Association between hospital volume and failure-to-rescue for open repairs of juxtarenal aneurysms
BACKGROUND:A nationwide variation in mortality stratified by hospital volume exists after open repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). In the present study, we assessed whether the rates of postoperative complications or failure-to-rescue (defined as death after a major postoperative complication) would better explain the lower mortality rates among higher volume hospitals. METHODS:Using the 2004 to 2018 Vascular Quality Initiative database, we identified all patients who had undergone open repair of elective or symptomatic AAAs, in which the proximal clamp sites were at least above one renal artery. We divided the patients into hospital quintiles according to the annual hospital volume and compared the risk-adjusted outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, operative factors, and hospital volume, was used to evaluate three outcomes: 30-day mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue. RESULTS:We identified 3566 patients who had undergone open repair of elective or symptomatic complex AAAs (median age, 71Â years; 29% women; 4.1% black; 48% Medicare insurance). The unadjusted rates of 30-day postoperative mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue were 5.0%, 44%, and 10%, respectively. Common complications included renal dysfunction (25%), cardiac dysrhythmia (14%), and pneumonia (14%), with the specific failure-to-rescue rate ranging from 12% to 22%. On adjusted analysis, the risk-adjusted mortality rate was 2.5 times greater for the lower volume hospitals relative to the higher volume hospitals (7.4% vs 3.0%; PÂ < .01). Although the risk-adjusted complication rates were similar between these hospital groups (30% vs 27%; PÂ = .06), the failure-to-rescue rate was 2.3 times greater for the lower volume hospitals relative to the higher volume hospitals (6.3% vs 2.7%; PÂ = .02). CONCLUSIONS:Higher volume hospitals had lower mortality rates after open repair of complex AAAs because they were better at the "rescue" of patients after the occurrence of postoperative complications. Both an understanding of the clinical mechanisms underlying this association and the regionalization of open repair might improve patient outcomes.
The variable impact of aneurysm size on outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs
OBJECTIVE:Previous studies evaluating the association between abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size with postoperative outcomes after open repairs seldom accounted for renal or visceral artery involvement, proximal clamp site, intraoperative renal ischemia time, and hospital volume. This study examined the association between aneurysm size with outcomes after open repairs. METHODS:We identified patients who underwent open repairs of infrarenal versus juxtarenal nonruptured AAAs, defined by proximal clamp site, in the 2004-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, failure to rescue, and 1-year mortality. Multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for patient characteristics, operative factors, hospital volume, and hospital clustering. RESULTS:We identified 8011 patients (54% infrarenal, 46% juxtarenal). The median aneurysm size did not differ between infrarenal versus juxtarenal aneurysms (5.7Â cm vs 5.9Â cm; PÂ = .12). For infrarenal aneurysms, every 1-cm increase in size increase the adjusted odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) of 30-day mortality by 18% (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31), failure to rescue by 20% (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34), 1-year mortality by 18% (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26), but not complications (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.07). For juxtarenal aneurysm, larger aneurysm sizes were not associated with any outcome. Proximal clamp site, ischemia time, and volume were associated with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:The association between AAA size and outcomes matters less with renal and visceral artery aneurysmal involvement, having important implications for surgical decision-making, operative planning, and patient counseling.
