Size thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms warrant reconsideration

BACKGROUND

The historical size threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is widely accepted to be 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, contemporary AAA rupture risks may be lower than historical benchmarks, which has implications for when AAAs should be repaired. Our objective was to use contemporary AAA rupture rates to inform optimal size thresholds for AAA repair.

METHODS

We used a Markov chain analysis to estimate life expectancy for patients with AAA. The primary outcome was AAA-related mortality. We estimated survival using Social Security Administration life tables and published contemporary AAA rupture estimates. For those undergoing repair, we modified survival estimates using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative and Medicare on complications, late rupture, and open conversion. We used this model to estimate the AAA repair size threshold that minimizes AAA-related mortality for 60-year-old average-health men and women. We performed a sensitivity analysis of poor-health patients and 70- and 80-year-old base cases.

RESULTS

The annual risk of all-cause mortality under surveillance for a 60-year-old woman presenting with a 5.0 cm AAA using repair thresholds of 5.5 cm, 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, and 7.0 cm was 1.7%, 2.3%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding risk for a man was 2.3%, 2.9%, 3.3%, and 3.4% for the same repair thresholds, respectively. For a 60-year-old average-health woman, an AAA repair size of 6.1 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 5.7 cm to 7.1 cm. For a 60-year-old average-health man, an AAA repair size of 6.9 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 6.0 cm to 7.4 cm. Women in poor health, at various age strata, had optimal AAA repair size thresholds that were >6.5 cm, whereas men in poor health, at all ages, had optimal repair size thresholds that were >8.0 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal threshold for AAA repair is more nuanced than a discrete size. Specifically, there appears to be a range of AAA sizes for which repair is reasonable to minmized AAA-related mortality. Notably, they all are greater than current guideline recommendations. These findings would suggest that contemporary AAA size thresholds for repair should be reconsidered.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion in Medicare beneficiaries with peripheral artery disease

Background: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion (ME) increased Medicaid eligibility for adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty level. In this study, we examined the impact of ME on mortality and amputation in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: The 100% MedPAR and Part-B Carrier files from 2011 to 2018 were queried to identify all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with PAD using International Classification of Diseases codes. Our primary exposure was whether a state had adopted the ME on January 1, 2014. Our primary outcomes were the change in all-cause 1-year mortality and leg amputation. We used a state-level difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to compare the rates of the primary outcomes among patients who were in states (including the District of Columbia) who adopted ME (n = 25) versus those who were in states that did not (n = 26). We performed a subanalysis stratifying by sex, race, region, and dual-eligibility status. Results: Over the 8-year period, we studied 37,743,929 patients. The average unadjusted 1-year mortality decreased from 2011 to 2018 in both non-ME (9.5% to 8.7%, p < 0.001) and ME (9.1% to 8.3%, p < 0.001) states. The average unadjusted 1-year amputation rate did not improve in either the non-ME (0.86% to 0.87%, p = 0.17) or ME (0.69% to 0.69%, p = 0.65) states. Across the entire cohort, the DID model revealed that ME did not lead to a significant change in mortality (p = 0.15) or amputation (p = 0.34). Conclusion: Medicaid Expansion was not associated with reduced mortality or leg amputation in Medicare beneficiaries with PAD.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization.

METHODS

We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding.

RESULTS

We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease.

RESULTS

Four publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

Changes in global mortality from aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Globally, there has been a marked increase in aortic aneurysm-related deaths between 1990 and 2019. We sought to understand the underlying etiologies for this mortality trend by examining secular changes in both demographics and the prevalence of risk factors, and how these changes may vary across sociodemographic index (SDI) regions.

METHODS

We queried the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) for aortic aneurysm deaths from 1990 to 2019 overall and by age group. We identified the percentage of aortic aneurysm deaths attributable to each risk factor identified by GBD modeling (smoking, hypertension, lead exposure, and high sodium diet) and their respective changes over time. We then analyzed aneurysm mortality by SDI region.

RESULTS

The number of aortic aneurysm-related deaths have increased from 94,968 in 1990 to 172,427 in 2019, signifying an 81.6% increase, which greatly exceeds the 18.2% increase in all-cause mortality observed over the same time interval. Examination of age-specific mortality demonstrated that the number of aortic aneurysm deaths markedly correlated with advancing age. However, when considering rate of death rather than mortality count, overall age-standardized death rates decreased 18% from 2.72 per 100,000 in 1990 to 2.21 per 100,000 in 2019. Analysis of the specific risk factors associated with aneurysm death revealed that the percentage of deaths attributable to smoking decreased from 45.6% in 1990 to 34.6% in 2019, and deaths attributable to hypertension decreased from 38.7% to 34.7%. Globally, hypertension surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor. The reported rate of death was consistently greater as SDI increased, and this effect was most pronounced among low-middle and middle SDI regions (173.2% and 170.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an overall increase in the number of aneurysm deaths, there was a decrease in the age-standardized death rate, demonstrating that the observed increased number of aortic aneurysm deaths between 1990 and 2019 was primarily driven by an overall increase in the age of the global population. Fortunately, it appears that the increase in overall aneurysm-related deaths has been modulated by improved risk factor modification, in particular smoking. Given the rise in aneurysm-related deaths, global expansion of vascular specialty capabilities is warranted and will serve to amplify improvements in population-based aneurysm health achieved with risk factor control.

Excess mortality in US Veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study

BACKGROUND

Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality.

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e. excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths) and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 5 905 747 patients, the median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103 164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasizing the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

The financial burden associated with endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms using physician-modified fenestrated-branched endografts

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysm repair is more complex and requires more devices than infrarenal aneurysm repair. It is unclear if current reimbursement covers the cost of delivering this more advanced form of vascular care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics of fenestrated-branched (FB-EVAR) physician-modified endograft (PMEG) repairs.

METHODS

We obtained technical and professional cost and revenue data for four consecutive fiscal years (July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2021) at our quaternary referral institution. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent PMEG FB-EVAR in a uniform fashion by a single surgeon for thoracoabdominal/pararenal aortic aneurysms. Patients in industry-sponsored clinical trials or receiving Cook Zenith Fenestrated grafts were excluded. Financial data were analyzed for the index operation. Technical costs were divided into direct costs that included devices and billable supplies and indirect costs including overhead.

