Search

Patients can choose between open repair and endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the factors associated with patient preference for one repair type over another are not well-characterized. Here we assess the factors associated with preference of choice for open or endovascular AAA repair among veterans exposed to a decision aid to help with choosing surgical treatment. Across 12 Veterans Affairs hospitals, veterans received a decision aid covering domains including patient information sources and understanding preference. Veterans were then given a series of surveys at different timepoints examining their preferences for open versus endovascular AAA repair. Questions from the preference survey were used in analyses of patient preference. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with preference for open repair or preference for EVAR. A total of 126 veterans received a decision aid informing them of their treatment choices, after which 121 completed all preference survey questions; five veterans completed only part of the instruments. Overall, veterans who preferred open repair were typically younger (70 years vs 73 years; P =.02), with similar rates of common comorbidities (coronary disease 16% vs 28%; P =.21), and similar aneurysms compared with those who preferred EVAR (6.0 cm vs 5.7 cm; P =.50). Veterans in both preference categories (28% of veterans preferring EVAR, 48% of veterans preferring open repair) reported taking their doctor's advice as the top box response for the single most important factor influencing their decision. When comparing the tradeoff between less invasive surgery and higher risk of long-term complications, more than one-half of veterans preferring EVAR reported invasiveness as more important compared with approximately 1 in 10 of those preferring open repair (53% vs 12%; P <.001). Shorter recovery was an important factor for the EVAR group (74%) and not important in the open repair group (76%) (P =.5). In multivariable analyses, valuing a short hospital stay (odds ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-135.70) and valuing a shorter recovery (odds ratio, 15.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-240.20) were associated with a greater odds of preference for EVAR, whereas finding these characteristics not important was associated with a greater odds of preference for open repair. When faced with the decision of open repair versus EVAR, veterans who valued a shorter hospital stay and a shorter recovery were more likely to prefer EVAR, whereas those more concerned about long-term complications preferred an open repair. Veterans typically value the advice of their surgeon over their own beliefs and preferences. These findings need to be considered by surgeons as they guide their patients to a shared decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared medical decision making is most important when there are competing options for repair such as in treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We sought to understand the sources of patients' pre-existing knowledge about AAA to better inform treating physicians about patients' needs for preoperative counseling. We performed a multicenter survey of patients facing AAA repair at 20 Veterans Affairs hospitals across the United States as part of the Preferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of AAA study. A validated survey instrument was administered to examine the sources of information available and commonly used by patients to learn about their repair options. The survey was administered by study personnel before the patient had any interaction with the vascular surgeon because survey data were collected before the vascular clinic visit. Preliminary analysis of data from 99 patients showed that our cohort was primarily male (99%) and elderly (mean age 73 years). Patients commonly had a history of hypertension (86%), prior myocardial infarction (32%), diabetes (32%), and were overweight (58%). Patients arrived at their surgeon's office appointment with limited information. A majority of patients (52%) reported that they had not talked to their primary care physician at all about their options for AAA repair, and one-half (50%) reported that their view of the different surgical options had not been influenced by anyone. Slightly less than one-half of patients reported that they did not receive any information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (41% and 37%, respectively). Few patients indicated using the internet as their main source of information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (10% and 11%, respectively). Patients are commonly referred for AAA repair having little to no information regarding AAA pathology or repair options. Fewer than one in five patients searched the internet or had accessed other sources of information on their own. Most vascular surgeons should assume that patients will present to their first vascular surgery appointment with minimal understanding of the treatment options available to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many patients who undergo endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) also undergo repeat procedures, or reinterventions, to address suboptimal device performance and prevent aneurysm rupture. Quality improvement initiatives measuring reintervention after EVR has focused on fee-for-service Medicare patients. However, because patients aged less than 65 years and those with Medicare Advantage represent an important growing subgroup, we used a novel approach leveraging a state data source that captures patients of all ages and with all types of insurance. We identified patients who underwent EVR (2011-2015) within the Vascular Quality Initiative registry and were also listed in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System all-payer claims database of New York. We linked patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative to their Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System claims file at the patient level with a 96% match rate. We compared outcomes between fee-for-service Medicare eligible, defined as age 65 or older or on dialysis, versus ineligible patients, defined as those younger than 65 and not on dialysis. Our primary outcome was reintervention. We used Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching for risk adjustment. We studied 1285 patients with a median follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-57 months). The mean age was 74 years, 79% were male, and 84% of procedures were elective. Nearly one in six patients were not Medicare eligible (14%), and the remainder (86%) were Medicare eligible. Medicare-eligible patients were less likely to be male (77% vs 91%; P <.001), have a history of smoking (79% vs 93%; P <.001), and have a nonelective procedure (15% vs 23%; P =.013). