not statistically significant predictors of AAA treatment modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no statistical evidence of disparities with respect to race, insurance, or median income and use of OAR or EVAR for the management of rAAA.

Racial and sex disparities in inpatient outcomes of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a medical emergency that requires immediate surgical intervention. The aim of this analysis was to identify the sex- and race-specific disparities that exist in outcomes of patients hospitalized with this condition in the United States using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify targets for improvement and support of specific patient populations.

METHODS

In this descriptive, retrospective study, we analyzed the patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of ruptured AAA between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020, using the NIS database. We compared demographics, comorbidities, and in-hospital outcomes in AAA patients, and compared these results between different racial groups and sexes.

RESULTS

A total of 22,395 patients with ruptured AAA were included for analysis. Of these, 16,125 patients (72.0%) were male, and 6270 were female (28.0%). The majority of patients (18,655 [83.3%]) identified as Caucasian, with the remaining patients identifying as African American (1555 [6.9%]), Hispanic (1095 [4.9%]), Asian or Pacific Islander (470 [2.1%]), or Native American (80 [0.5%]). Females had a higher risk of mortality than males (OR, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-1.96; P < .001) and were less likely to undergo endovascular aortic repair (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P < .001) or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; P = .007). Relative to Caucasian race, patients who identified as African American had a lower risk of inpatient mortality (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study of the NIS database from 2016 to 2020, females were less likely to undergo endovascular intervention and more likely to die during their initial hospitalization. African American patients had lower rates in-hospital mortality than Caucasian patients, despite a higher burden of comorbidities. Future studies are needed to elucidate the potential factors affecting racial and sex disparities in ruptured AAA outcomes, including screening practices, rupture risk stratification, and more personalized guidelines for both elective and emergent intervention.

Race-Based Variation in the Utilization of Epidural Analgesia in Addition to General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the United States

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia (EA) is recommended along with general anesthesia (GA) for patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (AAA) and is known to be associated with improved postoperative outcomes. This study evaluates inequities in using this superior analgesic approach and further assesses the disparities at patient and hospital levels.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using the Vascular Quality Initiative database of adult patients undergoing elective open AAA repair between 2003 and 2022. Patients were grouped and analyzed based on anesthesia utilization, that is, EA + GA (Group I) and GA only (Group II). Study groups were further stratified by race, and outcomes were studied. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to study the impact of race on the utilization of EA with GA. A subgroup analysis was also carried out to learn the EA analgesia utilization in hospitals performing open AAA with the least to most non-White patients.

RESULTS

A total of 8,940 patients were included in the study, of which EA + GA (Group I) comprised n = 4,247 (47.5%) patients, and GA (Group II) had n = 4,693 (52.5%) patients. Based on multivariate regression analysis, the odds ratio of non-White patients receiving both EA and GA for open AAA repair compared to White patients was 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.72, P < 0.001). Of the patients who received both EA + GA, non-White race was associated with increased length of intensive care unit stay and a longer total length of hospital stay compared to White patients. Hospitals with the lowest quintile of minorities had the highest utilization of EA + GA for all patients compared to the highest quintile.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-White patients are less likely to receive the EA + GA than White patients while undergoing elective open AAA repair, demonstrating a potential disparity. Also, this disparity persists at the hospital level, with hospitals with most non-White patients having the least EA utilization, pointing toward system-wide disparities.

Modified Harborview Risk Score accurately predicts mortality for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

The modified Harborview Risk Score (HRS) is a simple measure initially derived from a single institutional dataset used to predict ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair survival preoperatively using basic labs and vital signs collected upon presentation. However, validation of this widely applicable scoring system has not been performed. This study aims to validate this scoring system using a large multi-institutional database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent repair of an rAAA from 2011 to 2018 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and at a single academic medical center were included. The modified HRS was calculated by assigning 1 point for each of the following: age >76 years, creatinine >2 mg/dL, international normalized ratio >1.8, and any systolic blood pressure less than 70 mmHg. Assessment of the prediction model was then completed. Using a primary outcome measure of 30-day mortality, the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was calculated. The discrimination between datasets was compared using a Delong test. Mortality rates for each score were compared between datasets using the Pearson χ2 test. Comparative analysis for patients with a score of 4 was limited due to a small sample size.

