Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:While prior studies have confirmed the protective effect of diabetes on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) development, much less is known about the effect of diabetes, and in particular insulin dependence, on outcomes following AAA repair. In this study, we aim to evaluate the role of insulin-dependent diabetes on short-term and long-term outcomes following open and endovascular AAA repair. METHODS:The Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION), a registry linking the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data with Medicare claims, was queried for patients who underwent open or endovascular AAA repair from 2011 to the present. Exclusion criteria were unknown diabetes status, prior aortic intervention, maximum aneurysm diameter <45 mm at presentation, and Medicare Advantage coverage due to inconsistent follow-up. Patients were stratified based on diabetes status (no diabetes versus diabetes) and insulin dependence (no diabetes or non-insulin-dependent diabetes versus insulin-dependent diabetes). RESULTS:Of the 38,437 cases in the VISION endovascular aortic aneurysm (EVAR) and open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) databases, 21,943 met inclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes after OAR were comparable between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. However, diabetic patients undergoing EVAR were significantly more likely to have a postoperative myocardial infarction (1.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.04) and have a 30-day readmission (10.9% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001). Insulin-dependent diabetic patients were more likely to require a 30-day readmission after OAR (24.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.02) and EVAR (15.1% vs 9.0%, P < 0.001); however, only insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) patients undergoing EVAR experienced higher rates of postoperative myocardial infarction (1.9% vs 0.7%, P < 0.01). After propensity score matching, patients with IDDM undergoing EVAR were additionally at increased risk of mortality at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year follow-up with the highest risk occurring at the 1-year mark (hazard ratio 1.79, P < 0.0001), while IDDM patients undergoing OAR were only at a significantly increased risk of mortality at 5-year follow-up (hazard ratio 1.90, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with insulin-dependent diabetes have greater than 14% one-year mortality following open or endovascular aneurysm repair, compared to 8% for all others. Our findings raise questions about whether insulin-dependent diabetics should have a higher size threshold for prophylactic repair, although further studies are needed to address this question and consider the influence of glycemic control on these outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Intraoperative dextran infusion has been associated with reduction of an embolic risk in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Nonetheless, dextran has been associated with adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, hemorrhage, cardiac, and renal complications. Herein, we aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of CEA stratified by the use of intraoperative dextran infusion using a large multiinstitutional dataset. METHODS:Patients undergoing CEA between 2008 and 2022 from the Vascular Quality Initiative database were reviewed. Patients were categorized by use of intraoperative dextran infusion, and demographics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were compared. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to adjust for differences in patients while assessing the association between postoperative outcomes and intraoperative infusion of dextran. RESULTS:Of 140,893 patients undergoing CEA, 9,935 (7.1%) patients had intraoperative dextran infusion. Patients with intraoperative dextran infusion were older with lower rates of symptomatic stenosis (24.7% vs. 29.3%; P < 0.001) and preoperative use of antiplatelets, anticoagulants and statins. Additionally, they were more likely to have severe carotid stenosis (>80%; 49% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and undergo CEA under general anesthesia (96.4% vs. 92.3%; P < 0.001), with a more frequent use of shunt (64.4% vs. 49.5%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that intraoperative dextran infusion was associated with higher odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including myocardial infarction [MI] (odds ratio [OR], 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.3, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure [CHF] (OR, 2.15, 95% CI: 1.67-2.77, P = 0.001), and hemodynamic instability requiring vasoactive agents (OR, 1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.13, P = 0.001). However, it was not associated with decreased odds of stroke (OR, 0.92, 95% CI: 0.74-1.16, P = 0.489) or death (OR, 0.88, 95% CI: 0.58-1.35, P = 0.554). These trends persisted even when stratified by symptomatic status and degree of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS:Intraoperative infusion of dextran was associated with increased odds of MACE, including MI, CHF, and persistent hemodynamic instability, without decreasing the risk of stroke perioperatively. Given these results, judicious use of dextran in patients undergoing CEA is recommended. Furthermore, careful perioperative cardiac management is warranted in select patients receiving intraoperative dextran during CEA.