RESULTS

62 patients (79% male, mean age: 74 years, 66% thoracoabdominal aneurysms) met inclusion criteria. The mean aneurysm size was 6.0 cm, the mean total operating time was 219 minutes, and the median hospital length of stay was 2 days. PMEGs were created with a mean number of 3.7 fenestrations, using a mean of 8.6 implantable devices per case. The average technical cost per case was $71,198, and the average technical reimbursement was $57,642, providing a net negative technical margin of $13,556 per case. Of this cohort, 31 patients (50%) were insured by Medicare remunerated under diagnosis-related group code 268/269. Their respective average technical reimbursement was $41,293, with a mean negative margin of $22,989 per case, with similar findings for professional costs. The primary driver of technical cost was implantable devices, accounting for 77% of total technical cost per case over the study period. The total operating margin, including technical and professional cost and revenue, for the cohort during the study period was negative $1,560,422.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEG FB-EVAR for pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms produces a substantially negative operating margin for the index operation driven largely by device costs. Device cost alone already exceeds total technical revenue and presents an opportunity for cost reduction. In addition, increased reimbursement for FB-EVAR, especially among Medicare beneficiaries, will be important to facilitate patient access to such innovative technology.

Readmission After Lower Extremity Bypass Following Discharge to a Rehabilitation or Nursing Facility

INTRODUCTION

Hospital readmission after lower extremity arterial bypass (LEB) is common. Patients are often discharged to a facility after LEB as a bridge to home. Our objective was to define the association between discharge to a facility and readmission after LEB.

METHODS

We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent LEB from 2017 to 2022. The primary exposure was discharge location. The primary outcome was 30-d hospital readmission.

RESULTS

We included 6076 patients across 147 centers. The overall 30-d readmission rate was 18%. Readmission occurred among 15% of patients discharged home, 22% of patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility, and 25% of patients discharged to a nursing home. After controlling for patient and procedural factors, there was no significant association between discharge location and 30-d readmission (rehabilitation versus home odds ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.29; nursing facility versus home odds ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.47). Female sex, end-stage renal disease, diabetes, heart failure, pulmonary disease, smoking, preoperative functional impairment, tibial bypass target, critical limb threatening or acute ischemia, and postoperative complications including surgical site infection, change in renal function and graft thrombosis were associated with an increased likelihood of readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients discharged home after LEB experienced a similar likelihood of readmission as those discharged to a facility. While discharge to a facility may aid in care transitions, it did not appear to lead to reduced 30-d readmissions. The recommended discharge location should be predicated on patient care needs and not as a perceived mechanism to reduce readmissions.

Sex differences in outcomes among adults undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Although the differences in short-term outcomes between male and female patients in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have been well studied, it remains unclear if these sex disparities extend to other long-term adverse outcomes after AAA repair, such as reintervention and late rupture.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 13,007 patients who underwent either endovascular (EVAR) or open AAA repair (OAR) between 2003 and 2015 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative registries. Eligible patients were linked to fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify late outcomes of rupture and aneurysm-specific reintervention.

RESULTS

The mean age of our cohort was 76 ± 6.7 years, 22% were female, 94% were White, and 77% underwent EVAR. The 10-year rupture incidence was slightly higher for women at 4.8 per 1000 person-years, vs 3.9 for men, but this difference was not statistically significant after risk adjustment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.73). Likewise, we found no sex difference in reintervention rates (5.1 vs 4.8 in women per 1000 person-years) even after risk adjustment (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.09). Regression models suggest effect modification by repair type for reintervention, where women who underwent index EVAR had a higher risk of reintervention than men (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.93-1.26), whereas women who underwent OAR were at a lower risk of reintervention than men (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.58-1.08); however, neither effect reached statistical significance within each subgroup. In addition, we found that the risk of reintervention for women vs men varied by clinical presentation, where women were less likely to undergo reintervention after an elective or symptomatic AAA repair but were more likely to undergo reintervention after a repair for AAA rupture (HR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.05-2.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Male and female patients who underwent AAA repair had similar rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture in the 10 years after their procedure. However, our findings suggest that repair type and clinical presentation may affect the role of sex in clinical outcomes and warrant further exploration in these subgroups.

Increased Preoperative Stress Test Utilization is Not Associated With Reduced Adverse Cardiac Events in Current US Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To measure the frequency of preoperative stress testing and its association with perioperative cardiac events.

BACKGROUND

There is persistent variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States. It remains unclear whether more testing is associated with reduced perioperative cardiac events.

METHODS

We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base to study patients who underwent 1 of 8 elective major surgical procedures (general, vascular, or oncologic) from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles by frequency of stress test use. We computed a modified revised cardiac risk index (mRCRI) score for included patients. Outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), and cost, which we compared across quintiles of stress test use.

RESULTS

We identified 185,612 patients from 133 centers. The mean age was 61.7 (±14.2) years, 47.5% were female, and 79.4% were White. Stress testing was performed in 9.2% of patients undergoing surgery, and varied from 1.7% at lowest quintile centers, to 22.5% at highest quintile centers, despite similar mRCRI comorbidity scores (mRCRI>1: 15.0% vs 15.8%; P =0.068). In-hospital MACE was less frequent among lowest versus highest quintile centers (8.2% vs 9.4%; P <0.001) despite a 13-fold difference in stress test use. Event rates were similar for MI (0.5% vs 0.5%; P =0.737). Mean added cost for stress testing per 1000 patients who underwent surgery was $26,996 at lowest quintile centers versus $357,300 at highest quintile centers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States despite similar patient risk profiles. Increased testing was not associated with reduced perioperative MACE or MI. These data suggest that more selective stress testing may be an opportunity for cost savings through a reduction of unnecessary tests.

Market competition influences practice patterns in management of patients with intermittent claudication in the vascular quality initiative

OBJECTIVE

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines recommend best medical therapy (BMT) as first-line therapy before offering revascularization to patients with intermittent claudication (IC). Notably, atherectomy and tibial-level interventions are generally discouraged for management of IC; however, high regional market competition may incentivize physicians to treat patients outside the scope of guideline-directed therapy. Therefore, we sought to determine the association between regional market competition and endovascular treatment of patients with IC.

METHODS

We examined patients with IC undergoing index endovascular peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2022. We assigned the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index as a measure of regional market competition and stratified centers into very high competition (VHC), high competition, moderate competition, and low competition cohorts. We defined BMT as preoperative documentation of being on antiplatelet medication, statin, nonsmoking status, and a recorded ankle-brachial index. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of market competition with patient and procedural characteristics. A sensitivity analysis was performed in patients with isolated femoropopliteal disease matched by the TransAtlantic InterSociety classification of disease severity.

