Association between Hospital Volume and Failure to Rescue after Open or Endovascular Repair of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the VASCUNET and International Consortium of Vascular Registries

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.

Learning Curve and Long-Term Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Repair With the Relay Stent-Graft

PURPOSE

To define the learning curve of a widely employed stent-graft for thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) by analyzing procedural variables and their impact on long-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Standard TEVARs for each major aortic thoracic disease were included excluding procedures using thoracoabdominal, arch fenestrated/branched devices and/or chimneys. The primary outcome was the learning curve analysis using the cumulative sum chart method. The secondary outcomes, presented as early (Q1-Q2) versus latest (Q3-Q4) quartiles of experience, were 30-day major adverse events (MAEs); procedural details (additional maneuvers, operative and fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume); 30-day clinical success; endoleak; aorta-related reintervention; and overall and aorta-related survival.

RESULTS

Between November 2005 and September 2021, 220 consecutive TEVAR procedures involving the Relay endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) were performed and included in the present analysis. The mean follow-up was 4.5 ± 3.9 years. The learning curve was reached after 10 patients. Secondary outcomes improved significantly over experience. Thirty-day MAE occurrence was 14.5% versus 11.8% (p=0.550). Additional maneuvers (p=0.009), access-vessel additional maneuvers (p=0.010), operative time (p=0.004), Relay Plus (p=0.001), and implantation of multiple stent-grafts (p=0.034) were independent risk markers for MAEs. Operative time (125.9 ± 66.7 vs 86.7 ± 48.5 minutes, p<0.001), contrast volume (185.4 ± 112.8 vs 140.5 ± 88.2 mL, p=0.003), and fluoroscopy time (12.4 ± 12.7 vs 8.8 ± 7.5 minutes, p=0.017) decreased significantly. Late endoleak occurrence was 19.5% with a nonsignificant reduction (21.8% vs 17.3%, p=0.395). Fluoroscopy time (hazard ratio [HR]=1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.0-1.1; p=0.008), contrast volume (HR=1.0; 95% CI=1.0-1.1; p=0.018), and type III aortic arch (HR=3.3; 95% CI=1.7-6.4; p<0.001) were independent risk markers for endoleak. Fluoroscopy time (HR=1.0; 95% CI=1.0-1.1; p=0.032) and type III aortic arch (HR=3.6; 95% CI=1.7-7.4; p=0.001) confirmed their significant association in a multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

In a high-volume center with a consistent previous endovascular experience, the Relay graft presented satisfactory long-term results with a short learning curve supporting its reliability.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The manuscript addresses the understanding of how many TEVAR procedures with a currently implanted device have been required to reach the learning curve for an endovascular skilled center. Our TEVAR experience with the Relay stent-graft (Terumo Aortic) demonstrated that ten implantations were required to achieve the device-related learning curve. The fifteen-year analyzed period showed that intraoperative learning-related variables were associated with long-term clinical outcomes and both improved over time. The Relay stent-graft presented satisfactory long-term results along with a short learning curve in a high-volume endovascular center supporting its ongoing implantation.

Editor's Choice - Vascular Registries Contributing to VASCUNET Collaborative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Outcome Projects: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgery registries report on procedures and outcomes to promote patient safety and drive quality improvement. International registries have contributed significantly to the VASCUNET collaborative abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outcome projects. This scoping review aimed to outline the national registries in vascular surgery that currently participate in the VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects.

METHODS

A scoping review of all published VASCUNET AAA studies and validation reports between 1997 and 2024 was undertaken. A survey was conducted among representatives of the international vascular registries contributing to VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects.

RESULTS

Currently, vascular registries from 10 countries (Australia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) contribute to the current VASCUNET collaborative AAA project, of which eight have national coverage. In the past, three countries (Germany, Malta, and Italy) have participated in previous VASCUNET AAA projects, and a further three countries (Serbia, Greece, and Portugal) have planned participation in future projects. External validity is high for all current registries, with most reporting rates of > 90%. The majority have internal validation processes to assess data accuracy. VASCUNET mediated validation has also been performed by the consortium for five countries to date (Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Malta, and Switzerland), for which a high degree of external and internal validity was identified. Most registries have established mechanisms for data linkage with national administrative datasets or insurance claims datasets and contribute to quality improvement through regular reporting to participating centres.

