Search

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet (AP) therapy (DAPT) before carotid artery stenting (CAS); however, the true clinical effect of single AP therapy vs DAPT is unknown. We examined the efficacy and safety of preoperative single AP therapy vs DAPT in patients who had undergone transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone tfCAS or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2016 to 2021. We stratified the patients by procedure and identified those who had received the following preoperative AP regimens: DAPT (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] + P2Y12 inhibitor [P2Yi]), no AP therapy, ASA only, ASA + AP loading dose, P2Yi only, and P2Yi + AP loading dose. The AP loading dose was given within 4 hours of CAS. We generated propensity scores for each treatment regimen and assessed in-hospital outcomes using inverse probability weighted log binomial regression, with DAPT as the reference and adjusting for intraoperative protamine use. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite end point of stroke and death, and the primary safety outcome was access-related bleeding.RESULTS: Of the 18,570 tfCAS patients, 70% had received DAPT, 5.6% no AP therapy, 10% ASA only, 8.0% ASA + AP loading dose, 4.6% P2Yi only, and 2.9% P2Yi + AP loading dose. The corresponding unadjusted rates of stroke/death were 2.2%, 6.8%, 4.1%, 5.1%, 2.4%, and 2.3%. After adjustment, compared with DAPT, the incidence of stroke/death was higher with no AP therapy (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.2), ASA only (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1), and ASA + AP loading dose (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.7) but was similar with P2Yi only (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.58-1.7) and P2Yi + AP loading dose (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.49-2.5). Of the 25,459 TCAR patients, 81% had received DAPT, 2.0% no AP therapy, 5.5% ASA only, 3.5% ASA + AP loading dose, 4.9% P2Yi only, and 2.4% P2Yi + AP loading dose. The corresponding unadjusted rates of stroke/death were 1.5%, 3.3%, 3.3%, 2.9%, 1.2%, and 1.1%. After adjustment, compared with DAPT, the incidence of stroke/death was higher with no AP therapy (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3) and ASA only (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.1), with a trend toward a higher incidence with ASA + AP loading dose (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.99-2.6), and was similar with P2Yi only (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.54-1.8) and P2Yi + AP loading dose (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.27-1.6). No differences were found in the incidence of access-related bleeding between the treatment groups after tfCAS or TCAR.CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DAPT, no AP therapy or ASA monotherapy was associated with higher rates of stroke/death after CAS and should be discouraged as unsafe practice. Meanwhile, P2Yi monotherapy was associated with similar rates of stroke/death. No differences were found in the incidence of bleeding complications, and adding an AP loading dose to ASA or P2Yi monotherapy within 4 hours of the procedure did not affect the outcomes. Overall, these findings support the current guidelines recommending DAPT before CAS but also suggest that P2Yi monotherapy might confer thromboembolic benefits similar to those with DAPT. However, an immediate preoperative AP loading dose might not provide additional thromboembolic benefits.

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: Several studies have demonstrated advantages of the retroperitoneal approach (RP) over the transperitoneal approach (TP) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. A retrospective analysis was performed comparing the outcomes of a TP vs. RP surgical approach for open complex AAA (cAAA) repair and evaluated their relative use over time. Methods: Patients undergoing open repair for intact cAAA (juxtarenal, suprarenal, or type IV thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms) between 2011 and 2019 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The primary outcome was peri-operative death. Secondary outcomes included peri-operative complications and approach use over time. Multivariable adjustment was performed by creating propensity scores and using inverse probability weighted logistic regression. Results: Among 1 195 patients identified, 729 (61%) underwent cAAA repair via a TP approach and 466 (39%) via an RP approach. Compared with a TP approach, RP patients more frequently had a supracoeliac clamp position (32% vs. 20%, p < .001) and concomitant renal revascularisation (30% vs. 18%, p < .001). After adjustment, an RP approach was associated with lower odds of peri-operative death (4.0% vs. 7.2%; odds ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 – 0.91; p = .022). Furthermore, an RP approach was associated with lower odds of any major complication (24% vs. 30%; OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 – 0.94), cardiac complications (4.9% vs. 8.2%; OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37 – 0.96), wound complications (2.1% vs. 6.0%; OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.17 – 0.64), and post-operative sepsis (0.8% vs. 2.4%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.12 – 0.99). The proportion of repairs using an RP approach decreased between 2011 – 2015 and 2016 – 2019 (42% vs. 35%, p = .020), particularly for suprarenal and type IV thoraco-abdominal aneurysms (49% vs. 37%, p = .023). Conclusion: In open cAAA repair, the RP approach may be associated with lower peri-operative mortality and morbidity rates compared with the TP approach. However, it was found that the relative use of the RP approach is decreasing over time, even in suprarenal/type IV thoraco-abdominal aneurysms, and repairs using a supracoeliac clamp. Increased use of the RP approach, when appropriate, may lead to improved outcomes following open cAAA repair.

