Objective

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA.

Summary background data

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and one-year outcomes compared to CEA. We aimed to compare the one-year and three-year outcomes of TCAR vs. CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked (Vascular Implant Surveillance & Interventional Outcomes Network [VISION]) database.

Methods

The VISION Database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was one-year and three-years survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce two well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression were used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison.

Results

A total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8,089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7,351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in one-year death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.99-1.30; P=0.065). At three-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.30; P=0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased three-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.63; P=0.008). Exploratory analyses of post-operative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary.

Conclusions

In this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at one-year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of three-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard risk patients requiring carotid revascularization.

Objectives

We sought to develop a prediction score with data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) EVAR in efforts to assist endovascular specialists in deciding whether or not a patient is appropriate for short-stay discharge.

Background

Small series describe short-stay discharge following elective EVAR. Our study aims to quantify characteristics associated with this decision.

Methods

The VQI EVAR and NSQIP datasets were queried. Patients who underwent elective EVAR recorded in VQI, between 1/2010-5/2017 were split 2:1 into test and analytic cohorts via random number assignment. Cross-reference with the Medicare claims database confirmed all-cause mortality data. Bootstrap sampling was employed in model. Deep learning algorithms independently evaluated each dataset as a sensitivity test.

Results

Univariate outcomes, including 30-day survival, were statistically worse in the DD group when compared to the SD group (all P < 0.05). A prediction score, SD-EVAR, derived from the VQI EVAR dataset including pre- and intra-op variables that discriminate between SD and DD was externally validated in NSQIP (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.79, P < 0.001); deep learning analysis concurred. This score suggests 66% of EVAR patients may be appropriate for short-stay discharge. A free smart phone app calculating short-stay discharge potential is available through QxMD Calculate https://qxcalc.app.link/vqidis.

Conclusions

Selecting patients for short-stay discharge after EVAR is possible without increasing harm. The majority of infrarenal AAA patients treated with EVAR in the United States fit a risk profile consistent with short-stay discharge, representing a significant cost-savings potential to the healthcare system.

Importance

Lower extremity revascularization often seeks to allow patients with peripheral arterial disease to maintain the ability to walk, a key aspect of functional independence. Surgical outcomes in patients with high levels of functional dependence are poorly understood.

Objective

To determine functional status trajectories, changes in ambulatory status, and survival after lower extremity revascularization in nursing home residents.

Design

Using full Medicare claims data for 2005 to 2009, we identified nursing home residents who underwent lower extremity revascularization. With the Minimum Data Set for Nursing Homes activities of daily living summary score, we examined changes in their ambulatory and functional status after surgery. We identified patient and surgery characteristics associated with a composite measure of clinical and functional failure-death or nonambulatory status 1 year after surgery.

Setting

All nursing homes in the United States participating in Medicare or Medicaid.

Participants

Nursing home residents who underwent lower extremity revascularization.

Main outcomes and measures

Functional status, ambulatory status, and death.

Results

During the study period, 10,784 long-term nursing home residents underwent lower extremity revascularization. Prior to surgery, 75% of the residents were not walking; 40% had experienced functional decline. One year after surgery, 51% of patients had died, 28% were nonambulatory, and 32% had sustained functional decline. Among 1672 residents who were ambulatory before surgery, 63% had died or were nonambulatory at 1 year; among 7188 who were nonambulatory, 89% had died or were nonambulatory. After multivariate adjustment, factors independently associated with death or nonambulatory status were 80 years or older (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40), cognitive impairment (AHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29), congestive heart failure (AHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.22), renal failure (AHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14), emergent surgery (AHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23-1.35), nonambulatory status before surgery (AHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.78-1.99), and decline in activities of daily living before surgery (AHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.28).

Conclusions and relevance

Of nursing home residents in the United States who undergo lower extremity revascularization, few are alive and ambulatory 1 year after surgery. Most who were still alive had gained little, if any, function.

Objective

Vascular surgeons treating patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm must make rapid treatment decisions and sometimes lack immediate access to endovascular devices meeting the anatomic specifications of the patient at hand. We hypothesized that endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rEVAR) outside manufacturer instructions-for-use (IFU) guidelines would have similar in-hospital mortality compared to patients treated on-IFU or with an infrarenal clamp during open repair (ruptured open aortic aneurysm repair [rOAR]).