RESULTS

There were 24,669 PVIs that met the inclusion criteria. Patients with IC undergoing PVI were more likely to be on BMT when treated in higher market competition centers (odds ratio [OR], 1.07 per increase in competition quartile; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.11; P < .0001). The probability of undergoing aortoiliac interventions decreased with increasing competition (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .0001), but there were higher odds of receiving tibial (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.30-1.50; P < .0001) and multilevel interventions in VHC vs low competition centers (femoral + tibial OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .001). Stenting decreased as competition increased (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.92; P < .0001), whereas exposure to atherectomy increased with higher market competition (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.19; P < .0001). When assessing patients undergoing single-artery femoropopliteal intervention for TransAtlantic InterSociety A or B lesions to account for disease severity, the odds of undergoing either balloon angioplasty (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.625-0.840; P < .0001) or stenting only (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.727-0.966; P < .0001) were lower in VHC centers. Similarly, the likelihood of receiving atherectomy remained significantly higher in VHC centers (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.36-1.84; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

High market competition was associated with more procedures among patients with claudication that are not consistent with guideline-directed therapy per the SVS clinical practice guidelines, including atherectomy and tibial-level interventions. This analysis demonstrates the susceptibility of care delivery to regional market competition and signifies a novel and undefined driver of PVI variation among patients with claudication.

Adoption and Diffusion of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in Contemporary Practice

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the FDA approved transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) for high-risk patients with carotid stenosis. This was granted in the absence of level 1 evidence to support TCAR. We aimed to document trends in TCAR utilization, its diffusion over time, and the clinical phenotypes of patients undergoing TCAR, CEA, and TF-CAS.

METHODS

We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent TCAR. We calculated the number of TCARs performed and the percent of TCAR utilization versus CEA/TF-CAS. Using data from before TCAR was widespread, we calculated propensity scores for patients to receive CEA. We applied this model to patients undergoing carotid revascularization from 2016 to 2022 and grouped patients by the procedure they ultimately underwent, examining overlap in score distribution to measure patient similarity. We measured the trend of in-hospital stroke/death after TCAR.

RESULTS

We studied 31 447 patients who underwent TCAR from January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2022. The number of centers performing TCAR increased from 29 to 606. In 2021, TCAR represented 22.5% of carotid revascularizations at centers offering all 3 procedures. The percentage of patients that underwent TCAR who met approved high-risk criteria decreased from 88.5% to 80.9% (P<0.001). Those with a prior ipsilateral carotid procedure decreased from 20.6% in 2016 to 12.0% in 2021 (P<0.001). Patients undergoing TCAR after stroke increased from 19.7% to 30.7% (P<0.001). Propensity-score overlap was 55.4% for TCAR/CEA, and 58.6% for TCAR/TF-CAS, demonstrating that TCAR patients have a clinical phenotype mixed between those who undergo CEA and TF-CAS. The average in-hospital stroke/death risk after TCAR was 2.3% in 2016 and 1.7% in 2022 (P trend: 0.954).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR now represents nearly 1-in-4 procedures at centers offering it. TCAR was increasingly performed among standard-risk patients and as a first-line procedural option after stroke. The absence of level 1 evidence underscores the importance of high-quality registry-based analyses to document TCAR's real-world outcomes and durability.

Absolute and relative excess mortality across demographic and clinical subgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study from a nationwide healthcare system of US Veterans

Background

Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality.

Methods

We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e., excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths), and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall, and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively.

Results

Of 5,905,747 patients, median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103,164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46).

Conclusions

Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasising the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

Excess Mortality Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health System Compared With the Overall US Population During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a substantial increase in the rate of death in the United States. It is unclear whether those who had access to comprehensive medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system had different death rates compared with the overall US population.

Objective

To quantify and compare the increase in death rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic between individuals who received comprehensive medical care through the VA health care system and those in the general US population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study compared 10.9 million enrollees in the VA, including 6.8 million active users of VA health care (those with a visit in the last 2 years), with the general population of the US, with deaths occurring from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. Statistical analysis was conducted from May 17, 2021, to March 15, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Changes in rates of death from any cause during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with previous years. Changes in all-cause death rates by quarter were stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and region, based on individual-level data. Multilevel regression models were fit in a bayesian setting. Standardized rates were used for comparison between populations.

Results

There were 10.9 million enrollees in the VA health care system and 6.8 million active users. The demographic characteristics of the VA populations were predominantly male (>85% in the VA health care system vs 49% in the general US population), older (mean [SD], 61.0 [18.2] years in the VA health care system vs 39.0 [23.1] years in the US population), and had a larger proportion of patients who were White (73% in the VA health care system vs 61% in the US population) or Black (17% in the VA health care system vs 13% in the US population). Increases in death rates were apparent across all of the adult age groups (≥25 years) in both the VA populations and the general US population. Across all of 2020, the relative increase in death rates compared with expected values was similar for VA enrollees (risk ratio [RR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.29]), VA active users (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), and the general US population (RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.17-1.22]). Because the prepandemic standardized mortality rates were higher in the VA populations prior to the pandemic, the absolute rates of excess mortality were higher in the VA populations.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a comparison of excess deaths between populations suggests that active users of the VA health system had similar relative increases in mortality compared with the general US population during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Postoperative Clostridium difficile infection has a differential procedure-specific association with surgical outcomes in contemporary United States practice

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made the prevention of in-hospital Clostridium difficile infection a priority. However, whether there is a differential impact of Clostridium difficile on surgical patients remains undefined. Therefore, we quantified the procedure-specific association between postoperative Clostridium difficile and surgical outcomes to define opportunities for targeted quality improvement.

METHODS

We studied patients undergoing major cardiac, vascular, general, or oncologic procedures using the Vizient database from 2015 to 2019. Our primary exposure was postoperative Clostridium difficile infection. Our primary outcomes were postoperative length of stay, hospitalization cost, readmission, and in-hospital mortality. We used linear and logistic regression for risk adjustment.

RESULTS

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was 1.6% (n = 6,506/397,750). Patients with Clostridium difficile were older, more comorbid, and more frequently underwent urgent surgery. The median postoperative length of stay was 7 days (interquartile range: 5-11 days), and it was 66% longer among those with Clostridium difficile (P < .001). Similarly, the median hospitalization cost was $31,000 (interquartile range: $20,000-$49,000), and it was 51% greater among patients with Clostridium difficile (P < .001). Postoperative Clostridium difficile was associated with more readmissions after coronary artery bypass grafting, small bowel resection, colectomy, gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, and infrainguinal bypass (adjusted odds ratio range: 1.4-1.7), but not after open aneurysm repair, suprainguinal bypass, or esophagectomy. Clostridium difficile was associated with increased mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting, small bowel resection, colectomy, and infrainguinal bypass (adjusted odds ratio range: 1.3-2.7), but not after open aneurysm repair, suprainguinal bypass, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, or pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative Clostridium difficile infection was differentially associated with increased length of stay, cost, readmissions, and mortality across specific procedures. This was most apparent after infrainguinal bypass, small bowel resection, colectomy, and coronary artery bypass grafting. Accordingly, a targeted Clostridium difficile reduction effort for these procedures may offer a more effective approach toward reducing infection rates.

The global burden of peripheral artery disease

BACKGROUND

Previous efforts to characterize the burden of peripheral artery disease (PAD) have focused on national populations. A need for a more detailed analysis of how PAD impacts the global population has been identified. Our objective was to study in greater detail the global burden of PAD, including its impact on mortality, over the past three decades.