CONCLUSION

National vascular registries from nations participating in the VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects are largely comprehensive, with high case ascertainment rates and good quality data with internal quality assurance. This provides a template for new registries wishing to join the VASCUNET collaboration and a benchmark for future research.

2023 Update on Vascular Anesthesia

The authors thank the editors for this opportunity to review the recent literature on vascular surgery and anesthesia and provide this clinical update. The last in a series of updates on this topic was published in 2019.1 This review explores evolving discussions and current trends related to vascular surgery and anesthesia that have been published since then. The focus is on the major points discussed in the recent literature in the following areas: carotid artery surgery, infrarenal aortic surgery, peripheral vascular surgery, and the preoperative evaluation of vascular surgical patients.

[Recommendations for the specialist further training of nursing personnel on intensive care units in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a modified Delphi procedure with experts]

INTRODUCTION

The medical development in the previous 15 years and the changes in treatment reality of the comprehensive elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms necessitate a re-evaluation of the quality assurance guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee in Germany (QBAA-RL). In the current version this requires a specialist further training quota for nursing personnel in intensive care wards of 50%. The quota was determined in 2008 based on expert opinions, although a direct empirical evidence base for this does not exist.

METHODS

Representatives from the fields of patient representation, physicians, nursing personnel and other relevant interface areas were invited to participate in a modified Delphi procedure. Following a comprehensive narrative literature search, a survey and focus group discussions with national and international experts, a total of three anonymized online-based voting rounds were carried out for which previously determined key statements were assessed with a 4‑point Likert scale (totally disagree up to totally agree). In addition, the expert panel had also defined a recommendation for a minimum quota for the specialist training of nursing personnel on intensive care wards in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, whereby an a priori agreement of 80% of the participants was defined as the consensus limit.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 experts participated in the discussions and three successive voting rounds (participation rate 89%). The panel confirmed the necessity of a re-evaluation of the guideline recommendations and recommended the introduction of a shift-related minimum quota of 30% of the full-time equivalent of nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the introduction of structured promotional programs for long-term elevation of the quota.

CONCLUSION

In this national Delphi procedure with medical and nursing experts as well as representatives of patients, the fundamental benefits and needs of professional specialist qualifications in the field of intensive care medicine were confirmed. The corresponding minimum quota for specialist further training of intensive care nursing personnel should generally apply without limitations to specific groups. The expert panel stipulates a shift-related minimum quota for intensive care nursing personnel with specialist training of 30% of the nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the obligatory introduction of structured and transparent promotion programs for the long-term enhancement.

Decreasing prevalence of centers meeting the Society for Vascular Surgery abdominal aortic aneurysm guidelines in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Based on data supporting a volume-outcome relationship in elective aortic aneurysm repair, the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines recommend that endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 operations annually and have a perioperative mortality and conversion-to-open rate of ≤2% and that open aortic repair (OAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 open aortic operations annually and have a perioperative mortality ≤5%. However, the number and distribution of centers meeting the SVS criteria remains unclear. This study aimed to estimate the temporal trends and geographic distribution of Centers Meeting the SVS Aortic Guidelines (CMAG) in the United States.

METHODS

The SVS Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all OAR, aortic bypasses, and EVAR from 2011 to 2019. Annual OAR and EVAR volume, 30-day elective operative mortality for OAR or EVAR, and EVAR conversion-to-open rate for all centers were calculated. The SVS guidelines for OAR and EVAR, individually and combined, were applied to each institution leading to a CMAG designation. The proportion of CMAGs by region (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were compared by year using a χ2 test. Temporal trends were estimated using a multivariable logistic regression for CMAG, adjusting by region.