Comparison of Outcomes for Open Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Repair Using Vein and Prosthetic Conduits
BACKGROUND:Autologous vein is considered the preferred conduit for lower extremity bypass. There is, however, limited literature regarding conduit choice for open popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair. We sought to compare outcomes of PAA repair using vein versus prosthetic conduits. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2019) was queried for patients with PAAs undergoing elective conventional revascularization originating from the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. Conduits were categorized as vein or prosthetic. Primary outcomes were primary graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb event (MALE) and MALE-free survival at 2-years. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for estimation and comparison of patency. RESULTS:A total of 1,146 limbs in 1,065 patients underwent elective open revascularization for popliteal artery aneurysm. Vein was used in 921 limbs (80%), and prosthetic in 225 (20%). Patients in the prosthetic cohort had a shorter procedure time, were older, and had a higher prevalence of COPD. Postoperatively, prosthetic patients were more likely to be started and maintained on anticoagulation without increased incidence of hematoma. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (2% vs. 2%; Pâ€¯=â€¯.946). There was an increased tendency toward more symptomatic patients in the vein cohort although not statistically significant (49% vein vs. 41% prosthetic; Pâ€¯=â€¯.096). On a mean follow-up of 13 Â± 5 months, the incidence of MALE and MALE-free survival were comparable between the two groups. The 2-year primary and secondary patency rates were similar, 87% and 96% in the vein, and 91% and 95% in the prosthetic groups, respectively. At multivariable analysis, outflow bypass targets to the infrapopliteal arteries (HR 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-3.65; Pâ€¯=â€¯.014) and symptomatic aneurysm (HR 1.81; 95% CI, 1.04-3.15; Pâ€¯=â€¯.037) were independently associated with loss of primary patency. Conduit type did not make a difference in MALE-free survival, or primary graft patency at 2-years. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that conventional open PAA repair with prosthetic conduit yields results comparable to those with vein conduit with regard to primary and secondary patency and major adverse limb events at 2-years for targets to the popliteal artery. However, when the distal target was infrapopliteal, worse outcomes were observed with prosthetic conduit. Our results suggest that vein conduit should be preferentially used for infrapopliteal targets, while prosthetic conduit confers comparable outcomes in a subset of patients who do not have suitable autologous vein conduits.
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Symptomatic Penetrating Aortic Ulcers and Intramural Hematomas is Associated with Poor Outcomes
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The natural history of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU) and intramural hematomas (IMH) of the aorta is not well described. While repair is warranted for rupture, unremitting chest pain or growth, there is no established threshold for treating incidental findings. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers an attractive approach in treating these pathologies, however, peri-procedural and post-operative outcomes are not well defined. METHODS:Patients 18 or older identified in the VQI database who underwent TEVAR for PAU and/or IMH between 1/2011-2/2020 were included. We identified 1042 patients, of whom 809 had available follow-up data. Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed to identify risk factors for major adverse events (MAE), as well as postoperative and late mortality. RESULTS:The cohort was 54.8% female and 69.9% former smokers with a mean age of 71.1 years. Comorbidities were prevalent with 57.8% classified ASA IV; 89.8% had hypertension, 28.3% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 17.9% coronary artery disease, and 12.2% congestive heart failure (CHF). Patients were predominately symptomatic (74%) and 44.5% underwent non-elective repair. MAE incidence was 17%. Independent predictors of MAE were history of CAD, non-Caucasian race, emergent procedural indication, ruptured presentation, and deployment of two or more endografts. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Seventy-three percent of index hospitalization mortalities were treatment-related. Of 809 patients with follow-up (mean 25.1 monthsÂ±19 months), all-cause mortality was 10.6%. Predictors of late mortality in follow-up included age greater than 70 years, ruptured presentation, and history of COPD and ESRD. Subset analysis comparing symptomatic (74%) vs. asymptomatic (26%) patients demonstrated the former were frequently female (58.2% vs. 45.3%, p<.001) with a higher incidence of MAE (20.6% vs. 6.9%, p<.001), notably higher in-hospital reintervention rates (5.9% vs. 1.5%, p=.002) and mortality (5.6% vs. 0.7%, log-rank p=.015), and prolonged length of stay (6.9 vs. 3.7 days, p<.0001) despite similar procedural risks. In follow-up, late mortality was higher in the symptomatic cohort (12.2% vs. 6.5%, log-rank p=.025), with all treatment-related mortalities limited to the symptomatic group. CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrate significantly higher morbidity and mortality in symptomatic patients undergoing repair compared to asymptomatic patients, despite similar baseline characteristics. Asymptomatic patients treated with TEVAR had no treatment-related mortality in follow-up, with overall prognosis largely dependent on pre-existing comorbidities. These findings, in conjunction with growing evidence highlighting the risk of disease progression and attendant morbidity associated with these aortic entities, suggest a need for natural history studies and definitive guidelines on the elective repair of IMH and PAU.
