Immediate Impact of Centralization on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Outcomes for a Vascular Network in the South West of England: A Retrospective Cohort Study

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.

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.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Institutional and Surgeon Procedure Volume on Outcomes After Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether there is a correlation between institutional or surgeon case volume and outcomes in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA).

DATA SOURCES

The Healthcare Database Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence was used to search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with the protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020213121). Prognostic studies were considered comparing outcomes of patients with rAAA undergoing repair in high and low volume institutions or by high and low volume surgeons. Pooled estimates for peri-operative mortality were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel method. Analysis of adjusted outcome estimates was performed with the generic inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies reporting a total of 120 116 patients were included. Patients treated in low volume centres had a statistically significantly higher peri-operative mortality than those treated in high volume centres (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.22 - 1.59). Subgroup analysis showed a mortality difference in favour of high volume centres for both endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11 - 2.35) and open repair (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25 - 1.81). Adjusted analysis showed a benefit of treatment in high volume centres for open repair (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21 - 2.33) but not for EVAR (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.84 - 2.41). Differences in peri-operative mortality between low and high volume surgeons were not statistically significant for either EVAR (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.89) or open surgical repair (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 - 1.63).

CONCLUSION

A high institutional volume may result in a reduction of peri-operative mortality following surgery for rAAA. This peri-operative survival advantage is more pronounced for open surgery than EVAR. Individual surgeon caseload was not found to have a significant impact on outcomes.

Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Disease: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines and NICE Guidance

The development of endovascular techniques has improved abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management over the past 2 decades. Different cardiovascular societies worldwide have recommended the endovascular approach as the standard of care in their currently available guidelines. While endovascular treatment has established its role in daily clinical practice, a new debate has arisen regarding the indications, appropriateness, limitations, and role of open surgery. To inform this debate, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from 2010 to May 2020; the systematic search identified 5 articles published between 2011 and 2020 by 4 cardiovascular societies and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Four debatable domains were assessed and analyzed: diagnostic methods and screening, preoperative management, indications and treatment modalities, and postoperative follow-up and endoleak management. The review addresses controversial proposals as well as widely accepted recommendations and "gray zone" issues that need to be further investigated and analyzed, such as screening in women, medical management, and follow-up imaging. While the recommendations for AAA management have significant overlap and agreement among international cardiovascular societies, the NICE guidelines diverge regarding the role of open repair in aortic disease, recommending conventional surgery in most elective cases.

Radical Prostatectomy Sociodemographic Disparities Based on Hospital and Physician Volume

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of volume status on socio-demographic disparities for radical prostatectomy (RP) in New York State.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing RP from 2006 to 2014 with an admitting or principal diagnosis of prostate cancer were identified. All 40,533 cases were separated into volume groups stratified by hospital and physician quartiles with a goal of maintaining consistent numbers between the 4 volume groups. Patient-level data included race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), median income by zip code, and source of payment. Hospital-level data included hospital location, teaching status, health service area, and facility number. Continuous and categorical variables were compared between cohorts using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test and Pearson χ² tests, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to assess predictors of access to very high-volume facilities and physician groups as well as predictors of receiving a minimally invasive RP.

RESULTS

Of 40,533 total cases, 9602 (24%) were conducted at low-volume hospitals, 9208 (22%) were conducted at medium-volume hospitals, 8478 (21%) were conducted at high-volume hospitals, and 13,245 (33%) were conducted at very high-volume hospitals. Negative predictors of receiving care from a very high-volume physician include increased CCI, Asian race, black race, unknown race, Medicaid status, age 65 to 79 years, and age 80 to 130 years (P < .001). Negative predictors of receiving care from a very high-volume facility include Asian race, black race, unknown race, Medicaid status, and self-payment status (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Socioeconomic disparities exist in New York State for RP and are associated with disadvantaged groups being overrepresented in low-volume hospital and physician groups.