RESULTS

A total of 1536 patients were identified using NSQIP, and 163 patients were assessed in the institutional dataset. There were 518 patients with a score of 0 (455 NSQIP, 63 institutional), 676 patients with a score of 1 (617 NSQIP, 59 institutional), 391 patients with a score of 2 (364 NSQIP, 27 institutional), 106 with a score of 3 (93 NSQIP, 13 institutional), and 8 patients with a score of 4 (7 NSQIP, 1 institutional). No difference was found in the receiver operating characteristic area under the curves between datasets (P = .78). Thirty-day mortality was 10% NSQIP vs 22% institutional for a score of 0; 28% NSQIP vs 36% institutional for a score of 1; 41% NSQIP vs 44% institutional for a score of 2; 45% NSQIP vs 69% institutional for a score of 3; and 57% NSQIP vs 100% institutional for a score of 4. Score 0 was the only score with a significant mortality rate difference between datasets (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified HRS is confirmed to be broadly applicable as a clinical decision-making tool for patients presenting with rAAAs. Therefore, this easily applicable model should be applied for all patients presenting with rAAAs to assist with provider and patient decision-making prior to proceeding with repair.

Presentation and Outcomes of Elective and Nonelective Complex Endovascular Repair for Thoracoabdominal and Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) and juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAA) with fenestrated and/or branched endografts (B/FEVAR) has become common. Physician modified endografts for patients presenting with symptomatic or contained ruptures has made B/FEVAR a feasible option in nonelective settings. The purpose of this study was to describe our 10-year institutional experience with endovascular interventions for TAAA in elective and nonelective cases to evaluate differences in outcomes and the clinical risk factors associated with nonelective presentation.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively queried for patients undergoing B/FEVAR for TAAA and JAA at a single tertiary care academic institution between 1/2011 and 12/2020. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, aneurysm characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Nonelective repair was defined as any patient that presented through the Emergency Department, as a hospital transfer, or as a direct admission from clinic and had aortic repair performed during the same admission. Univariate analyses were used to compare patients. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and nonhome discharge.

RESULTS

Between 1/201 and 12/2020, a total of 208 patients underwent B/FEVAR for TAAA (173) and JAA (35). Nonelective repair was performed in 44 (21%) patients with 39 for TAAA (23%) and 5 for JAA (14%). Nonelective patients were younger (71 ± 11 vs. 74 ± 7 years, P = 0.03), more likely to be self-pay or have Medicaid (11% vs. 2%, P = 0.02) and had a different race distribution compared to the elective cohort (P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was 4% (n = 6) in elective repairs and 7% (n = 3) in nonelective repairs. One-year mortality was 13% (n = 22) in elective repairs and 18% (n = 8) in nonelective repairs. There were no differences between patients receiving elective versus nonelective repair in 30-day (P = 0.40) or 1-year mortality (P = 0.47). Nonelective patients had longer median duration of stay (11 interquartile range (IQR) 6-15 vs. 5 IQR 4-8, P < 0.01), postoperative length of stay (7 IQR 5-12 vs. 4 IQR 3-7, P < 0.01), and more intensive care unit days (6 IQR 3-8 vs. 3 IQR 2-5, P < 0.01). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between elective and nonelective patients including inpatient and access-related complications, re-interventions, and nonhome discharge (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). A composite "any complication" occurred more frequently in patients with nonelective repair (50% vs. 35%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair for TAAA or JAA is a good option in patients undergoing nonelective surgical intervention, with comparable 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and perioperative morbidity to that of patients undergoing elective B/FEVAR.