METHODS

Using data and models from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study, we estimated the prevalence, years of life lost, years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (a measure accounting for incurred morbidity and mortality), attributable to PAD. We analyzed results over time and stratified by sex, age, and sociodemographic index (SDI) group. We compared PAD with other atherosclerosis-related conditions and assessed the contribution of risk factors to PAD disability-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

We observed a 72% increase in the global prevalence of PAD from an estimated 65,764,499 persons in 1990 to 113,443,016 in 2019. Prevalence per 100,000 persons increased 13% and the prevalence per 100,000 age-standardized decreased 22%. Similar patterns were seen for years of live lost, mortality, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years. The prevalence and disability were higher among women, whereas mortality and years of life lost were higher among men. Disease burden increased with increasing SDI. These increases in PAD were in contrast with global trends for the overall burden of ischemic heart disease and ischemic stroke, which had decreasing prevalence and disease-related mortality over the same time frame. Overall, only approximately 55% of PAD disease burden could be attributed to identified risk factors, with tobacco use, diabetes, and hypertension being the three major contributors in all SDI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The global prevalence and mortality associated with PAD has increased substantially, in contrast with other forms of ischemic cardiovascular disease. Globally, there is a growing need for vascular surgical resources to manage PAD, as well as public health efforts to address risk factors for this increasing health threat.

What Is the Role of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in the Treatment of Carotid Stenosis?

TCAR for the Treatment of Carotid StenosisTwo carotid revascularization strategies, CEA and TF-CAS, have been informed by high-quality randomized trials. In contrast, no randomized trial evidence exists regarding a newer procedural option, TCAR. The authors discuss these procedures and propose a randomized trial to inform the role of TCAR in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

The Contemporary Impact of Body Mass Index on Open Aortic Aneurysm Repair

INTRODUCTION

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has deemed obesity a national epidemic and contributor to other leading causes of death including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Accordingly, the role of body mass index (BMI) and its impact on surgical outcomes has been a focus of persistent investigation. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of BMI on open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (oAAA) outcomes in contemporary practice.

METHODS

All elective oAAAs in the VQI (2010-2021) were identified. End-points included 30-day death, in-hospital complications and 1-year mortality. Patients were stratified into four BMI cohorts (BMI<18.5, 18.5≤BMI<25, 25≤BMI<30, BMI≥30). Spline interpolation was used to explore a potential non-linear association between BMI and perioperative mortality. Mixed-effects Cox regression was used to assess the association between BMI and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

9,479 patients underwent oAAA over the study interval (median age-70, 74%-male, BMI 27±6). Lower BMI patients(<18.5) compared to higher BMI(>30) patients were more likely to be women (53% vs. 32%;p<.0001), current smokers(65% vs. 50%;p<.0001), and have COPD(58% vs. 37%;p<.0001). In contrast, an increased BMI was associated with a greater prevalence of diabetes and CAD (DM-26% vs. 6%;p<.0001; CAD-27% vs. 20%;p=.01). There was no difference in cross-clamp position or visceral/renal bypass between groups, though low BMI patients necessitated more frequent infrainguinal bypass(5% vs. 2%;p=.0002). 30-day mortality and in-hospital complications were greater among low BMI patients(30-day mortality:12% vs. 4%;p<.0001;complications-47% vs. 37%;p<.0001). Interestingly, low BMI conferred a nearly 2-fold increase in observed pulmonary complications(18% vs. 11%;p<.0001). Surgical site infections were twice as common among the lowest and highest BMI groups(4% vs. 2%;p<.0001). 1-year mortality was greatest among low BMI patients(23% vs. 9%;p<.0001). Adjusted spline-fit analysis demonstrated increased mortality among patients with BMI<21 or >34(BMI<18.5-HR 2.1, 95%CI 1.6-2.8;p<.0001; BMI>34-HR 1.3, 95%CI 1.1-1.6;p=.009).

CONCLUSION

Both low (<18.5) and high (>34) BMI were associated with increased oAAA mortality in current practice. Despite the perception that obesity confers substantial surgical risk during oAAA, diminished BMI was associated with a 3-fold increase in 30-day and 1-year mortality. It appears that BMI extremes are distinct proxies for differential clinical phenotypes and should inform risk stratification for oAAA repair.

Preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of patients undergoing major vascular surgery

Patients undergoing major vascular surgery have an increased risk of perioperative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Accordingly, in this population, it is of particular importance to appropriately risk stratify patients' risk for these complications and optimize risk factors prior to surgical intervention. Comorbidities that portend a higher risk of perioperative MACE include coronary artery disease, heart failure, left-sided valvular heart disease, and significant arrhythmic burden. In this review, we provide a current approach to risk stratification prior to major vascular surgery and describe the strengths and weaknesses of different cardiac risk indices; discuss the role of noninvasive and invasive cardiac testing; and review perioperative pharmacotherapies.

Procedural Safety Comparison Between Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Carotid Endarterectomy, and Carotid Stenting: Perioperative and 1-Year Rates of Stroke or Death

Background Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, no randomized trial to evaluate TCAR has been performed to date, and previous reports have important limitations. Accordingly, we measured stroke or death after TCAR compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Methods and Results We used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry to study patients who underwent TCAR, CEA, or TF-CAS from September 2016 to June 2021. Our primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year stroke or death. We used logistic regression for risk adjustment for perioperative outcomes and Cox regression for risk adjustment for 1-year outcomes. We used a 2-stage residual inclusion instrumental variable (IV) method to adjust for selection bias and other unmeasured confounding. Our instrument was a center's preference to perform TCAR versus CEA or TF-CAS. We performed a subgroup analysis stratified by presenting neurologic symptoms. We studied 21 234 patients who underwent TCAR, 82 737 who underwent CEA, and 14 595 who underwent TF-CAS across 662 centers. The perioperative rate of stroke or death was 2.0% for TCAR, 1.7% for CEA, and 3.7% for TF-CAS (P<0.001). Compared with TCAR, the IV-adjusted odds ratio of perioperative stroke or death for CEA was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.99) and for TF-CAS was 1.66 (95% CI, 0.99-2.79). Results were similar among both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The 1-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% for TCAR, 5.2% for CEA, and 9.7% for TF-CAS (P<0.001). Compared with TCAR, the IV-adjusted hazard ratio of 1 year stroke or death for CEA was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.17), and for TF-CAS was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.04-2.02). IV analysis further demonstrated that symptomatic patients with carotid stenosis had the lowest 1-year likelihood of stroke or death with TCAR (compared with TCAR, symptomatic IV-adjusted hazard ratio for CEA: 1.30 [95% CI, 1.04-1.64], and TF-CAS: 1.86 [95% CI, 1.27-2.71]). Conclusions Perioperative stroke or death was greater following TCAR when compared with CEA. However, at 1 year there was no statistically significant difference in stroke or death between the 2 procedures. TCAR performed favorably compared with TF-CAS at both time points. Although CEA remains the gold standard procedure for patients with carotid stenosis, TCAR appears to be a safe alternative to CEA and TF-CAS when used selectively and may be useful when treating symptomatic patients.