RESULTS

Overall, 67,865 patients (49,264 EVAR; 11,010 OAR; 7591 aortic bypasses) at 336 institutions were examined. The proportion of EVAR CMAGs increased nationally by 1.7% annually from 51.6% (n = 33/64) in 2011 to 67.1% (n = 190/283) in 2019 (β = .05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.09; P = .02). The proportion of EVAR CMAGs across regions ranged from 27.3% to 66.7% in 2011 to 63.9% to 72.9% in 2019. In contrast, the proportion of OAR CMAGs has decreased nationally by 1.8% annually from 32.8% (n = 21/64) in 2011 to 16.3% (n = 46/283) in 2019 (β = -.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.10; P < .01). Combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs were even less frequent and decreased by 1.5% annually from 26.6% (n = 17/64) in 2011 to 13.1% (n = 37/283) in 2019 (β = -.12; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.07; P < .01). In 2019, there was no significant difference in regional variation of the proportion of combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs (P = .82).

CONCLUSIONS

Although an increasing proportion of institutions nationally meet the SVS guidelines for EVAR, a smaller proportion meet them for OAR, with a concerning downward trend. These data question whether we can safely offer OAR at most institutions, have important implications about sufficient OAR exposure for trainees, and support regionalization of OAR.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Editor's Choice - The VASCUNExplanT Project: An International Study Assessing Open Surgical Conversion of Failed Non-Infected Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The need for open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) persists, despite expanding endovascular options for secondary intervention. The VASCUNExplanT project collected international data to identify risk factors for failed EVAR, as well as OSC outcomes. This retrospective cross sectional study analysed data after OSC for failed EVAR from the VASCUNET international collaboration.

METHODS

VASCUNET queried registries from its 28 member countries, and 17 collaborated with data from patients who underwent OSC (2005 - 2020). Any OSC for infection was excluded. Data included demographics, EVAR, and OSC procedural details, as well as post-operative mortality and complication rates.

RESULTS

There were 348 OSC patients from 17 centres, of whom 33 (9.4%) were women. There were 130 (37.4%) devices originally deployed outside of instructions for use. The most common indication for OSC was endoleak (n = 143, 41.1%); ruptures accounted for 17.2% of cases. The median time from EVAR to OSC was 48.6 months [IQR 29.7, 71.6]; median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter at OSC was 70.5 mm [IQR 61, 82]. A total of 160 (45.6%) patients underwent one or more re-interventions prior to OSC, while 63 patients (18.1%) underwent more than one re-intervention (range 1 - 5). Overall, the 30 day mortality rate post-OSC was 11.8% (n = 41), 11.1% for men and 18.2% for women (p = .23). The 30 day mortality rate was 6.1% for elective cases, and 28.3% for ruptures (p < .0001). The predicted 90 day survival for the entire cohort was 88.3% (95% CI 84.3 - 91.3). Multivariable analysis revealed rupture (OR 4.23; 95% CI 2.05 - 8.75; p < .0001) and total graft explantation (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.02 - 4.34; p = .04) as the only statistically significant predictive factors for 30 day death.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre analysis of patients who underwent OSC shows that, despite varying case mix and operative techniques, OSC is feasible but associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates, particularly when performed for rupture.

Analysis of Early Death after Elective Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a quality measure and early death may represent a technical complication or poor patient selection. Our objective was to analyze patients who died in the hospital within postoperative day (POD) 0-2 after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003-2019 for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Operations were categorized as in-hospital death on POD 0-2 (POD 0-2 Death), in-hospital death beyond POD 2 (POD ≥3 Death), and those alive at discharge. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 7,592 elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs with 61 (0.8%) POD 0-2 Death, 156 (2.1%) POD ≥3 Death, and 7,375 (97.1%) alive at discharge. Overall, median age was 70 years and 73.6% were male. Iliac aneurysm repair and surgical approach (anterior/retroperitoneal) were similar among groups. POD 0-2 Death, compared to POD ≥3 Death and those alive at discharge, had the longest renal/visceral ischemia time, more commonly had proximal clamp placement above both renal arteries, an aortic distal anastomosis, longest operative time, and largest estimated blood loss (all P < 0.05). Postoperative vasopressor usage, myocardial infarction, stroke, and return to the operating room were most frequent in POD 0-2 Death and extubation in the operating room was least frequent (all P < 0.001). Postoperative bowel ischemia and renal failure occurred most commonly among POD ≥3 Death (all P < 0.001).On multivariable analysis, POD 0-2 Death was associated with congestive heart failure, prior peripheral vascular intervention, female sex, preoperative aspirin use, lower center volume quartile, renal/visceral ischemia time, estimated blood loss, and older age (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

POD 0-2 Death was associated with comorbidities, center volume, renal/visceral ischemia time, and estimated blood loss. Referral to high-volume aortic centers could improve outcomes.