Outcomes Of Translumbar Embolization Of Type II Endoleaks Following Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair
OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Presence of an endoleak can compromise aneurysm exclusion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair(EVAR). Type II endoleaks(T2Es) are most common and may cause sac expansion. We report outcomes of translumbar embolization(TLE) of T2Es following EVAR. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with T2E after EVAR treated with TLE from 2011-2018 at a single academic institution. Treatment indications were the presence of persistent T2E and aneurysm growth â‰¥5mm. Sac stabilization was defined as growth â‰¤5mm throughout the follow-up period. RESULTS:Thirty consecutive patients were identified. The majority were men (n=24) with a mean age of 74.3 years (70.9-77.6, 95% CI). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (83.3%) and coronary artery disease (54.0%). The mean maximal sac diameter at T2E discovery was 5.8 cm (5.4-6.2, 95% CI). The mean time to intervention from endoleak discovery was 33.7Â±28 months with a mean growth of 0.84 cm (0.48-1.2, 95% CI) during that time period. The mean follow-up time after TLE was 19.1 months (11.1-27.2, 95% CI). Twenty-eight patients were treated with cyanoacrylate glue(CyG) alone, and 2 were treated with CyG plus coil embolization(CE). There was immediate complete endoleak resolution as assessed intraoperatively, and sac stabilization in 15 cases (50.0%). Eleven (36.7%) patients had evidence of persistent T2E on initial imaging after the embolization procedure; additional follow-up revealed eventual sac stabilization at a mean of 21.3Â±7.2 months and therefore these patients did not require further intervention. In the remaining four cases (13.3%) there was persistent T2E after the initial TLE requiring a second intervention. Repeat TLE stabilized growth in three of these four patients after a mean of 17.6Â±12.9 months. One patient required open sacotomy and ligation of lumbar vessels due to continued persistence of the T2E and continued aneurysm growth. There were no ischemic complications related to the embolization procedures. Factors associated with persistent endoleak after initial embolization were: larger aneurysm diameter at the time of initial endoleak identification (p<0.001), and the use of antiplatelet agents (p<0.02). The use of anticoagulation was not a significant risk factor for endoleak recurrence or aneurysm growth after TLE. CONCLUSIONS:TLE of T2E is a safe and effective treatment option for T2E with aneurysm growth following EVAR. Patients taking antiplatelet medication and those with larger aneurysms at the time of endoleak identification appear to be at increased risk for persistent endoleak and need for subsequent procedures following initial TLE. These patients may require more intensive monitoring and follow-up.
Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Medications Do Not Affect Aortic Remodeling after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection
OBJECTIVE:There is a lack of evidence regarding the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications on aortic remodeling for aortic dissection after endovascular repair. We investigated whether anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications affect aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS:Records of the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR registry (2012-2020) were reviewed. Procedures performed for TBAD were included. Aortic reintervention, false lumen thrombosis of the treated aorta and all-cause mortality at follow-up were compared between patients treated with and without anticoagulation medications. A secondary analysis was performed to assess the effect of antiplatelet therapy in patients not on anticoagulation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies on outcomes. RESULTS:1,210 patients (mean age, 60.7Â±12.2 years; 825 (68%) males) were identified with a mean follow-up of 21.2Â±15.7 months (range 1-94 months). 166 (14%) patients were on anticoagulation medications at discharge and at follow-up. Patients on anticoagulation were more likely to be older (mean age, 65.5 vs 60 years; P<.001) and Caucasian (69% vs 55%; P=.003), with higher proportions of coronary artery disease (10% vs 3%; P<.001), congestive heart failure (10% vs 2%; P<.001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15% vs 9%; P=.017). There were no differences in the mean preoperative thoracic aortic diameter or the number of endografts used. At 18-month, the rates of aortic reinterventions (8% vs 9% log-rank P=.873), complete false lumen thrombosis (52% vs 45%; P=.175) and mortality (2.5% vs 2.7%; P=.209) were similar in patients with and without anticoagulation, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the Cox regression method, anticoagulation use was not independently associated with a decreased rates of complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-1.1; P=.132), increased need for aortic reinterventions (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.62-1.68; P=.934), and mortality (HR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.47; P=.514). On a secondary analysis, antiplatelet medications did not affect the rates of aortic reintervention, complete false lumen thrombosis and mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not appear to negatively influence the midterm endpoints of aortic reintervention or death in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. Moreover, it did not impair complete false lumen thrombosis. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not adversely affect aortic remodeling and survival in this population at midterm.