OBJECTIVE:Mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a quality measure and early death may represent a technical complication or poor patient selection. Our objective was to analyze patients that died in the hospital within postoperative day (POD) 0-2 after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003-2019 for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Operations were categorized as in-hospital death on POD 0-2 (POD 0-2 Death), in-hospital death beyond POD 2 (POD ≥3 Death), and those alive at discharge. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:There were 7,592 elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs with 61 (.8%) POD 0-2 Death, 156 (2.1%) POD ≥3 Death, and 7,375 (97.1%) alive at discharge. Overall, median age was 70 years and 73.6% were male. Iliac aneurysm repair and surgical approach (anterior/retroperitoneal) were similar amongst groups. POD 0-2 Death, compared to POD ≥3 Death and those alive at discharge, had the longest renal/visceral ischemia time, more commonly had proximal clamp placement above both renal arteries, an aortic distal anastomosis, longest operative time, and largest estimated blood loss (all P<.05). Postoperative vasopressor usage, myocardial infarction, stroke, and return to the operating room were most frequent in POD 0-2 Death and extubation in the operating room was least frequent (all P<.001). Postoperative bowel ischemia and renal failure occurred most commonly amongst POD ≥3 Death (all P<.001).On multivariable analysis, POD 0-2 Death was associated with congestive heart failure, prior peripheral vascular intervention, female sex, preoperative aspirin use, lower center volume quartile, renal/visceral ischemia time, estimated blood loss, and older age (all P<.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:POD 0-2 Death was associated with comorbidities, center volume, renal/visceral ischemia time, and estimated blood loss. Referral to high-volume aortic centers could improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Despite the expanded application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with significant cardiac comorbidities, the effect of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on outcomes remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with normal and abnormal EFs undergoing TEVAR for type-B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed from 2012 to 2020. Patients were categorized into severely reduced (EF ≤ 30%), reduced (EF 30-50%) and normal EF (EF>50%). Baseline characteristics, procedural details and 18-month outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and aortic-related reintervention. RESULTS:Of 1,993 patients, 38 (2%) and 208 (10%) patients had severely reduced ejection fraction (SREF) and reduced ejection fraction (REF). Patients with abnormal EF were more likely to have cardiac comorbidities and be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and anticoagulants. Perioperatively, patients with SREF were more likely to experience mortality (13.2% vs. 6.7% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.018), MACE (26.3% vs. 11.5% vs. 8%, P < 0.001), hemodialysis (13.5% vs. 5% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.001) and aortic related reintervention (21.1% vs. 13% vs. 10%, P = 0.041), compared to REF and normal ejection fraction (NEF) patients. However, these associations were not present on multivariable analysis. At 18 months, mortality was significantly higher in patients with SREF, which was confirmed on multivariable analysis, but depressed EF was not associated with increased aortic reintervention compared to NEF. CONCLUSIONS:SREF was not independently associated with perioperative mortality or MACE compared to NEF. REF had similar risk of morbidity and mortality compared to NEF in both the perioperative and early postoperative periods. TEVAR-related complications were similar among the cohorts. As such, TEVAR may be offered to appropriately selected patients regardless of EF.

Endovascular revascularization with intraluminal stenting is the recommended first-line therapy for chronic mesenteric ischemia. However, early recurrence and in-stent thrombosis remain significant challenges. We present the case of a patient with recurrent chronic mesenteric ischemia secondary to in-stent restenosis that was successfully treated with intravascular lithotripsy, a novel, safe approach to stent salvage.