Low-volume surgeons can have better outcomes at certain hospital settings for open abdominal aortic repairs

OBJECTIVE

The volume-outcomes relationship is cross-cutting among open abdominal aortic operations, where higher-volume surgeons have better perioperative outcomes. However, there has been minimal focus on low-volume surgeons and how to improve their outcomes. This study sought to identify if there are any differences in outcomes among low-volume surgeons for open abdominal aortic surgeries by different hospital settings.

METHODS

We used the 2012-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative registry to identify all patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery for aneurysmal or aorto-iliac occlusive disease by a low-volume surgeon (<7 operations annually). We categorized high-volume hospitals using three distinct definitions: those that performed ≥10 operations annually, those with at least one high-volume surgeon, and by the number of surgeons (1-2 surgeons, 3-4 surgeons, 5-7 surgeons, and 8+ surgeons). Outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue. We compared outcomes among low-volume surgeons using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions across each of these three hospital categorizations.

RESULTS

Among 14,110 patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery, 10,252 (7 3%) were performed by 1155 low-volume surgeons. Two-thirds of these patients (66%) underwent their surgery at a high-volume hospital, fewer than one-third (30%) at a hospital that had at least one high-volume surgeon, and one-half (49%) at hospitals with at least five surgeons. Among all patients operated on by low-volume surgeons, rates of 30-day mortality were 3.8%, perioperative complications were 35.3%, and failure-to-rescue were 9.9%. Low-volume surgeons operating at high-volume hospitals for aneurysmal disease had lower rates of perioperative death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.90) and failure-to-rescue (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98), but similar rates of complications (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.27). Similarly, patients undergoing their operation at hospitals that had at least one high-volume surgeon had lower rates of death (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99) for aneurysmal disease. Patient outcomes among low-volume surgeons for aorto-iliac occlusive disease did not vary by hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients undergoing open abdominal aortic surgery have a low-volume surgeon, where outcomes are slightly better for those taking place at a high-volume hospital. Focused and incentivized interventions may be needed to improve outcomes among low-volume surgeons across all practice settings.

Risk Prediction Models for Peri-Operative Mortality in Patients Undergoing Major Vascular Surgery with Particular Focus on Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The present scoping review aims to describe and analyze available clinical data on the most commonly reported risk prediction indices in vascular surgery for perioperative mortality, with a particular focus on ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review following the PRISMA Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews was performed. Available full-text studies published in English in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases (last queried, 30 March 2023) were systematically reviewed and analyzed. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework used to construct the search strings was the following: in patients with aortic pathologies, in particular rAAA (population), undergoing open or endovascular surgery (intervention), what different risk prediction models exist (comparison), and how well do they predict post-operative mortality (outcomes)?

RESULTS

The literature search and screening of all relevant abstracts revealed a total of 56 studies in the final qualitative synthesis. The main findings of the scoping review, grouped by the risk score that was investigated in the original studies, were synthetized without performing any formal meta-analysis. A total of nine risk scores for major vascular surgery or elective AAA, and 10 scores focusing on rAAA, were identified. Whilst there were several validation studies suggesting that most risk scores performed adequately in the setting of rAAA, none reached 100% accuracy. The Glasgow aneurysm score, ERAS and Vancouver score risk scores were more frequently included in validation studies and were more often used in secondary studies. Unfortunately, the published literature presents a heterogenicity of results in the validation studies comparing the different risk scores. To date, no risk score has been endorsed by any of the vascular surgery societies.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of risk scores in any complex surgery can have multiple advantages, especially when dealing with emergent cases, since they can inform perioperative decision making, patient and family discussions, and post hoc case-mix adjustments. Although a variety of different rAAA risk prediction tools have been published to date, none are superior to others based on this review. The heterogeneity of the variables used in the different scores impairs comparative analysis which represents a major limitation to understanding which risk score may be the "best" in contemporary practice. Future developments in artificial intelligence may further assist surgical decision making in predicting post-operative adverse events.

