Search

The Society for Vascular Surgery has recommended immediate transfer of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) to a regional center when feasible. However, Black patients might be less likely to be transferred and more likely to be turned down for repair. We, therefore, examined the transfer rates, turndown rates, and outcomes for Black vs White patients presenting with rAAAs in two large databases.We examined all rAAA repairs in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2020 to evaluate the transfer rates and outcomes for Black vs White patients. We used the National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2015 to examine the turndown rates. Mixed effects logistic regression, Cox regression, and marginal effects modeling were used to study the interaction between race, insurance status, surgery type (open repair vs endovascular aortic aneurysm repair), and hospital volume.We identified 4935 patients with rAAAs in the Vascular Quality Initiative (6.2% Black) and 48,489 in the National Inpatient Sample (6.0% Black). The rates of transfer were high; however, Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo transfer before repair compared with White patients (49% Black vs 62% White; P = .002). The result was consistent in both crude and adjusted analyses when considering only stable patients and was not modified by insurance status, surgery type, or hospital volume. No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality (22% vs 26%; P = .098) or complications (52% vs 52%; P = .64). However, Black patients were significantly more likely to be turned down for repair (37% vs 28%; odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.9; P .001). A significant interaction was found between race and insurance status with respect to turndown. Patients with private insurance had undergone surgery at a similar rate, regardless of race. However, among patients with Medicare or Medicaid/self-pay, Black patients were less likely than were White patients to undergo repair (Medicare, 64% vs 72%; P = .001; Medicaid/self-pay, 43% vs 61%; P = .031). Patients with Medicaid/self-pay were also less likely to undergo repair than were patients of the same race with either Medicare or private insurance (P .05).We found that Black patients with rAAAs are poorly served by the current systems of interhospital transfer in the United States, because they less often undergo transfer before repair. Although the postoperative outcomes appeared similar, this finding could be falsely optimistic, because Black patients, especially the underinsured, were turned down for repair more often even after adjustment. Significant work is needed to better understand the reasons underlying these disparities and identify the targets to improve the care of Black patients with rAAAs.

Objective: Current literature suggests that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in older patients with aortic aneurysms results in higher peri-operative mortality and lower long term survival in females compared with males. However, sex related outcomes in younger patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) undergoing TEVAR remain unknown. This study examined the association between sex and outcomes after TEVAR for BTAI. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) between 2016 and 2019. The primary outcome was in hospital death. Secondary outcomes were peri-operative complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics, comorbidities, injury severity score, and aortic injury grade. Results: Two thousand and twenty-two patients were included; 26% were female. Compared with males, females were older (46 [IQR 30, 62] vs. 39 [IQR 28, 56] years; p < .001), more often obese (41% vs. 33%; p = .005), had lower rates of alcohol use disorder (4.1% vs. 8.9%; p < .001) and a higher prevalence of hypertension (29% vs. 22%; p = .001). The injury severity was comparable between females and males (Injury Severity Score ≥ 25; 84% vs. 80%; p = .11) and there was no difference in aortic injury grades when comparing females with males (grade 1, 33% vs. 33%; grade 2, 24% vs. 25%; grade 3, 43% vs. 40%; grade 4, 0.8% vs. 1.3%; p = .53). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated no difference for in hospital mortality between females and males (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.67 – 1.53, p = .93). Compared with males, females were at lower risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17 – 0.64; p = .001) and ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.28 – 0.91; p = .023). Conclusion: This study did not demonstrate a sex related in hospital mortality difference following TEVAR for BTAI. However, female sex was associated with a lower risk of AKI and VAP. Future studies should evaluate sex differences and long term outcomes following TEVAR in patients with BTAI.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms is associated with increased perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with intact repair. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the factors associated with the presentation of ruptured aneurysms and adverse outcomes after repair.The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry was queried (2010-2020) to identify patients who had undergone TEVAR for ruptured and intact thoracic aortic aneurysms. The primary outcome was to identify the factors associated with ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms. The secondary outcomes included perioperative mortality and morbidity, 5-year survival, and the identification of factors associated with adverse outcomes after TEVAR.Of the 3039 patients identified with a thoracic aortic aneurysm, 2806 (92%) had undergone repair for an intact aneurysm and 233 (8%) had undergone repair for a ruptured aneurysm. Chronic kidney disease was associated with a greater odds of a presentation with a ruptured aneurysm (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.9; P .001). The factors associated with a lower odds of rupture included prior aortic aneurysm repair (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; P = .05), prior smoker (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53; P .001), preoperative beta-blocker therapy (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001), and preoperative statin therapy (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94; P = .020). TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms was associated with higher perioperative mortality (rupture vs intact, 27% vs 4.6%; OR, 6.6; 95% CI 4.3-10; P .001) and the composite outcome of mortality, new dialysis, paralysis, and stroke (38% vs 9.5%; OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.5-7.4; P .001). The 5-year survival was significantly lower after TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms (50% vs 76%; P .001; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.52; P .001). Preoperative statin therapy was associated with higher 5-year survival (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .021).TEVAR for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms results in increased perioperative mortality and morbidity and lower 5-year survival compared with TEVAR for intact aneurysms. Patients with prior aortic aneurysm repair, prior smoking, and preoperative beta-blocker or statin therapy were less likely to present with ruptured thoracic aneurysms. This correlation might be attributed to increased exposure to cardiovascular healthcare providers and, thus, subsequently increased screening and surveillance, allowing for elective repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Female patients are more likely to undergo repair of intact and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at smaller aortic diameter compared with male patients. By adjusting for inherent anatomic differences between sexes, aortic size index (ASI) and aortic height index (AHI) may provide an additional method for guiding treatment. We therefore analyzed sex-specific criteria for AAA repair using aortic diameter, ASI, and AHI. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent AAA repair between 2003 and 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. The Dubois and Dubois formula was used to calculate body surface area; aortic diameter was divided by body surface area to calculate ASI. Aortic diameter was divided by height to calculate AHI. Cumulative distribution curves were used to plot the proportion of patients who underwent repair of ruptured aneurysm according to aortic diameter, ASI, and AHI. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify the association of female sex with perioperative mortality and any major postoperative complication. RESULTS: We identified 55,647 patients, of whom 12,664 were female (20%). For both intact and rupture repair, female patients were older, less likely to undergo endovascular aneurysm repair, and more likely to have comorbid conditions. Female patients underwent repair at smaller median aortic diameter compared with male patients for intact (5.4 vs 5.5 cm; P < .001) and rupture repair (6.7 vs 7.7 cm; P < .001). However, ASI was higher in female patients for both intact (3.1 vs 2.7 cm/m(2); P < .001) and rupture repair (3.8 vs 3.7 cm/m(2); P < .001), whereas AHI was higher in female patients for intact repair (3.3 vs 3.1 cm/m; P < .001) but lower for rupture repair (4.1 vs 4.3 cm/m; P < .001). When analyzing the cumulative distribution of rupture repair in male patients, 12% of rupture repairs were performed at an aortic diameter below 5.5 cm. To achieve the same proportion of rupture repair in female patients, the repair diameter was only 4.9 cm. However, when ASI and AHI were used, female and male patients both reached 12% of rupture repair at an ASI of 2.7 cm/m(2) and an AHI of 3.0 cm/m. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides data to strongly support the sex-specific 5.0-cm aortic diameter threshold suggested for repair in female patients by the Society for Vascular Surgery. The high percentage of patients undergoing rupture repair below 5.5 cm in male patients and 5.0 cm in female patients highlights the need to better identify patients at risk of rupture at smaller aortic diameters.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease remains a major source of morbidity in developed countries and can progress to life-threatening rupture if left untreated, with exceedingly high mortality. The goal of AAA management is to identify and electively repair AAAs before rupture. AAA disease burden and outcomes have improved over time with declining tobacco use and advancements in care across patients' disease course. The introduction of endovascular AAA repair, in particular, has allowed for elective AAA repair in patients previously considered too high risk for open surgery and has contributed to lower rates of AAA rupture over time. However, these improved outcomes are not universally experienced, and disparities continue to exist in the detection, treatment, and outcomes of AAA by sex, race, and ethnicity. Mitigating these disparities requires enhanced, focused efforts at preventing disease, promoting health, and delivering appropriate care among an increasingly diverse patient population.