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier rate of reintervention was 21%. We found similar rates of reintervention between Medicare-eligible patients and those who were not (19% vs 20%, log-rank P =.199; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-1.16). This finding persisted in both the adjusted and propensity-matched analyses (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; propensity-matched HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.36-1.37). Reintervention can be monitored using administrative claims from both Medicare and non-Medicare payers, and serve as an important outcome metric after EVR in patients of all ages. The rate of reintervention seems to be similar between older, Medicare-eligible individuals, and those who are not yet eligible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The value of carotid intervention is predicated on long-term survival for patients to derive a stroke prevention benefit. Randomized trials report no significant difference in survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas observational studies of "real-world" outcomes note that CEA is associated with a survival advantage. Our objective was to examine long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS using a propensity-matched cohort. Methods We studied all patients who underwent CEA or CAS within the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2013 (CEA, n = 29,235; CAS, n = 4415). Long-term mortality information was obtained by linking patients in the registry to their respective Medicare claims file. We assessed the long-term rate of mortality for CEA and CAS using Kaplan-Meier estimation. We assessed the crude, adjusted, and propensity-matched (total matched pairs, n = 4261) hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for CEA vs CAS using Cox regression. Results The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year mortality was 14.0% for CEA and 18.3% for CAS. The crude HR of all-cause mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.81), indicating that patients who underwent CEA were 25% less likely to die before those who underwent CAS. This survival advantage persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (adjusted HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82). This effect was confirmed on a propensity-matched analysis, with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). Finally, these findings were robust to subanalyses that stratified patients by presenting symptoms and were more pronounced in symptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) than in asymptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). Conclusions During the last 15 years, patients who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative have a long-term survival advantage over those who underwent CAS in real-world practice. Despite no difference in long-term survival in randomized trials, our observational study demonstrated a survival benefit for CEA that did not diminish with risk adjustment. Graphical Abstract [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients 80 years old.Methods: A Markov, state-transition model projecting lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed to determine cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. Costs (in 2016 US dollars), health state utilities, and state transition probabilities were obtained from published literature. Primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter assumptions.Results: At our base-case values, THA was cost-effective compared to non-operative treatment with a total lifetime accrued cost of $186,444 vs $182,732, and a higher lifetime accrued utility (5.60 vs 5.09). Cost per QALY for THA was $33,318 vs $35,914 for non-operative management, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $7307 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated THA to be cost-effective with a utility of successful primary THA above 0.67, a peri-operative mortality risk below 0.14, and a risk of primary THA failure below 0.14. Analysis further demonstrated that THA is a cost-effective option below a base-rate mortality threshold of 0.19, corresponding to the average base-rate mortality of a 93-year-old individual. Markov cohort analysis indicated that for patients undergoing THA at age 80 there was an approximate 28% reduction in total lifetime long-term assisted living expenditure compared to non-operatively managed patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis.Conclusion: The results of our model demonstrate that THA is a cost-effective option compared to non-operative management in patients ≥80 years old. This analysis may inform policy regarding THA in elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the bleeding risks associated with single (aspirin) and dual (aspirin þ clopidogrel) antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus placebo or no treatment in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Summary of Background Data: The impact of antiplatelet therapy on bleeding during noncardiac surgery remains controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the risk associated with single and DAPT. Methods: A systematic review of antiplatelet therapy, noncardiac surgery, and perioperative bleeding was performed. Peer-reviewed sources and meeting abstracts from relevant societies were queried. Studies without a control group, or those that only examined patients with coronary stents, were excluded. Primary endpoints were transfusion and reintervention for bleeding. Results: Of 11,592 references, 46 studies met inclusion criteria. In a metaanalysis of >30,000 patients, the relative risk (RR) of transfusion versus control was 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.26, P = 0.009] for aspirin, and 1.33 (1.15-1.55, P = 0.001) for DAPT. Clopidogrel had an elevated risk, but data were too heterogeneous to analyze. The RR of bleeding requiring reintervention was not significantly higher for any agent compared to control [RR 0.96 (0.76-1.22, P = 0.76) for aspirin, 1.84 (0.87-3.87, P = 0.11) for clopidogrel, and 1.51 (0.92-2.49, P = 0.1) for DAPT]. Subanalysis of thoracic and abdominal procedures was similar. There was no difference in RR for myocardial infarction [1.06 (0.79-1.43)], stroke [0.97 (0.71-1.33)], or mortality [0.97 (0.87-1.1)]. Conclusions: Antiplatelet therapy at the time of noncardiac surgery confers minimal bleeding risk with no difference in thrombotic complications. In many cases, it is safe to continue antiplatelet therapy in patients with important indications for