Intraoperative complications during standard and complex endovascular aortic repair

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common intraoperative adverse events that occur during standard endovascular repair and fenestrated-branched endovascular repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, sophisticated imaging and improved graft designs, intraoperative difficulties still occur, even in highly standardized procedures and high-volume centers. This study emphasized that with the increased adoption and complexity of endovascular aortic procedures, strategies to minimize intraoperative adverse events should be protocolized and standardized. There is a need for robust evidence on this topic, which could potentially optimize treatment outcomes and durability of the available techniques.

Benefits of Prehabilitation before Complex Aortic Surgery

The purpose of this narrative review was to detail and discuss the underlying principles and benefits of preoperative interventions addressing risk factors for perioperative adverse events in open aortic surgery (OAS). The term "complex aortic disease" encompasses juxta/pararenal aortic and thoraco-abdominal aneurysms, chronic aortic dissection and occlusive aorto-iliac pathology. Although endovascular surgery has been increasingly favored, OAS remains a durable option, but by necessity involves extensive surgical approaches and aortic cross-clamping and requires a trained multidisciplinary team. The physiological stress of OAS in a fragile and comorbid patient group mandates thoughtful preoperative risk assessment and the implementation of measures dedicated to improving outcomes. Cardiac and pulmonary complications are one of the most frequent adverse events following major OAS and their incidences are correlated to the patient's functional status and previous comorbidities. Prehabilitation should be considered in patients with risk factors for pulmonary complications including advanced age, previous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure with the aid of pulmonary function tests. It should also be combined with other measures to improve postoperative course and be included in the more general concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Although the current level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of ERAS in the setting of OAS remains low, an increasing body of literature has promoted its implementation in other specialties. Consequently, vascular teams should commit to improving the current evidence through studies to make ERAS the standard of care for OAS.

Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of in-hospital serious adverse events in patients ≥75 years of age undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study sought to identify the factors associated with the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events after elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in older patients within the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients ages ≥75 years who received GORE EXCLUDER AAA Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, AZ) for elective EVAR. Based on the age at index elective EVAR, patients were categorized into 3 groups for subsequent analyses: those ages 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and ≥85 years. The primary end points for this study were the incidence of serious adverse events and all-cause mortality. In-hospital complications were defined according to the International Organization for Standardization 14155 standard (https://www.iso.org/standard/71690.html) and considered serious adverse events if they led to any of the following: (1) a life-threatening illness or injury, (2) a permanent impairment of a body structure or a body function, (3) in-patient or prolonged hospitalization, or (4) medical or surgical intervention to prevent life-threatening illness or injury or permanent impairment to a body structure or a body function.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,333 older patients (ages 75-79: n = 601; 80-84: n = 474; and ≥85: n = 258) underwent elective EVAR in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment data set and were included in the present analysis. In total, 12 patients (0.9%) died perioperatively, and 103 patients (7.7%) experienced ≥1 in-hospital serious adverse event, with 18 patients (1.3%) experiencing >1 in-hospital complications. No significant differences were seen between the age groups in the rates of in-hospital serious adverse events (7.3% vs 8.2% vs 7.8%; P = .86). In logistic regression analysis, a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio = 2.014; 95% confidence interval, 1.215-3.340; P = .006) and prior requirement for dialysis (odds ratio = 4.655; 95% confidence interval, 1.087-19.928; P = .038) resulted as predictors for occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events. In the whole cohort, the 5-year survival was 63% for patients who did not experience any in-hospital serious adverse events compared with 51% for those who experienced any complications (P = .003). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, it was found that the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events (hazard ratio = 6.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-21.317; P = .003) and being underweight (hazard ratio = 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.371-35.783; P = .019) were the only independent predictors of death in ≤30 days from the initial intervention. Although age did not independently affect the risk for all-cause mortality in ≤180 days after the initial intervention, increasing age was associated with a higher risk for long-term death (ie, ≥181 days from index elective EVAR) in the multivariable analysis (ages 75-79: hazard ratio = 0.379; 95% confidence interval, 0.281-0.512; P < .001; and 80-84: hazard ratio = 0.562; 95% confidence interval, 0.419-0.754; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

After elective EVAR in older patients (ie, ≥75 years), the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events appears to increase the risk of death, particularly in ≤180 days after the initial elective EVAR intervention, and might be related to patient baseline characteristics, including history of pulmonary and renal disease.