Vulnerable populations, including women and racial and ethnic minorities, have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. We, therefore, studied the demographics of patients enrolled in pivotal endovascular aortic device trials in the United States.We queried the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical devices database for all FDA-approved endografts for the treatment of aortic aneurysms, transections, and dissections from September 1999 to November 2021. These included abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), thoracic EVAR (TEVAR), fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) devices, and dissection stents. Multiple cases of approval for expanded indications were included separately. The primary outcomes included the proportion of trials reporting participant sex, race, and ethnicity and the proportion of enrolled participants across sex, racial, and ethnic groups.The FDA provided 29 approvals from 29 trials of 24 devices: 15 EVAR devices (52%), 12 TEVAR devices (41%), 1 FEVAR device (3.4%), and 1 dissection stent (3.4%). These trials had included 4046 patients. Of the 29 trials, all had reported on the sex of the participants, and the median female enrollment was 21% (interquartile range [IQR], 11%-34%). The EVAR trials had the lowest female enrollment (11%; IQR, 8.7%-13%) compared with 41% (IQR, 27%-45%) in the TEVAR trials, 21% in the FEVAR trial, and 34% in the dissection stent trial (P .01 for the difference). Only 52% of the trials had reported the three most common racial groups (White, Black, Asian), and only 48% had reported Hispanic ethnicity. The TEVAR trials were the most likely to report all three racial groups and Hispanic ethnicity (92% and 75%, respectively), while the EVAR trials had the lowest reporting rates (13% and 20%, respectively). Where reported, the median enrollment of racial and ethnic groups across the trials was as follows: Black patients, 9.8% (FEVAR, 0%; EVAR, 1.9%; TEVAR, 12%; dissection stent, 25%; P = .01); Asian patients, 2.4% (EVAR, 0.6%; FEVAR, 2.4%; TEVAR, 2.5%; dissection stent, 11%; P = .24); and Hispanic patients, 3.8% (EVAR, 1.3%; FEVAR, 2.4%; TEVAR, 3.9%; dissection stent, 4.1%; P = .75).Racial and ethnic minority groups were underrepresented and underreported in pivotal aortic device trials that led to FDA approval. Female patients were also underrepresented in these aortic trials, especially for EVAR. These data suggest the need for standardization of reporting practices and minimum thresholds for minority and female participation in pivotal trials to promote equitable representation.

Although the benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating symptomatic carotid stenosis are well known, the optimal timing of intervention after acute stroke and whether the optimal timing will vary with preoperative stroke severity has remained unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effect of stroke severity and timing of the intervention on the postoperative outcomes for patients who had undergone CEA for stroke.We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone CEA from 2012 to 2020 for prior stroke. The patients were stratified using the preoperative modified Rankin scale score (mRS score, 0-5) and time to CEA after stroke onset (≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, 91-180 days). After univariate comparisons, the patients were stratified into the following mRS cohorts for further analysis: 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death.We identified 15,601 patients, of whom 30% had had an mRS score of 0, 34% an mRS score of 1, 17% an mRS score of 2, 11% an mRS score of 3, 8% an mRS score of 4, and 1% an mRS score of 5. Overall, 9.3% of the patients had undergone CEA within ≤2 days, 46% within 3 to 14 days, 36% in 15 to 90 days, and 8.4% within 90 to 180 days. A decreasing mRS score and an increasing time to CEA were associated with lower rates of perioperative stroke/death (PPatients with minimal disability after stroke (mRS score, 0-1) seemed to benefit from CEA within 3 to 14 days. However, those with severe disability (mRS score 5) have a very high risk from CEA at any time point given the poor outcomes. In contrast to the current guidelines, patients with mild disability (mRS score 2) could benefit from delaying CEA to 15 to 90 days, and those with moderate disability (mRS score 3-4) might benefit from CEA within 3 to 90 days given the acceptable in-hospital outcomes. These data should be considered within the context of the clinical situation in the weeks after index event to determine the net benefit of delayed CEA.