OBJECTIVE:The volume-outcomes relationship is cross-cutting among open abdominal aortic operations, where higher-volume surgeons have better perioperative outcomes. However, there has been minimal focus on low-volume surgeons and how to improve their outcomes. This study sought to identify if there are any differences in outcomes among low-volume surgeons for open abdominal aortic surgeries by different hospital settings. METHODS:We used the 2012-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative registry to identify all patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery for aneurysmal or aorto-iliac occlusive disease by a low-volume surgeon (<7 operations annually). We categorized high-volume hospitals using three distinct definitions: those that performed ≥10 operations annually, those with at least one high-volume surgeon, and by the number of surgeons (1-2 surgeons, 3-4 surgeons, 5-7 surgeons, and 8+ surgeons). Outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue. We compared outcomes among low-volume surgeons using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions across each of these three hospital categorizations. RESULTS:Among 14,110 patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery, 10,252 (7 3%) were performed by 1155 low-volume surgeons. Two-thirds of these patients (66%) underwent their surgery at a high-volume hospital, fewer than one-third (30%) at a hospital that had at least one high-volume surgeon, and one-half (49%) at hospitals with at least five surgeons. Among all patients operated on by low-volume surgeons, rates of 30-day mortality were 3.8%, perioperative complications were 35.3%, and failure-to-rescue were 9.9%. Low-volume surgeons operating at high-volume hospitals for aneurysmal disease had lower rates of perioperative death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.90) and failure-to-rescue (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98), but similar rates of complications (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.27). Similarly, patients undergoing their operation at hospitals that had at least one high-volume surgeon had lower rates of death (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99) for aneurysmal disease. Patient outcomes among low-volume surgeons for aorto-iliac occlusive disease did not vary by hospital setting. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients undergoing open abdominal aortic surgery have a low-volume surgeon, where outcomes are slightly better for those taking place at a high-volume hospital. Focused and incentivized interventions may be needed to improve outcomes among low-volume surgeons across all practice settings.

OBJECTIVE:The outcomes of patients with premature cerebrovascular disease (age ≤55 years) who undergo carotid artery stenting are not well-defined. Our study objective was to analyze the outcomes of younger patients undergoing carotid stenting. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified based on age ≤55 or >55 years. Primary endpoints were periprocedural stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite outcomes. Secondary endpoints included procedural failure (defined as ipsilateral restenosis ≥80% or occlusion) and reintervention rates. RESULTS:Of the 35,802 patients who underwent either TF-CAS or TCAR, 2912 (6.1%) were ≤55 years. Younger patients were less likely than older patients to have coronary disease (30.5% vs 50.2%; P < .001), diabetes (31.5% vs 37.9%; P < .001), and hypertension (71.8% vs 89.8%; P < .001), but were more likely to be female (45% vs 35.4%; P < .001) and active smokers (50.9% vs 24.0%; P < .001) Younger patients were also more likely to have had a prior transient ischemic attack or stroke than older patients (70.7% vs 56.9%; P < .001). TF-CAS was more frequently performed in younger patients (79.7% vs 55.4%; P < .001). In the periprocedural period, younger patients were less likely to have a MI than older patients (0.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001), but there was no significant difference in the rates of periprocedural stroke (1.5% vs 2.0%; P = .173) and composite outcomes of stroke/death (2.6% vs 2.7%; P = .686) and stroke/death/MI (2.9% vs 3.2%; P = .353) between our two cohorts. The mean follow-up was 12 months regardless of age. During follow-up, younger patients were significantly more likely to experience significant (≥80%) restenosis or occlusion (4.7% vs 2.3%; P = .001) and to undergo reintervention (3.3% vs 1.7%; P < .001). However, there was no statistical difference in the frequency of late strokes between younger and older patients (3.8% vs 3.2%; P = .129). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with premature cerebrovascular disease undergoing carotid artery stenting are more likely to be African American, female, and active smokers than their older counterparts. Young patients are also more likely to present symptomatically. Although periprocedural outcomes are similar, younger patients have higher rates of procedural failure (significant restenosis or occlusion) and reintervention at 1-year follow-up. However, the clinical implication of late procedural failure is unknown, given that we found no significant difference in the rate of stroke at follow-up. Until further longitudinal studies are completed, clinicians should carefully consider the indications for carotid stenting in patients with premature cerebrovascular disease, and those who do undergo stenting may require close follow-up.

Stroke is a persistent leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and carotid artery atherosclerosis remains a treatable cause of future stroke. Although most patients with asymptomatic carotid artery disease may be at a relatively low risk for future stroke, most completed strokes are unheralded; thus, the identification and appropriate treatment of patients with asymptomatic carotid artery disease remains a critical part of overall stroke prevention. Select patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis with an increased risk of future stroke based on the degree of stenosis and other imaging or patient-related characteristics are appropriate to consider for carotid artery intervention.