The financial implications of cardiac stress testing prior to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

The utilization and cost-effectiveness of stress testing before abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains insufficiently studied. We examined the variation and financial implications of stress testing, and their association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

We studied patients who underwent elective endovascular (EVAR) or open AAA repair (OAR) at Vascular Quality Initiative centers from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles of preoperative stress testing frequency. We calculated the risk of postoperative MACE, a composite of in-hospital myocardial infarction, heart failure, or death, for each center-quintile. We obtained charges for stress tests locally and applied these to the cohort to estimate charges per 1000 patients.

RESULTS

We studied 32,459 patients (EVAR: 27,978; OAR: 4481; 283 centers). Stress test utilization varied across quintiles from 13.0% to 68.6% (median: 36.8%) before EVAR and 15.9% to 85.0% (median: 59.4%) before OAR. The risk of MACE was 1.4% after EVAR and 10.2% after OAR. There was a trend towards more common MACE after EVAR among centers with higher utilization of stress testing: 0.9% among centers in the lowest quintile, versus 1.7% in the highest quintile (p-trend = 0.068). There was no association between MACE and stress testing frequency for OAR (p-trend = 0.223). The estimated financial charges for stress testing before EVAR ranged from $125,806 per 1000 patients at 1^st-quintile centers, to $665,975 at 5^th-quintile centers. Charges before OAR ranged from $153,861 at 1^st-quintile centers, to $825,473 at 5^th-quintile centers.

CONCLUSION

Stress test use before AAA repair is highly variable and associated with substantial cost, with an unclear association with postoperative MACE. This highlights the need for improved stress testing paradigms prior to surgery.

Sex-, Race- and Ethnicity-Based Differences in Thromboembolic Events Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19

Background

Patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 have an increased risk of thromboembolic events. Whether sex, race or ethnicity impacts these events is unknown. We studied the association between sex, race, and ethnicity and venous and arterial thromboembolic events among adults hospitalized with COVID‐19.

Methods and Results

We used the American Heart Association Cardiovascular Disease COVID‐19 registry. Primary exposures were sex and race and ethnicity, as defined by the registry. Primary outcomes were venous thromboembolic events and arterial thromboembolic events. We used logistic regression for risk adjustment. We studied 21 528 adults hospitalized with COVID‐19 across 107 centers (54.1% men; 38.1% non‐Hispanic White, 25.4% Hispanic, 25.7% non‐Hispanic Black, 0.5% Native American, 4.0% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, and 5.9% other race and ethnicity). The rate of venous thromboembolic events was 3.7% and was more common in men (4.2%) than women (3.2%; P<0.001), and in non‐Hispanic Black patients (4.9%) than other races and ethnicities (range, 1.3%–3.8%; P<0.001). The rate of arterial thromboembolic events was 3.9% and was more common in men (4.3%) than women (3.5%; P=0.002), and in non‐Hispanic Black patients (5.0%) than other races and ethnicities (range, 2.3%–4.7%; P<0.001). Compared with men, women were less likely to experience venous thromboembolic events (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61–0.83) and arterial thromboembolic events (adjusted OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66–0.89). Compared with non‐Hispanic White patients, non‐Hispanic Black patients had the highest likelihood of venous thromboembolic events (adjusted OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04–1.54) and arterial thromboembolic events (adjusted OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11–1.65).

Conclusions

Men and non‐Hispanic Black adults hospitalized with COVID‐19 are more likely to have venous and arterial thromboembolic events. These subgroups may represent at‐risk patients more susceptible to thromboembolic COVID‐19 complications.

Procedure-Associated Costs and Mid-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Zone 0 and Zone 1 Aortic Arch Repair

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of proximal aortic arch pathology provides a less-invasive treatment option for high-risk patients ineligible for open arch reconstruction. However, the fiscal impact of these techniques remains unclear. Therefore, our objective was to characterize the mid-term outcomes after Zone 0 and Zone 1 TEVAR and describe the associated technical costs, revenues, and net margins at a single tertiary medical center.

METHODS

We examined all patients who underwent TEVAR between April 2011 and August 2019 via retrospective chart review. Patients were categorized by proximal endograft extent to identify Zone 0 or Zone 1 repairs. Procedural characteristics and outcomes were described. Technical costs, revenues, and margins were obtained from the hospital finance department.

RESULTS

We identified 10 patients (6 Zone 0, 4 Zone 1) who were denied open arch reconstruction. Patients were predominantly female (n = 8; 80%) and the mean age was 72.8 ± 5.5 years. TEVAR was performed in 5 asymptomatic patients, urgently in 3 symptomatic patients, and emergently in 2 ruptured patients. TEVAR plus extra-anatomic bypass was performed in 4 patients. Another 4 patients also received parallel stent-grafting while 1 patient received a branched thoracic endograft and yet another an in-situ laser fenestration followed by branch stent grafting. Within the 30-day postoperative period, 1 patient experienced stroke and 1 patient died. Bypass and branch vessel patency were 100% through the duration of follow-up (mean 19.3 months). Mean total technical cost associated with all procedures or repair stages was $105,164 ± $59,338 while mean net technical margin was -$25,055 ± $18,746. The net technical margin was negative for 9 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of the proximal aortic arch is associated with good mid-term outcomes in patients considered too high-risk for open repair. However, reimbursement does not adequately cover treatment cost, with net technical margins being negative in nearly all cases. To remain financially sustainable, efforts should be made to both optimize aortic arch TEVAR delivery as well as advocate for reimbursement commensurate with associated costs.

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Patient Education Materials for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient education materials are created by professional organizations to inform patients about their disease and its treatment. However, it remains unclear if these materials are appropriate for patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to broadly evaluate the education materials for patients with colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Patient education materials from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons were assessed quantitatively by using 1) the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula and 2) the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool scores materials in 2 domains: understandability and actionability. These materials were further evaluated qualitatively via an exploratory focus group with patients and their caregivers (n = 5) and semi-structured interviews with board-certified/eligible colorectal surgeons (n = 10).

SETTING

This study was conducted at academic centers and a regional professional society meeting.

PARTICIPANTS

The mean patient age was 63. Most surgeons (8/10) practiced in an academic setting, and 4/10 were female.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were reading grade level and domain scores for the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were generated through data interpretation and data reduction.