Statin therapy is the standard of care for patients with carotid artery stenosis given its proven cardiovascular benefits. However, the impact of statin therapy on outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the association of statin therapy with outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).We identified all patients who underwent CEA, tfCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to September 2021. To compare outcomes, we stratified patients by procedure type and created 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who received no preoperative statin therapy (within 36 hours of procedure) versus those who received preoperative statin therapy. Propensity scores incorporated demographic characteristics, comorbidities, carotid symptom status, preoperative medications, and physician and hospital procedural experience. The primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke and/or death. As a secondary analysis, we performed repeat propensity score-matching by postoperative statin use (prescribed at discharge) and assessed 5-year mortality. Relative risks (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using log binomial regression and Cox regression, respectively.Among 97,835 CEA, 20,303 tfCAS, and 22,371 TCAR patients, 15%, 17%, and 10% of patients did not receive preoperative statin therapy, respectively. Compared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death among 13,434 matched CEA patients (no statin, 1.7% vs statin, 1.4%; RR, 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.5) and among 2707 matched tfCAS patients (4.8% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3). However, there was no difference for this outcome by statin use among 2089 matched TCAR patients (1.8% vs 1.6%; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). At 5 years, no statin therapy at discharge was associated with higher 5-year mortality after CEA (15% vs 10%; HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2) and tfCAS (18% vs 14%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8), but there was no difference after TCAR (14% vs 11%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.8).Compared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death and 5-year mortality among CEA and tfCAS patients. Although there was no significant difference in outcomes among TCAR patients, this may in part be due to lower statistical power in this cohort. Overall, statin therapy is essential in the short- and long-term management of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Our findings not only support current Society for Vascular Surgery recommendations for statin therapy in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, but they also highlight an important opportunity for quality improvement.

Objective: With increasing experience in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) over time, devices designed to treat juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms have evolved in complexity to extend to more proximal landing zones and incorporate more target vessels. We assessed perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent juxta-/pararenal FEVAR with supraceliac vs infraceliac sealing in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Methods: We identified all patients who underwent elective FEVAR (commercially available FEVAR and physician-modified endografts) for juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021. Supraceliac sealing was defined as proximal sealing in aortic zone 5, or zone 6 with a celiac scallop/fenestration/branch or celiac occlusion. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 3-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included completion endoleaks, in-hospital complications, and factors associated with 3-year mortality. We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression and logistic regression modeling to assess outcomes. Results: Among 1486 patients identified, 1246 patients (84%) underwent infraceliac sealing, and 240 patients (16%) underwent supraceliac sealing. Of the supraceliac patients, 74 (31%) had a celiac scallop, 144 (60%) had a celiac fenestration/branch, and 22 (9.2%) had a celiac occlusion (intentional or unintentional). After risk-adjusted analyses, there were no differences in perioperative mortality following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (2.3% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.8; P = .42), or 3-year mortality (12% vs 15%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53-1.5; P = .67). Compared with infraceliac sealing, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower odds of type-IA completion endoleaks (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67), but higher odds of any complication (12% vs 6.9%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.01-2.5) including cardiac complications (5.5% vs 1.9%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1), lower extremity ischemia (3.0% vs 0.9%; OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.02-9.5), and acute kidney injury (16% vs 11%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.05-2.3). Though non-significant, there was a trend towards higher risk of spinal cord ischemia following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (1.7% vs 0.8%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.70-6.4). There were no differences in bowel ischemia between groups (1.7% vs 1.5%; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.24-1.23). A more proximal aneurysm disease extent was associated with higher 3-year mortality (HR zone 8 vs 9, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), whereas procedural characteristics had no influence. Conclusions: Compared with sealing at an infraceliac level, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower risk of type IA endoleaks and similar mortality. However, clinicians should be aware that supraceliac sealing was associated with higher perioperative morbidity. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to adequately assess durability differences to comprehensively weigh the risks and benefits of utilizing a higher sealing zone within the visceral aorta for juxta-/pararenal FEVAR.