Midterm Results of Iliac Branch Devices in a Newly Established Aortic Center

The first-line treatment of common iliac artery aneurysms is endovascular repair. International guidelines recommend the preservation of the internal iliac artery, which is best achieved by the implantation of an iliac bifurcation device (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the initial midterm results of IBDs in the leading vascular center of Hungary. In this single-center retrospective study, relevant clinical data and the results of the imaging examinations were collected and analyzed in all patients who underwent IBD implantation between December 2010 and July 2021. Thirty-five patients (31 males, mean age: 67.9 ± 8.5 years) underwent endovascular treatment with 37 IBD implantations. Technical success was achieved in 88.2% of the patients, with no perioperative mortality or open surgical conversion. One patient was lost during follow-up. Internal iliac artery occlusion was detected in three (8.8%) patients, and reintervention was performed in five (14.7%) patients. Primary patency of the internal iliac branch was 97.1% at 1 month, 93% at 2 months, and 89.0% at 5 years. The average follow-up time was 20.1 ± 26.2 months, during which two (5.9%) deaths occurred. Our initial experience with iliac branch devices was associated with a low complication rate and a favorable outcome, which confirms the midterm success of this intervention.

Center Volume and Failure to Rescue after Open or Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The correlation between center volume and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm(AAA) repair outcomes is well established; however, these effects for either endovascular(EVAR) or open(OAR) repair of ruptured AAA(rAAA) remains unclear. Notably, the capacity to either avert or manage complications associated with postoperative mortality is an important cause of outcome disparities following elective procedures; however, there is a paucity of data surrounding non-elective presentations. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to describe the association between annual center volume, complications, and failure to rescue(FtR) after EVAR and OAR of rAAA.

METHODS

All consecutive endovascular and open rAAA repairs from 2010-2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were examined. Annual center volume(procedures/year per center) was grouped into quartiles: EVAR-Q1[<14](3.4%), Q2[14-23](12.8%), Q3[24-37](24.7%), Q4[>38](59.1%); OAR-Q1[<3](5.4%), Q2[4-6](12.8%), Q3[7-10](22.7%), Q4[>10](59.1%). The primary end-point was FtR, defined as in-hospital death after experiencing one of six major complications(cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke, bleeding, colonic ischemia). Risk-adjusted analyses for inter-group comparisons was completed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The unadjusted in-hospital death rate was 16.5% and 28.9% for EVAR and OAR, respectively. Complications occurred in 45% of EVAR(n=1,439/3,188) and 70% of OAR(n=1,366/1,961) patients with corresponding FtR rates of 14%(EVAR) and 26%(OAR). For OAR, Q4-centers had a 43% lower FtR risk(OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.4-0.9;p=.017) compared to Q1 centers. Centers performing >5 OARs/year had a 43% lower risk(OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.4-0.7;p<.001) of FtR and this decreased 4% for each additional 5 procedures performed annually(95%CI .93-.991;p=.013). However, there was no significant relationship between center volume and FtR after EVAR. The risk of FtR was strongly associated with a greater number of complications for both procedures(OR multiplied by 6.5 for EVAR and 1.5 for OAR for each additional complication;p<.0001). Among OAR patients with a single recorded complication, return to the operating room for bleeding had highest risk of in-hospital mortality(OR 4.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.8;p=.034), while no specific type of complication increased FtR risk after EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

FtR occurs commonly after EVAR and OAR of rAAA within VQI centers. Importantly, increasing center volume was associated with reduced FtR risk after OAR but not EVAR. Complication pattern and frequency predicted FTR after either repair strategy. For stable patients, especially those deemed anatomically ineligible for EVAR, these findings emphasize the need to improve coordination of regional referral networks that centralize rAAAs to high-volume centers. Moreover, hospitals that treat rAAA should invest resources that develop protocols targeting specific complications to mitigate risk of preventable postoperative death.

Peri-Operative Management of Patients Undergoing Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Juxtarenal, Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Preventing, Recognizing and Treating Complications to Improve Clinical Outcomes

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient's quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

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.