their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients who undergo endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) remain at risk for reintervention and rupture. We sought to define the 5-year rate of reintervention and rupture after EVR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). We identified all patients in the VQI who underwent EVR from 2003 to 2015. We linked patients in the VQI to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We stratified patients on baseline clinical and procedural characteristics to identify those at risk for reintervention. Our primary outcomes were 5-year rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture after EVR. We assessed these with Kaplan-Meier survival estimation. We studied 12,911 patients who underwent EVR. The mean age was 75.5 years, 79.9% were male, 3.9% were black, and 89.1% of operations were performed electively. The 5-year rate of reintervention for the entire cohort was 21%, and the 5-year rate of late aneurysm rupture was 3%. Reintervention rates varied across categories of EVR urgency. Patients who underwent EVR electively had the lowest 5-year rate of reintervention at 20%. Those who underwent surgery for symptomatic aneurysms had higher rates of reintervention at 25%. Patients undergoing EVR emergently for rupture had the highest rate of reintervention, 27% at 4 years (log-rank across the three groups, P <.001). Black race and aneurysm size of 6.0 cm or greater were associated with significantly elevated reintervention rates (black, 31% vs white, 20% [log-rank, P <.001]; aneurysm size 6.0 cm or greater, 27% vs all others, <20% [log-rank, P <.001]). There were no significant associations between age or gender and the 5-year rate of reintervention. More than one in five Medicare patients undergo reintervention within 5 years after EVR in the VQI; late rupture remains low at 3%. Black patients, those with large aneurysms, and those who undergo EVR urgently and emergently have a higher likelihood of adverse outcomes and should be the focus of diligent long-term surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective The accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews. Methods We reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention. Results VQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P =.59). Conclusions Chart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background On October 1, 2015, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9) to the ICD, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) compendium of codes for diagnosis and billing in health care, but translation between the two is often inexact. Here we describe a validated crosswalk to translate ICD-9 codes into ICD-10 codes, with a focus on complications after carotid revascularization and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Methods and Results We devised an 8-step process to derive and validate ICD-10 codes from existing ICD-9 codes. We used publicly available sources, including the General Equivalence Mapping database, to translate ICD-9 codes used in prior work to ICD-10 codes. We defined ICD-10 codes as validated if they were concordant with the initial ICD-9 codes after manual comparison by two physicians. Our primary validation measure was the percent of valid ICD-10 codes out of the total ICD-10 codes obtained during translation. We began with 126 ICD-9 diagnosis codes used for complication identification after carotid revascularization procedures, and 97 ICD-9 codes for complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm procedures. Translation generated 143 ICD-10 codes for carotid revascularization, a 14% increase from the initial 126 codes. Manual comparison demonstrated 98% concordance, with 99% agreement between the reviewers. Similarly, we identified 108 ICD-10 codes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, an 11% increase from the initial 97 ICD-9 codes. We again noted excellent concordance and agreement (98% and 100%, respectively). Manual review identified 4 ICD-10 codes incorrectly translated from ICD-9 codes for carotid revascularization, and 3 codes incorrectly translated for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Conclusions Algorithms to crosswalk lists of ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 codes can leverage electronic resources to minimize the burden of code translation. However, manual review for code validation may be necessary, with collaboration across institutions for researchers to share their efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Open repair effectively prevents rupture for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and is commonly studied as a metric reflecting hospital and surgeon expertise in cardiovascular care. However, given recent advances in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), such as branched-fenestrated EVAR, it is unknown how commonly open surgical repair is still used in everyday practice. Methods We analyzed trends in open AAA repair, EVAR, and branched-fenestrated EVAR for AAA in Medicare beneficiaries from 2003 to 2013. We used Medicare Part B claims to ascertain counts of these repair types annually during the study period. We assessed regional and national trends in characteristics of the patients and procedure volume. Results Between 2003 and 2013, the total number of AAA repairs performed in fee-for-service Medicare patients declined by 26% from 31,582 to 23,421 ( P < .001), after a peak number of 32,540 was performed in 2005 (28% decline since 2005). The number of open AAA repairs steadily declined by a total of 76%, from 20,533 in 2003 to 4916 in 2013 ( P < .001). Whereas the number of EVARs increased from 11,049 in 2003 to 19,247 in 2011 ( P < .001), it has since declined a total of 15% to only 16,362 repairs in 2013 ( P < .001). After its introduction in 2011, the number of branched-fenestrated EVAR cases continuously rose from 335 procedures in 2011 to 2143 procedures in 2013 ( P < .001). By 2013, virtually all hospital referral regions in the United States had rates of open AAA repair that would have been in the lowest quintile of volume in 2003. Conclusions The number of open AAA repairs fell by nearly 80% during the last decade, whereas traditional EVAR declined slightly and branched-fenestrated EVAR rapidly disseminated into national practice. These results suggest that open AAA repair is now performed too infrequently to be used as a metric in the assessment of hospital and surgeon quality in cardiovascular care. Furthermore, surgical training paradigms will need to reflect the changing dynamics necessary to ensure that surgeons and interventionists can safely perform these high-risk surgical procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]