Objective: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is frequently used for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. However, there are limited data comparing transradial or transbrachial (tr/tbCAS) access with more established CAS approaches. Therefore, we examined the effect of a tr/tbCAS approach versus a transfemoral (tfCAS) or transcarotid (TCAR) approach on outcomes after CAS. Methods: We identified all patients undergoing CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to December 2021. We compared outcomes across 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS or tr/tbCAS versus TCAR. As a secondary analysis, we assessed outcomes stratified by carotid symptom status. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death. Results: Among 40,835 CAS patients, 962 (2.4%) underwent tr/tbCAS, 18,840 (46%) underwent tfCAS, and 21,033 (52%) underwent TCAR. Among matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS, there was no significant difference in the risk of stroke/death (4.1% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-2.1), but tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of death (2.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.1% vs 3.9%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and death (3.6% vs 1.7%; RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for mRS in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.66-1.9) or death (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.81-3.3) between groups. In matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (4.2% vs 2.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7) and death (2.4% vs 0.5%; RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS remained associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.2% vs 2.4%; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.2) and death (3.7% vs 0.7%; RR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for Modified Rankin Scale in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.79-2.6) or death (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.95-5.7) between groups. Conclusions: Compared with tfCAS or TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death in symptomatic patients, which was driven primarily by a higher risk of death. These inferior outcomes were partly attributable to more severe preoperative neurologic disability in tr/tbCAS patients. In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes in asymptomatic patients. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of guideline-directed patient selection in tr/tbCAS.

Objectives: Sex, racial, and ethnic disparities in postoperative outcomes following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair have been described, but differences in long-term outcomes are poorly understood. Our aim was to identify differences in 5-year outcomes and imaging surveillance after elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) by sex, race, and ethnicity and to explore potential mechanisms underlying these differences. Methods: We identified patients undergoing elective EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2017 with linkage to Medicare claims through 2018 for long-term outcomes. Our primary outcome was 5-year aneurysm rupture. Secondary outcomes were 5-year reintervention and mortality and 2-year loss-to-imaging follow-up (defined as no aortic imaging from 6 to 24 months after EVAR). We used Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to evaluate these outcomes by sex/race/ethnicity and constructed multivariable models to explore potential contributing factors. Results: Among 16,040 patients, 11,764 (73%) were White males, 2891 (18%) were White females, 417 (2.6%) were Black males, 175 (1.1%) were Black females, 141 (0.9%) were Asian males, 34 (0.2%) were Asian females, 277 (1.7%) were Hispanic males, and 60 (0.4%) were Hispanic females. At 5 years, rupture rates were highest in Black females at 6.4% and lowest in white males at 2.3%. Compared with White males, rupture rates were higher in White females (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.0), Black females (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.0-6.0), and Asian females (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.3-21). White females also had higher mortality (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.2-1.3) and loss-to-imaging-follow-up (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3), whereas Black females had higher mortality (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8) and reintervention (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8). Among other groups, Black males had higher reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8), and both Black and Hispanic males had higher loss-to-imaging-follow-up (Black: HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; Hispanic: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8). In adjusted analyses, White, Black, and Asian females remained at significantly higher risk for 5-year rupture after accounting for procedure year, clinical and anatomic characteristics, surgeon and hospital volume, and loss-to-imaging follow-up. Conclusions: Compared with White male patients, Black females had higher 5-year aneurysm rupture, reintervention, and mortality after elective EVAR, whereas White females had higher rupture, mortality and loss-to-imaging-follow-up. Asian females also had higher rupture, and Black males had higher reintervention and loss-to-imaging-follow-up. These populations may benefit from improved preoperative counseling and clinical outreach after EVAR. A larger-scale investigation of current practice patterns and their impact on sex, racial, and ethnic disparities in late outcomes after EVAR is needed to identify tangible targets for improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary national trends in repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms and intact abdominal aortic aneurysms are relatively unknown. Furthermore, screening is only covered for patient’s 65 to 75 years old with a family history or men with a smoking history. It is unclear what proportion of patients who present with a ruptured aneurysm would have been candidates for screening. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2015, we identified rupture and intact AAA admissions and repairs based on International Classification of Diseases codes._We generated the screening eligible cohort using previously identified proportions of male smokers (87%) and all patients with a family history of aneurysm (10%) and applied these proportions to patients aged 65-75. We accounted for those who may have had a prior AAA diagnosis (17%) either from screening or incidental detection in patients over age 75 presenting with rupture. The primary outcomes were treatment and in-hospital mortality stratified by patients meeting criteria for screening versus those who did not. RESULTS: We evaluated 65,125 admissions for ruptured AAA and 461,191 repairs for intact AAA. Overall, an estimated 45,037 (68%) of patients admitted and 25,777 (59%) of patients undergoing repair for ruptured AAA did not meet criteria for screening. Of the patients who did not qualify; 27,653 (63%) were older than 75 years old; 10,603 (24%) were younger than 65 years old; and 16,103 (36%) were females. EVAR use increased for ruptured AAA from 10% in 2004 to 55% in 2015 (P