Methods

Vascular Quality Initiative datasets for endovascular and open aortic repair were queried for patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal AAA between 2013-2018. Graft-specific IFU criteria were correlated with case-specific proximal neck dimension data to classify rEVAR cases as on- or off-IFU. Univariate comparisons between the on- and off-IFU groups were performed for demographic, operative and in-hospital outcome variables. To investigate mortality differences between rEVAR and rOAR approaches, coarsened exact matching was used to match patients receiving off-IFU rEVAR with those receiving complex rEVAR (requiring at least one visceral stent or scallop) or rOAR with infrarenal, suprarenal or supraceliac clamps. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality.

Results

621 patients were treated with rEVAR, with 65% classified as on-IFU and 35% off-IFU. The off-IFU group was more frequently female (25% vs. 18%, P = 0.05) and had larger aneurysms (76 vs. 72 mm, P= 0.01) but otherwise was not statistically different from the on-IFU cohort. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients treated off-IFU vs. on-IFU (22% vs. 14%, P= 0.02). Off-IFU rEVAR was associated with longer operative times (135 min vs. 120 min, P= 0.004) and increased intraoperative blood product utilization (2 units vs. 1 unit, P= 0.002). When off-IFU patients were matched to complex rEVAR and rOAR patients, no baseline differences were found between the groups. Overall in-hospital complications associated with off-IFU were reduced compared to more complex strategies (43% vs. 60-81%, P< 0.001) and in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for off-IFU rEVAR patients compared to the supraceliac clamp group (18% vs. 38%, P= 0.006). However, there was no significantly increased mortality associated with complex rEVAR, infrarenal rOAR or suprarenal rOAR compared to off-IFU rEVAR (all P> 0.05). This finding persisted in a multivariate logistic regression.

Conclusions

Off-IFU rEVAR yields inferior in-hospital survival compared to on-IFU rEVAR but remains associated with reduced in-hospital complications when compared with more complex repair strategies. When compared with matched patients undergoing rOAR with an infrarenal or suprarenal clamp, survival was no different from off-IFU rEVAR. Taken together with the growing available evidence suggesting reduced long-term durability of off-IFU EVAR, these data suggest that a patient's comorbidity burden should be key in making the decision to pursue off-IFU rEVAR over a more complex repair when proximal neck violations are anticipated preoperatively.

Objective

Frailty is increasingly recognized as a key determinant in predicting postoperative outcomes. Centers that see more frail patients may not be captured in risk adjustment, potentially accounting for poorer outcomes in hospital comparisons. We aimed to (1) determine the effect of frailty on long-term mortality in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and (2) evaluate the variability in frailty burden among centers in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective open and endovascular AAA repair (2003-2017) were identified, and those with complete data on component variables of the VQI-derived Risk Analysis Index (VQI-RAI) and centers with ≥10 AAA repairs were included. VQI-RAI characteristics are sex, age, body mass index, renal failure, congestive heart failure, dyspnea, preoperative ambulation, and functional status. Frailty was defined as VQI-RAI ≥35 based on prior work in surgical patients using other quality improvement databases. This corresponds to the top 12% of patients at risk in the VQI. Center-level VQI-RAI differences were assessed by analysis of variance test. Relationships between frailty and survival were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test for open and endovascular procedures. Multivariable hierarchical Cox proportional hazards regression models were calculated with random intercepts for center, controlling for frailty, race, insurance, AAA diameter, procedure type, AAA case mix, and year.

Results

A total of 15,803 patients from 185 centers were included. Mean VQI-RAI scores were 27.6 (standard deviation, 5.9; range, 4-56) and varied significantly across centers (F = 2.41, P < .001). The percentage of frail patients per center ranged from 0% to 40.0%. In multivariable analysis, frailty was independently associated with long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.2) after accounting for covariates and center-level variance. Open AAA repair was not associated with long-term mortality after adjusting for frailty (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.13). There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of frail patients compared with nonfrail patients who were discharged to a rehabilitation facility or nursing home after both open (40.5% vs 17.8%; P < .0001) and endovascular repair (17.7% vs 4.6%; P < .0001).

Conclusions

There is considerable variability of preoperative frailty among VQI centers performing elective AAA repair. Adjusting for center-level variation, frailty but not procedure type had a significant association with long-term mortality; however, frailty and procedure type were both associated with nonhome discharge. Routine measurement of frailty preoperatively by centers to identify high-risk patients may help mitigate procedural and long-term outcomes and improve shared decision-making regarding AAA repair.