OBJECTIVE:Interventions for carotid occlusions are infrequently undertaken and the outcomes are poorly defined. We sought to study patients undergoing urgent carotid revascularization for symptomatic occlusions. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried from 2003 to 2020 to identify patients with carotid occlusions undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Only symptomatic patients undergoing urgent interventions within 24 hours of presentation were included. Patients were identified based on CT and MRI imaging. This cohort was compared to symptomatic patients undergoing urgent intervention for severe stenosis (≥80%). Primary endpoints were perioperative stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI) and composite outcomes as defined by the SVS reporting guidelines. Patient characteristics were analyzed to determine predictors of perioperative mortality and neurological events. RESULTS:inhibitor (32.0%), aspirin (77.9%) and renin-angiotensin inhibitor (43.7%) preoperatively. When compared to patients undergoing urgent endarterectomy for severe stenosis (≥80%), those with symptomatic occlusion were well matched with regards to risk factors, but the severe stenosis cohort appeared better medically managed and less likely to present with cortical stroke symptoms. Perioperative outcomes were significantly worse for the carotid occlusion cohort, primarily driven by higher perioperative mortality (2.8% vs 0.9%, P<.001). The composite endpoint of stroke/death/MI was also significantly worse in the occlusion cohort (7.7% vs 4.9%, P=.014). On multivariate analysis, carotid occlusion was associated with increased mortality (OR, 3.028; 95% CI, 1.362-6.730; P=.007) and composite outcome of stroke, death, or MI (OR, 1.790; 95% CI, 1.135-2.822, P=.012). CONCLUSIONS:Revascularization for symptomatic carotid occlusion constitutes approximately 2% of carotid interventions captured in the VQI, affirming the rarity of this undertaking. These patients have acceptable rates of perioperative neurologic events but are at an elevated risk of overall perioperative adverse events, primarily driven by higher mortality, compared to those with severe stenosis. Carotid occlusion appears to be the most significant risk factor for the composite endpoint of perioperative stroke, death, or MI. While intervention for a symptomatic carotid occlusion may be performed with acceptable rate of perioperative complications, judicious patient selection is warranted in this high-risk cohort.

OBJECTIVE:Although post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) strokes are rare, they can be devastating. The degree of disability that patients develop after such events and its effects on long-term outcomes are unclear. Our goal was to assess the extent of postoperative disability in patients suffering strokes after CEA and evaluate its association with long-term outcomes. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA registry (2016-2020) was queried for CEAs performed for asymptomatic or symptomatic indications in patients with preoperative modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0 to 1. The mRS grades stroke-related disability as 0 (none), 1 (not significant), 2 to 3 (moderate), 4 to 5 (severe), and 6 (dead). Patients suffering postoperative strokes with recorded mRS scores were included. Postoperative stroke-related disability based on mRS and its association with long-term outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS:Among 149,285 patients undergoing CEA, there were 1178 patients without preoperative disability who had postoperative strokes and reported mRS scores. Mean age was 71 ± 9.2 years, and 59.6% of patients were male. Regarding ipsilateral cortical symptoms within 6 months preoperatively, 83.5% of patients were asymptomatic, 7.3% had transient ischemic attacks, and 9.2% had strokes. Postoperative stroke-related disability was classified as mRS 0 (11.6%), 1 (19.5%), 2 to 3 (29.4%), 4 to 5 (31.5%), and 6 (8%). One-year survival stratified by postoperative stroke-related disability was 91.4% for mRS 0, 95.6% for mRS 1, 92.1% for mRS 2 to 3, and 81.5% for mRS 4 to 5 (P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that while severe postoperative disability was associated with increased death at 1 year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.89; P = .002), moderate postoperative disability had no such association (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.45-2; P = .88). One-year freedom from subsequent ipsilateral neurological events or death stratified by postoperative stroke-related disability was 87.8% for mRS 0, 93.3% for mRS 1, 88.5% for mRS 2 to 3, and 77.9% for mRS 4 to 5 (P < .001). Severe postoperative disability was independently associated with increased ipsilateral neurological events or death at 1 year (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.25-4.38; P = .01). However, moderate postoperative disability exhibited no such association (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.46-1.82; P = .8). CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients without preoperative disability who suffered strokes after CEA developed significant disability. Severe stroke-related disability was associated with higher 1-year mortality and subsequent neurological events. These data can improve informed consent for CEA and guide prognostication after postoperative strokes.