Although the current guidelines have recommended single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) for patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), antithrombotic management has varied by patient and provider. Our aim was to examine the effects of different postoperative antithrombotic regimens on 3-year clinical outcomes after infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI.We identified patients who had undergone infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry from 2003 to 2017 with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We divided the patients into three cohorts according to the discharge antithrombotic regimen: SAPT (aspirin or clopidogrel), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin and clopidogrel), or anticoagulation (AC) plus any antiplatelet (AP) agent. To reduce selection bias, we restricted the analysis cohorts to patients treated by providers who discharged50% of patients with each antithrombotic regimen. Our primary outcome was 3-year major adverse limb events (MALE; major amputation or reintervention). The secondary outcomes included 3-year major amputation, reintervention, and mortality. We used Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess these outcomes stratified by antithrombotic regimen and adjusted for demographic, comorbid, clinical, and operative differences between the treatment groups with clustering at the center level.Among 1812 patients (median follow-up,2 years), 693 (38%) were discharged with SAPT, 544 (30%) with DAPT, and 575 (32%) with AC+AP. At 3 years, the MALE rates were 75% with DAPT, 74% with AC+AP, and 68% with SAPT. In adjusted analyses with SAPT as the reference group, no differences were found in 3-year MALE with DAPT (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.3; P = .71) or AC+AP (aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.96-1.3; P = .14). Across the treatment groups, we also found no differences in the individual end points of 3-year major amputation (DAPT: aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.3; AC+AP: aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.96-1.7), reintervention (DAPT: aHR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.84-1.3; AC+AP: aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.96-1.3), or mortality (DAPT: aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4; AC+AP: aHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.2). In a sensitivity analysis evaluating patients treated by providers who discharged60%,70%, or80% of patients with these regimens, the association between antithrombotic regimen and MALE was unchanged.Compared with SAPT, DAPT and anticoagulation therapy were not associated with improved outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI at VQI participating centers. These findings support current guidelines recommending SAPT after lower extremity bypass and suggest that the routine use of DAPT or anticoagulation therapy might not provide clinical benefit in this high-risk, elderly population. However, further evaluation of the risks and benefits of various antithrombotic regimens in relevant subgroups is warranted.

The traditional approach to stable blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery is early (24 hours) thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Recently, some studies have shown improved mortality in stable BTAI patients repaired in a delayed manner (≥24 hours). However, the indications for use of delayed TEVAR for BTAI are not well characterized, and its overall impact on the patient's survival remains poorly understood. We sought to determine whether delayed TEVAR is associated with a decrease in mortality compared with early TEVAR in this population.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with BTAI (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code 901.0) who underwent TEVAR (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code 39.73) from 2009 to 2013 using the National Sample Program data set. Missing physiologic data were imputed using chained multiple imputation. Patients were parsed into groups based on the timing of TEVAR (early, 24 hours, vs delayed, ≥24 hours). The χA total of 2045 adult patients with BTAI were identified, of whom 534 (26%) underwent TEVAR. Patients with missing data on TEVAR timing were excluded (n = 27), leaving a total of 507 patients for analysis (75% male; 69% white; median age, 40 years [interquartile range, 27-56 years]; median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 34 [interquartile range, 26-41]). Of these, 378 patients underwent early TEVAR and 129 underwent delayed TEVAR. The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, race, ISS, and presenting physiology. Mortality was 11.9% in the early TEVAR group vs 5.4% in the delayed group, with the early group displaying a higher odds of death (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-5.36; P = .042). After adjustment for age, ISS, and admission physiology, the association between early TEVAR and mortality was preserved (adjusted odds ratio, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-5.67; P = .047).Consistent with current Society for Vascular Surgery recommendations, more BTAI patients underwent early TEVAR than delayed TEVAR during the study period. However, delayed TEVAR was associated with significantly reduced mortality in this population. Together, these findings support a need for critical appraisal and clarification of existing practice guidelines in management of BTAI. Future studies should seek to understand this survival disparity and to determine optimal selection of patients for early vs delayed TEVAR.