Perioperative Outcomes for Centers Routinely Admitting Postoperative Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair to the ICU
BACKGROUND:Intensive care unit (ICU) admission after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) varies across medical centers. We evaluated the association of postoperative ICU utilization with perioperative and long-term outcomes after EVAR. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2019) was queried for index elective EVARs. Included centers were categorized by percentage of EVARs postoperatively admitted to the ICU; routine ICU (rICU) centers as â‰¥80% ICU admissions and non-routine ICU (nrICU) centers as â‰¤20% ICU admissions. Patients admitted preoperatively or with same day discharge were excluded. Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared between rICU and nrICU centers. RESULTS:Of 45,310 EVARs in the database, 35,617 were performed at rICU or nrICU centers - 5,443 (15.3%) at 71 rICU centers and 30,174 (84.7%) at 200 nrICU centers. Overall, mean age was 73.4 years and 81.6% were male. Postoperative myocardial infarction, pulmonary complications, stroke, leg ischemia, and in-hospital mortality were similar between rICU and nrICU centers (all P>.05). Postoperative length of stay (LOS) was prolonged at rICU centers (mean) (2.2Â±3.6 vs. 2Â±4.2 days, P<.001). 1-year survival was similar between rICU and nrICU centers, respectively, (94.9% vs. 95.4%, P=.085). When compared to nrICU centers, rICU centers had similar 1-year mortality risk (HR 1.15, 95% CI .99-1.34, P=.076), but were associated with longer postoperative LOS (MR 1.1, 95% CI 1.08-1.13, P<.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Routine ICU utilization after EVAR was associated with prolonged postoperative LOS without improved perioperative/long-term morbidity or mortality. Updated care pathways to include postoperative admission to lower acuity care units may reduce costs without compromising care.
Endovascular Treatment of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms Has Comparable Long-Term Outcomes to Open Repair with Shorter Length of Stay
OBJECTIVE:Over the past two decades, the treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has undergone a transformation. While open surgical repair (OR) remains the gold standard for treatment, endovascular repair (ER) has become an attractive alternative in select patient populations. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of open versus endovascular repair of PAAs at a single institution. METHODS:We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients between 1998 and 2017 who underwent repair for PAA. Patient baseline, anatomic, and operative characteristics as well as outcomes were compared between the open and endovascular cohorts. The intervention and treatment were at the discretion of the surgeon. RESULTS:Between 1998 and 2017, a total of 64 patients underwent repair of 73 PAAs at our tertiary care center. Twenty-nine patients with 33 PAAs underwent OR, and 35 patients with 40 PAAs underwent ER. When comparing the 2 cohorts, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or number of run-off vessels. There were significantly more patients in the ER group (21/53%) than the OR group (7/21%) with hyperlipidemia (p=.008) and a prior carotid intervention (6% vs. 0%, p=.029). Overall, the presence of symptoms was similar amongst the two groups; however, patients in the OR group had a significantly higher number of patients presenting with acute ischemia (p=.01). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the ER cohort (mean 1.8 days [1-11]) compared to the OR group (5.4 days [2-13]) (p<.0001). There was no significant difference in primary or secondary patency rates between the two groups. In the ER group, good runoff (â‰¥2 vessels) was a positive predictor for primary patency at 1 year (3.36 [1.0-11.25]), however, it was not in the OR group. Post-operative single and/or dual anti-platelet therapy did not affect primary patency in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS:The results of our study demonstrate that ER of PAAs is a safe and durable option with comparable patency rates to OR and a decreased LOS, with good run-off being a positive predictor for primary patency in the ER cohort.