RESULTS

Materials ranged from 7th to 11th grade reading level. National Comprehensive Cancer Network materials scored highest for understandability (92.2% ± 6.1%, mean ± SD), followed by National Cancer Institute (84.0% ± 6.6%) and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (82.2% ± 6.3%) materials. Actionability scores varied; the National Comprehensive Cancer Network materials scored 82.5% ± 1.7%, whereas the National Cancer Institute and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons materials scored 23.3% ± 6.7% and 50.0% ± 8.2%. Critical gaps were identified in the content of these materials. Patients wanted more information about self-care, both emotional and physical. Specifically, patients sought details about postoperative bowel function. Whereas surgeons wanted information about the typical hospital course and recovery, all wanted materials to be customizable.

LIMITATIONS

A limited number of materials were reviewed, and patient focus groups were exploratory.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly available printed education materials for colorectal cancer are written at a high reading grade level, vary in their usability, and neglect important details about postoperative recovery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B535.

EVALUACIN DE MTODOS MIXTOS DE MATERIALES EDUCATIVOS PARA PACIENTES SOBRE CNCER COLORECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:Los materiales educativos para pacientes son creados por organizaciones profesionales para informar a los pacientes sobre su enfermedad y su tratamiento. Sin embargo, no está claro si estos materiales son apropiados para los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar ampliamente los materiales para el cáncer colorrectal.DISEÑO:Los materiales educativos para pacientes de la Red Nacional Integral del Cáncer (NCCN), el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer (NCI) y la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto (ASCRS) se evaluaron cuantitativamente utilizando (1) la fórmula de legibilidad de Flesch-Kincaid y (2) la herramienta de evaluación de material educativo para pacientes. La Herramienta de evaluación de materiales educativos para pacientes califica los materiales en dos dominios: comprensibilidad y viabilidad. Estos materiales fueron evaluados cualitativamente a través de un grupo de enfoque exploratorio con pacientes y sus cuidadores (n = 5) y entrevistas semiestructuradas con cirujanos colorrectales certificados o elegibles para certificación por el consejo (n = 10).ESCENARIO:Centros académicos y un encuentro regional de una sociedad profesional.PACIENTES:La edad media de los pacientes fue de 63 años. La mayoría de los cirujanos (8/10) practicaban en un entorno académico, y 4/10 eran mujeres.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Nivel de grado de lectura y puntajes de dominios para la Herramienta de evaluación de materiales educativos para pacientes. Los datos cualitativos se registraron, transcribieron y codificaron. Los temas se generaron mediante la interpretación y la reducción de datos.RESULTADOS:Los materiales variaron desde el nivel de lectura del 7° al 11° grado. Los materiales de la NCCN obtuvieron la puntuación más alta en comprensibilidad (92.2 ± 6.1%, media ± DE), seguidos por los materiales de NCI (84.0 ± 6.6%) y ASCRS (82.2 ± 6.3%). Los puntajes de viabilidad variaron; Los materiales de NCCN obtuvieron una puntuación de 82.5 ± 1.7%, mientras que los materiales de NCI y ASCRS obtuvieron una puntuación de 23.3 ± 6.7% y 50.0 ± 8.2%, respectivamente. Se identificaron lagunas críticas en el contenido de estos materiales. Los pacientes querían más información sobre el autocuidado, tanto emocional como físico. Específicamente, los pacientes buscaron detalles sobre la función intestinal posoperatoria. Mientras que los cirujanos querían información sobre el curso hospitalario típico y la recuperación, y todos querían que los materiales fueran personalizables.LIMITACIONES:Se revisó una cantidad limitada de materiales y los grupos de enfoque de pacientes fueron exploratorios.CONCLUSIONES:Los materiales educativos impresos comúnmente disponibles para el cáncer colorrectal están escritos a un alto nivel de grado de lectura, varían en su usabilidad y omiten detalles importantes sobre la recuperación postoperatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B535.

Long-term Reintervention After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To describe the long-term reintervention rate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR), and identify factors predicting reintervention.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

EVR is the most common method of aneurysm repair in America, and reintervention after EVR is common. Clinical factors predicting reintervention have not been described in large datasets with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We studied patients who underwent EVR using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry linked to Medicare claims. Our primary outcome was reintervention, defined as any procedure related to the EVR after discharge from the index hospitalization. We used classification and regression tree modeling to inform a multivariable Cox-regression model predicting reintervention after EVR.

RESULTS

We studied 12,911 patients treated from 2003 to 2015. Mean age was 75.5 ± 7.3 years, 79.9% were male, and 89.1% of operations were elective. The 3-year reintervention rate was 15%, and the 10-year rate was 33%. Five factors predicted reintervention: operative time ≥3.0 hours, aneurysm diameter ≥6.0 cm, an iliac artery aneurysm ≥2.0 cm, emergency surgery, and a history of prior aortic surgery. Patients with no risk factors had a 3-year reintervention rate of 12%, and 10-year rate of 26% (n = 7310). Patients with multiple risk factors, such as prior aortic surgery and emergent surgery, had a 3-year reintervention rate 72%, (n = 32). Modifiable factors including EVR graft manufacturer or supra-renal fixation were not associated with reintervention (P = 0.76 and 0.79 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

All patients retain a high likelihood of reintervention after EVR, but clinical factors at the time of repair can predict those at highest risk.

Stress testing before abdominal aortic aneurysm repair does not lead to a reduction in perioperative cardiac events

OBJECTIVE

Stress testing is often used before abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Whether stress testing leads to a reduction in cardiac events after AAA repair has remained unclear. Our objective was to study the national stress test usage rates and compare the perioperative outcomes between centers with high and low usage of stress testing.

METHODS

We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who had undergone elective endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) or open AAA repair (OAR). We measured the usage rates of stress testing across centers and compared the Vascular Study Group of New England cardiac risk index (VSG-CRI) among patients who had and had not undergone preoperative stress testing. We determined the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure exacerbation, and death across the centers. We compared the MACE and 1-year mortality between the centers in the highest quintile of stress test usage and the lowest quintile.

RESULTS

We studied 43,396 EVAR patients and 8935 OAR patients across 324 centers. The median proportion of stress test usage across centers before EVAR was 35.9% and varied from 10.2% (5th percentile) to 73.7% (95th percentile), with similar variability for OAR (median, 57.9%; 5th percentile, 13.0%; 95th percentile, 86.0%). The mean VSG-CRI for the EVAR group with preoperative stress testing was 5.6 ± 2.1 compared with 5.4 ± 2.1 (P < .001) for the EVAR group without preoperative stress testing. The findings were similar for OAR, with a VSG-CRI of 5.1 ± 2.0 vs 4.8 ± 2.1 (P < .001) for those with and without preoperative stress testing, respectively. The rate of MACE was 1.8% after EVAR and 11.6% after OAR. The 1-year mortality was 4.6% for EVAR and 6.6% for OAR. The centers in the highest quintile of stress testing had a higher adjusted likelihood of MACE after both EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.30) and OAR (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.53-2.59) but similar 1-year mortality (EVAR: OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.37; OAR: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65-1.17) compared with the centers in the lowest quintile. The VSG-CRI was not different between the high stress test centers (EVAR, 5.5 ± 2.1; OAR: 5.0 ± 2.0), and low stress test centers (EVAR, 5.5 ± 2.1; P = .403; OAR, 4.9 ± 2.0; P = .563).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress test usage before AAA repair varied widely across Vascular Quality Initiative centers despite similar patient risk profiles. No reduction was observed in MACE or 1-year mortality among centers with high stress test usage. The value of routine stress testing before AAA repair should be reconsidered, and stress testing should be used more selectively, given these findings and the associated costs of widespread testing.

