Search

Background: Data from multiple surgical studies and settings have reported an increase in adverse events in patients admitted or treated on weekends. The aim of this study was to investigate short-term outcomes for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in Australia and New Zealand based on the day of surgery., Methods: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. Analysis of 7,857 CEAs recorded for more than 4 years in the Australasian Vascular Audit database was performed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the following outcomes between CEAs performed during the week and on the weekend: (1) in-hospital stroke and/or death; (2) other postoperative complications; and (3) shorter (2 days or less) length of stay (LOS)., Results: A total of 7,857 CEAs were recorded, with significantly more procedures performed during the week (n = 7,333, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of stroke and/or death or other complications between CEAs performed during the week or on the weekend (P = 0.294 and P = 0.806, respectively). However, there was a significant difference in LOS for procedures performed during the weekend, with more of these patients being discharged within 2 days compared with procedures performed during the week (56.8% vs. 51.5%; P = 0.003). Multivariable logistic regression found no effect of day of the week on the odds of postoperative stroke and/or death (P = 0.685). Day of surgery was also not associated with greater odds of other complications (P = 0.925). However, CEAs performed by nonconsultants had significantly lower adjusted odds of other complications (3.1% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.033). The adjusted odds of having a shorter LOS were significantly greater for operations taking place on the weekend (P = 0.003)., Conclusions: In Australia and New Zealand, there appears to be no disadvantage to performing CEA on the weekend, in terms of stroke and/or death. Level of experience of the primary operator does not affect rates of stroke and/or death after CEA. Weekend CEA is associated with a shorter hospital LOS., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. Historical RCTs may not represent contemporary practice and administrative datasets may estimate procedural risks more reliably. We studied procedural risks after carotid intervention in a novel, international administrative data set of 18,997 patients admitted to 28 hospitals across 7 countries., Methods: Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA (n = 16,220) and CAS (n = 2,777) between 2011 and 2015 were studied retrospectively. The primary outcome was in-hospital death within seven days. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients whose length of hospital stay (LOS) exceeded 2 days. We also describe the rate of computerized tomography brain imaging within 2 days of CEA and CAS (proxy for stroke) as procedural strokes were not reliably recorded., Results: In symptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.2% [5/2,118] (95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.5), and 57.0% [628/1,101] (54.1-60.0) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.1% [21/14,102] (0.1-0.2), and 28.5% [2,864/10,039] (27.7-29.4) had prolonged LOS. In symptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 3.3% [10/307] (1.3-5.2), and 64.3% [144/224] (58.0-70.5) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 0.7% [18/2,470] (0.4-1.1), and 27.5% [601/2,187] (25.6-29.4) had prolonged LOS. After CEA, 8.1% [89/1,101] (6.5-9.7) symptomatic patients and 2.1% [207/10,039] (1.8-2.3) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging. After CAS, 7.1% [16/224] (4.0-10.7) symptomatic patients and 3.2% [71/2,187] (2.5-4.0) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging., Conclusions: Death and LOS after CEA and CAS were higher in symptomatic than asymptomatic patients. Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had particularly increased risk of death. This may be partly explained by case selection, with more comorbid patients preferentially undergoing CAS. While RCTs effectively compare long-term efficacy of CEA versus CAS, administrative datasets can provide reliable estimates of contemporary procedural risks., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Peripheral artery disease affects 1.2% of the population globally and is associated with an increased risk of atherothrombotic cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events and mortality. The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anti-coagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated positive results of rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy compared to aspirin therapy alone in those with peripheral artery disease or carotid artery disease. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness from the Australian healthcare system perspective., Methods and Results: A Markov model was developed to simulate the experiences of a hypothetical population of 1000 individuals with peripheral artery disease or carotid artery disease, profiled on the COMPASS trial, treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy versus aspirin therapy alone. With each annual cycle, individuals were at risk of having non-fatal cardiovascular disease events, major adverse limb events, or dying. Individuals were also at risk of non-fatal major bleeding. The model had a lifetime time horizon. Costs and utilities were sourced from the literature and discounted at 5.0% annually. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy prevented 143 non-fatal cardiovascular disease events, 118 major adverse limb events and 10 deaths compared to aspirin therapy alone. Conversely, 156 additional major non-fatal bleeds were accrued. With an additional 256 quality-adjusted life years gained, at an additional cost of AUD$6,858,103, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was AUD$26,769 (discounted) per quality-adjusted life year gained, which is below Australia's arbitrary willingness to pay threshold of AUD$50,000., Conclusion: In those with peripheral artery disease or carotid artery disease, rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy is effective and cost-effective in the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular disease compared to aspirin therapy alone.