Contemporary Outcomes of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients Deemed Unfit for Open Surgical Repair
OBJECTIVE:Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is preferred to open surgical repair (OSR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in high-risk patients. We sought to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes for EVAR in patients designated as unfit for OSR using a large national dataset. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database collected from 2013 to 2019 was queried for patients undergoing elective EVARs for AAA > 5cm. The patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the suitability for OSR (FIT vs. UNFIT). Primary outcomes included perioperative (in-hospital) major adverse events, perioperative mortality, and mortality at 1 and 5 years. Patient demographics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed to identify predictors of perioperative and long-term mortality. RESULTS:Of 16,183 EVARs, 1,782 patients were deemed unfit for OSR. The UNFIT cohort was more likely to be older and female, with higher proportions of HTN, CAD, CHF, COPD, and larger aneurysm diameter. Postoperatively, the UNFIT cohort was more likely to have cardiopulmonary complications (6.5% vs. 3%; P<.001), with higher perioperative mortality (1.7% vs. 0.6%; P<.001) and 1 and 5-year mortality (13% and 29% UNFIT vs. 5% and 14% FIT; P<.001). Subgroup analysis within the UNFIT cohort revealed those deemed unfit due to hostile abdomen had significantly lower 1 and 5-year mortality (6% and 20%) compared to those unfit due to cardiopulmonary compromise and frailty (14% and 30%; P=.451). Reintervention-free survival at 1 and 5-years was significantly higher in the FIT cohort (93% and 82%) as compared to the UNFIT cohort (85% and 68%; P<.001). Designation as unfit for OSR was an independent predictor of both perioperative (OR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.46; P=.038) and long-term mortality (HR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.69-2.17; P<.001). Advanced age (OR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.28-6.66; P=.011) was the strongest determinant of perioperative mortality while ESRD (HR 2.51; 95% CI, 1.78-3.55; P<.001) was the strongest predictor of long-term mortality. Statin (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87; P<.001) and ACE inhibitor (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93; P<.001) were protective of long-term mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite low perioperative mortality, long-term mortality of those designated by the operating surgeons as unfit for OSR was rather high in patients undergoing elective EVARs, likely due to the competing risk of death from their medical frailty. Unfit designation due to hostile abdomen did not confer any additional risks after EVAR. Judicious estimation of the patient's life expectancy is essential when considering treatment options in this subset of patients deemed unfit for OSR.
Deep Venous Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019
OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused devastating morbidity and mortality worldwide. In particular, thromboembolic complications have emerged as a key threat in COVID-19. We assessed our experience with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with COVID-19 undergoing upper or lower extremity venous duplex ultrasonography at an academic health system in New York City between March 3 2020 and April 12 2020 with follow-up through May 12 2020. A cohort of hospitalized patients without COVID-19 (non-COVID-19) undergoing venous duplex ultrasonography from December 1 2019 to December 31 2019 was used for comparison. The primary outcome was DVT. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary embolism (PE), in-hospital mortality, admission to intensive care unit, and antithrombotic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for DVT and mortality. RESULTS:Of 443 patients (188 COVID-19 and 255 non-COVID-19) undergoing venous duplex ultrasonography, patients with COVID-19 had higher incidence of DVT (31% vs. 19%; P=0.005), compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. The incidence of PE was not statistically different between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts (8% vs. 4%; P=.105). The DVTs in the COVID-19 group were more distal (63% vs. 29%; P<.001) and bilateral (15% vs. 4%; P<.001). The result of duplex ultrasonography had a significant impact on the antithrombotic plan; 42 (72%) patients with COVID-19 in the DVT group had their therapies escalated while 49 (38%) and 3 (2%) patients had their therapies escalated and de-escalated in the non-DVT group, respectively (P<.001). Within the COVID-19 cohort, the D-dimer was significantly higher in the DVT group at the time of admission (2,746 ng/mL vs 1,481 ng/mL; P=.004) and at the time of the duplex exam (6,068 ng/mL vs. 3,049 ng/mL; P<0.01). At multivariable analysis, male sex (odd ratio (OR) 2.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-4.87; P=.035), ICU admission (OR 3.42; 95% CI, 1.02-11.44; P=.046) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR 5.5; 95% CI, 1.01-30.13; P=.049) were independently associated with DVT. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolic events in this population, we support the decision to empirically initiate therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with low bleeding risk and severe COVID-19 infection, with duplex ultrasonography reserved for patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE in which anticoagulation may pose a life-threatening consequence. Further study is warranted in patients with COVID-19 to elucidate the etiology of vascular thromboembolic events and guide prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in these patients.