Surgeon specialty and patient outcomes in carotid endarterectomy

The Sustained Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vascular Surgical Care Delivery

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated postponement of vascular surgery procedures nationally. Whether procedure volumes have since recovered remains undefined. Therefore, our objective was to quantify changes in procedure volumes and determine whether surgical volume has returned to its prepandemic baseline.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study between 2018 and 2023 using the US Fee-for-Service Medicare 5% National Sample as part of the VA Disrupted Care National Project. We studied patients who underwent 1 of 3 procedures: abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair for intact aneurysms, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and major lower extremity amputation (LEA). The case volume of each quarter of 2020-2023 was compared to its corresponding prepandemic quarter in 2019. We then performed a subanalysis of these trends by sex, age, and race.

RESULTS

We identified 21,031 procedures: 4,411 AAA repair, 8,361 CEA, and 8,259 LEA. The average percent change during the baseline prepandemic period from 2018 to 2019 was -4.3% for AAA repair, -8.5% for CEA, and -2.6% for LEA. Compared to Q2 of 2019, Q2 of 2020 demonstrated that AAA repair procedures decreased by 47%, CEA by 40%, and LEA by 14%. While procedures initially rebounded in Q3 of 2020, volumes did not return to their prepandemic baseline, demonstrating a persistent volume reduction (-16% AAA, -22% CEA, and -11% LEA). Thereafter, procedure counts again declined in Q1 of 2022 (-25% AAA, -34% CEA, and -25% LEA).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a perception that vascular surgical care was singularly disrupted at the outset of the pandemic, there has been a sustained reduction in vascular surgical volume since 2019. Not only have procedure volumes not returned to prepandemic baseline but it also appears that there has been a cumulative incremental impact on overall procedure volume. The impact of these findings on long-term population health remains uncertain and necessitates a better understanding of postpandemic care delivery.

Surgical Specialty Impacts Quality of Operative Training in Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently performed by multiple surgical specialties. The impact of surgical specialty and operative volume on post-CEA outcomes has been well described. However, it is unclear whether trainees of different surgical specialties have similar quality of operative training.

METHODS

Data from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education annual reports were collected and compared between graduating vascular surgery (VS) residents, VS fellows, and neurological surgery (NS) residents. Only cases reported as chief/senior/lead resident, surgeon junior, or surgeon fellow were included in analysis. Linear regression analysis was utilized to evaluate trends in case-mix and volume.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2022, total CEA case volume was higher among VS residents and fellows, compared to NS residents (52.8 ± 0.8 vs. 44.3 ± 1.4 vs. 12.9 ± 0.6, P < 0.0001). Additionally, VS residents and fellows performed other carotid operations including transfemoral or transcarotid artery stenting (11.1 ± 0.9 vs. 11.2 ± 0.8 vs. 0), carotid body tumor resection (0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.7 ± 0.0 vs. 0), and extracranial cervical bypass (6.7 ± 0.3 vs. 6.3 ± 0.3 vs. 0) that were not reported by the NS resident cohort (P < 0.0001 each). On linear regression analysis, total CEA procedures did not change for VS residents (R2 = 0.03, P = 0.62), decreased for VS fellows (-1.29 cases/yr, R2 = 0.75, P < 0.0001), and decreased among NS residents (-0.41 cases/yr, R2 = 0.44, P = 0.01) over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Although residents of multiple surgical specialties are trained in CEA, vascular training offers significantly greater numbers and diversity of extracranial carotid cases. It also appears that CEA volume is decreasing among neurosurgical trainees. In light of recent reports on the volume-outcome effect in carotid surgery, these data may have implications for future practice patterns in the domain of extracranial carotid artery disease.

Early Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) represent options to treat many patients with carotid stenosis. Although randomized trial data are plentiful, estimated rates of morbidity and mortality for both CEA and CAS have varied substantially.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rates of adverse outcomes after CAS and CEA in a large national database.

METHODS

We analyzed 84 191 adult patients undergoing elective, nonemergent CAS (n = 81 361) or CEA (n = 2830), from 2011 to 2018, in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Odds of adverse outcomes (30-d rates of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac arrest, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, reoperation, and mortality) were evaluated in propensity-matched (n = 2821) cohorts through logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched cohorts, CAS had increased odds of periprocedural stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.32-2.95) and decreased odds of cardiac arrest (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.84) and 30-d reoperation (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) compared to CEA. Relative odds of MI, prolonged LOS, discharge to destination other than home, 30-d readmission, or 30-d mortality were statistically similar. In the unmatched patient population, rates of adverse outcomes with CEA were constant over time; however, for CAS, rates of stroke increased over time. In both the matched and unmatched patient cohorts, patients 70 yr and older had lower rates of post-procedural stroke with CEA, but not with CAS, compared to younger patients.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity-matched analysis of a large, prospectively collected, national, surgical database, CAS was associated with increased odds of periprocedural stroke, which increased over time. Rates of MI and death were not significantly different between the 2 procedures.