Association of Adoption of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Center-Level Perioperative Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may serve as a safer alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for certain patients with carotid artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the center-level association of TCAR adoption with overall perioperative outcomes for TCAR and CEA combined at centers performing both procedures.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative-effectiveness research was conducted with a difference-in-difference analysis using retrospective data from 2015 to 2019 from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, a consortium of more than 400 centers in North America. Included patients underwent TCAR or CEA for carotid artery stenosis. Patients who underwent transfemoral carotid stenting were excluded. Data were analyzed from December 2019 through August 2020.

EXPOSURES

Center-level adoption of TCAR vs not.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 30 days, was measured.

RESULTS

Among 86 027 patients who underwent revascularization for carotid artery stenosis, 7664 patients (8.9%) underwent TCAR (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [9.6] years; 2788 [36.4%] women; 6938 White patients [90.6%]; and 3741 patients with symptoms [48.8%]) and 78 363 patients (91.1%) underwent CEA (mean [SD] age, 70.6 [9.2] years; 30 928 [39.5%] women; 70 663 White patients [90.2%]; and 37 883 patients with symptoms [48.3%]). The number of centers performing both TCAR and CEA increased from 15 centers in 2015 to 247 centers in 2019, a more than 16-fold increase. The proportion of all carotid procedures that were TCARs increased from 90 of 12 276 (0.7%) in 2015 to 2718 of 15 956 (17.0%) in 2019, a 24-fold increase. Overall, the crude rate of MACE was similar for TCAR and CEA (178 patients [2.3%] after TCAR vs 1842 patients [2.4%] after CEA; P = .91). However, the rate of MACE over time decreased for CEA (406 of 16 404 patients [2.5%] in 2015 vs 189 of 10 097 patients [1.9%] in 2019; P for trend < .001). The rate of MACE over time decreased for TCAR as well, but the change was not statistically significant (4 of 128 patients [3.1%] in 2016 vs 59 of 2718 patients [2.2%] in 2019; P for trend = .07). Difference-in-difference analysis demonstrated that centers that adopted TCAR had a 10% decrease in the likelihood of MACE at 12 months after TCAR adoption vs if those centers had continued to perform CEA alone (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This comparative-effectiveness study of a cohort of patients who underwent TCAR or CEA found that availability of TCAR at a hospital was associated with a decrease in the likelihood of perioperative MACE after carotid revascularization.

Novel use of the ENROUTE transcarotid arterial sheath for antegrade cerebral perfusion during retrograde innominate stenting

Femoral-carotid bypass has been described to preserve antegrade cerebral perfusion during aortic arch and great vessel interventions. We describe a novel use of the ENROUTE transcarotid arterial sheath (Silk Road Medical, Sunnyvale, Calif) as the outflow component of a femoral-carotid shunt for maintenance of antegrade cerebral perfusion during a retrograde innominate stenting procedure. We discuss the unique advantages of this sheath for use in this application.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice

OBJECTIVE

The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change.

METHODS

All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18).

CONCLUSIONS

Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

Medicare costs for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

Reintervention after endovascular repair (EVR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms is common. However, the cumulative financial impact of reintervention after EVR on a national scale is poorly defined. Our objective was to describe the cost to Medicare for aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) among a cohort of patients with known follow-up for 5 years after repair.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent EVR within the Vascular Quality Initiative who were linked to their respective Medicare claims file (n = 13,995). We excluded patients who underwent EVR after September 30, 2010, and those who had incomplete Medicare coverage (n = 12,788). The remaining cohort (n = 1207) had complete follow-up until death or 5 years (Medicare data available through September 30, 2015). We then obtained and compiled the corresponding Medicare reimbursement data for the index EVR hospitalization and all subsequent reinterventions.

RESULTS

We studied 1207 Medicare patients who underwent EVR and had known follow-up for reinterventions for 5 years. The mean age was 76.2 years (±7.1 years), 21.6% of patients were female, and 91.1% of procedures were elective. The Kaplan-Meier reintervention rate at 5 years was 18%. Among patients who underwent reintervention, 154 (73.7%) had a single reintervention, 40 (19.1%) had two reinterventions, and 15 (7.2%) had three or more reinterventions. The median cost to Medicare for the index EVR hospitalization was $25,745 (interquartile range, $21,131-$28,774). The median cost for subsequent reinterventions was $22,165 (interquartile range, $17,152-$29,605). The cumulative cost to Medicare of aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) increased in a stepwise fashion among patients who underwent multiple reinterventions, with each reintervention being similar in cost to the index EVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall cost incurred by Medicare to reimburse for each reintervention after EVR is roughly the same as for the initial procedure itself, meaning that Medicare cost projections would be greater than $100,000 for any individual who undergoes an EVR with three reinterventions. The long-term financial impact of EVR must be considered by surgeons, patients, and healthcare systems alike as these cumulative costs may hinder the fiscal viability of an EVR-first therapeutic approach and highlight the need for judicious patient selection paradigms.

Outcomes of Innominate Artery Revascularization Through Endovascular, Hybrid, or Open Approach

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic disease of the innominate artery (IA) is rare and can lead to cerebral, upper extremity, and vertebral steal symptoms. Nonocclusive lesions can be treated with endovascular interventions, often with a hybrid approach while performing a right carotid endarterectomy (RCEA). Calcified IA lesions have a high risk of embolization to bilateral cerebral hemispheres. Occlusive lesions may require treatment through a median sternotomy and bypass. The purpose of our study is to review our short-term and long-term outcomes of IA revascularization.

METHODS

Our operative database was used to identify patients who underwent IA revascularization between January 1998 and December 2018. Patients who underwent innominate artery stenting (IAS), combined with RCEA and IAS as well as aortoinnominate bypass (AIB), were identified. Our primary end points were freedom from neurologic event, all-cause mortality, and need for reintervention.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (18 females [55%]) who underwent IA revascularization were identified. Average age was 67 ± 8 years, and mean clinical follow-up was 51 ± 21 months. Most patients (30 [91%]) were on a statin and antiplatelet therapy. Twenty-one patients (64%) were symptomatic. Twelve patients (36%) were asymptomatic and underwent combined RCEA with retrograde IAS for critical right carotid stenosis and IA stenosis. Preoperative imaging included a carotid duplex and computed tomography angiography. Eighteen patients (55%) underwent RCEA + IAS, 11 patients (33%) underwent isolated IAS, and 4 patients (12%) underwent AIB. In our attempt to protect bilateral hemispheres during IAS for heavily calcified lesions, we used right common carotid artery (CCA) clamping although open exposure and left CCA embolic protection filter was placed through transfemoral approach. Patients who underwent AIB had chronic heavily calcified IA occlusions or occluded IA stents with failed endovascular interventions. Perioperative stroke rate was 3%, involving 1 patient who developed reperfusion syndrome after RCEA + IAS. Perioperative mortality was 0%. Long-term stroke rate was 0%, and long-term mortality was 15% (5 of 33) because of cardiac disease. Overall restenosis rate was 9%, involving 3 patients who required secondary interventions for IA in-stent restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

IA interventions through a hybrid approach or an open approach are safe, with acceptable perioperative stroke and mortality rates. Long-term patency of these interventions is acceptable. Bilateral cerebral embolic protection can be accomplished by clamping the right CCA through an open exposure and placing a filter in the left CCA through a transfemoral approach. Patients undergoing IAS appear to have a higher rate of restenosis compared with AIB, and therefore, close follow-up with noninvasive imaging is recommended.

Longitudinal Spending on Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients requiring elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Long-term outcomes of the 2 approaches are similar, making the relative cost of caring for these patients over time an important consideration.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We linked Medicare claims to Vascular Quality Initiative registry data for patients undergoing elective EVR or open AAA repair from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was Medicare's cumulative disease-related spending, adjusted to 2015 dollars. Disease-related spending included the index operation and associated hospitalization, surveillance imaging, reinterventions (AAA-related and abdominal wall procedures), and all-cause admissions within 90 days. We compared the incidence of disease-related events and cumulative spending at 90 days and annually through 7 years of follow-up. The analytic cohort comprised 6804 EVR patients (median follow-up: 1.85 years; interquartile range: 0.82-3.22 years) and 1889 open repair patients (median follow-up: 2.62 years; interquartile range: 1.13-4.80 years). Spending on index surgery was significantly lower for EVR (median [interquartile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001). EVR patients underwent more surveillance imaging (1.8 studies per person-year EVR versus 0.7 studies per person-year open; P<0.001) and AAA-related reinterventions (4.0 per 100 person-years EVR versus 2.1 per 100 person-years open; P=0.041). Open repair patients had higher rates of 90-day readmission (12.9% EVR versus 17.8% open; P<0.001) and abdominal wall procedures (0.6 per 100 person-years EVR versus 1.5 per 100 person-years open; P<0.001). Overall, EVR patients incurred more disease-related spending in follow-up ($7355 EVR versus $2706 open through 5 years). There was no cumulative difference in disease-related spending between surgical groups by 5 years of follow-up (-$33 EVR [95% CI: -$1543 to $1476]).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no cumulative difference in disease-related spending on EVR and open repair patients 5 years after surgery. Generalized recommendations about which approach to offer elective AAA patients should not be based on relative cost.

Design of the PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) Trial

For patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), randomized trials have found endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality than open surgical repair (OSR). However, OSR has fewer long-term aneurysm-related complications, such as endoleak or late rupture. Patients treated with EVAR and OSR have similar survival rates within two years after surgery, and OSR does not require intensive surveillance. Few have examined if patient preferences are aligned with the type of treatment they receive for their AAA. Although many assume that patients may universally prefer the less-invasive nature of EVAR, our preliminary work suggests that patients who value the lower risk of late complications may prefer OSR. In this study, called The PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) trial, we describe a cluster-randomized trial to test if a decision aid can better align patients' preferences and their treatment type for AAA. Patients enrolled in the study are candidates for either endovascular or open repair and are followed up at VA hospitals by vascular surgery teams who regularly perform both types of repair. In Aim 1, we will determine patients' preferences for endovascular or open repair and identify domains associated with each repair type. In Aim 2, we will assess alignment between patients' preferences and the repair type elected and then compare the impact of a decision aid on this alignment between the intervention and control groups. This study will help us to accomplish two goals. First, we will better understand the factors that affect patient preference when choosing between EVAR and OSR. Second, we will better understand if a decision aid can help patients be more likely to receive the treatment strategy they prefer for their AAA. Study enrollment began on June 1, 2017. Between June 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018, we have enrolled 178 of a total goal of 240 veterans from 20 VA medical centers and their vascular surgery teams across the country. We anticipate completing enrollment in PROVE-AAA in June 2019, and study analyses will be performed thereafter.

Adverse cardiac events after vascular surgery are prevalent despite negative results of preoperative stress testing

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac risk assessment is a critical component of vascular disease management before surgical intervention. The predictive risk reduction of a negative cardiac stress test result remains poorly defined. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative cardiac events among patients with negative stress test results vs those who did not undergo testing.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients who underwent elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, suprainguinal bypass, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and infrainguinal bypass within the Vascular Study Group of New England from 2003 to 2017. We excluded patients with positive stress test results (n = 3312) and studied two mutually exclusive groups: elective surgery patients with a negative stress test result and elective surgery patients with no stress test (total n = 26,910). The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital postoperative cardiac events (dysrhythmia, heart attack, heart failure) or death.

RESULTS

A preoperative stress test was obtained in 66.3% of open repairs, 42.8% of suprainguinal bypasses, 37.1% of EVARs, 36.0% of CEAs, and 31.2% of infrainguinal bypasses. The proportion of patients receiving a preoperative stress test varied widely across centers, from 37.1% to 80.0%. The crude odds ratio of in-hospital postoperative cardiac event or death was 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.76) for open repair and 1.52 (CI, 1.13-2.03) for suprainguinal bypass, indicating that patients with negative stress test results before these procedures were 37% and 52% more likely to suffer a postoperative event or die compared with patients selected to proceed directly to surgery without testing. Conversely, the crude odds ratio was 0.92 (CI, 0.66-1.29) for EVAR, 0.92 (CI, 0.70-1.21) for CEA, and 1.13 (CI, 0.90-1.40) for infrainguinal bypass, indicating that patients undergoing these procedures had a similar likelihood of sustaining an event whether they had a negative stress test result or proceeded directly to surgery without a stress test.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of cardiac stress testing before vascular surgery varies widely throughout New England. Whereas patients are often appropriately selected to proceed directly to surgery, a negative preoperative stress test result should not assuage the concern for an adverse outcome as these patients retain a substantial likelihood of cardiac events, especially after large-magnitude procedures.