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.

Objectives: Although the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grading system is used to depict the severity of injury in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury, prior literature on its association with outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is limited. Methods: We identified patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI within the VQI between 2013 and 2022. We stratified patients based on their SVS aortic injury grade (grade 1, intimal tear; grade 2, intramural hematoma; grade 3, pseudoaneurysm; and grade 4, transection or extravasation). We assessed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality using multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses. Secondarily, we assessed the proportional trends in patients undergoing TEVAR based on SVS aortic injury grade over time. Results: Overall, 1311 patients were included (grade1, 8%; grade 2, 19%; grade 3, 57%; grade 4, 17%). Baseline characteristics were similar, except for a higher prevalence of renal dysfunction, severe chest injury (Abbreviated Injury Score >3), and lower Glasgow Coma Scale with increasing aortic injury grade (Ptrend < .05). Rates of perioperative mortality by aortic injury grade were as follows: grade 1, 6.6%; grade 2, 4.9%; grade 3, 7.2%; and grade 4, 14% (Ptrend = .003) and 5-year mortality rates were 11% for grade 1, 10% for grade 2, 11% for grade 3, and 19% for grade 4 (P = .004). Patients with grade 1 injury had a high rate of spinal cord ischemia (2.8% vs grade 2, 0.40% vs grade 3, 0.40% vs grade 4, 2.7%; P = .008). After risk adjustment, there was no association between aortic injury grade and perioperative mortality (grade 4 vs grade 1, odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-3.5; P = .65), or 5-year mortality (grade 4 vs grade 1, hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-2.30; P = .82). Although there was a trend for decrease in the proportion of patients undergoing TEVAR with a grade 2 BTAI (22% to 14%; Ptrend = .084), the proportion for grade 1 injury remained unchanged over time (6.0% to 5.1%; Ptrend = .69). Conclusions: After TEVAR for BTAI, there was higher perioperative and 5-year mortality in patients with grade 4 BTAI. However, after risk adjustment, there was no association between SVS aortic injury grade and perioperative and 5-year mortality in patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI. More than 5% of patients with BTAI who underwent TEVAR had a grade 1 injury, with a concerning rate of spinal cord ischemia potentially attributable to TEVAR, and this proportion did not decrease over time. Further efforts should focus on enabling careful selection of patients with BTAI who will experience more benefit than harm from operative repair and preventing the inadvertent use of TEVAR in low-grade injuries.

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.

Objective: Previous studies on carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting demonstrated that perioperative outcomes differed according to preoperative neurologic injury severity, but this has not been assessed in transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). In this study, we examined contemporary perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent TCAR stratified by specific preprocedural symptom status. Methods: Patients who underwent TCAR between 2016 and 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We stratified patients into the following groups based on preprocedural symptoms: asymptomatic, recent (symptoms occurring 180 days before TCAR). First, we used trend tests to assess outcomes in asymptomatic patients versus those with an increasing severity of recent neurologic injury (recent ocular TIA vs recent hemispheric TIA vs recent stroke). Then, we compared outcomes between asymptomatic and formerly symptomatic patients. Our primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups. Results: We identified 18,477 patients undergoing TCAR, of whom 62.0% were asymptomatic, 3.2% had a recent ocular TIA, 7.6a % had recent hemispheric TIA, 18.0% had a recent stroke, and 9.2% were formerly symptomatic. In patients with recent symptoms, we observed higher rates of stroke/death with increasing neurologic injury severity: asymptomatic 1.1% versus recent ocular TIA 0.8% versus recent hemispheric TIA 2.1% versus recent stroke 3.1% (Ptrend < .01). In formerly symptomatic patients, the rate of stroke/death was higher compared with asymptomatic patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (1.7% vs 1.1%; P = .06). After risk adjustment, compared with asymptomatic patients, there was a higher odds of stroke/death in patients with a recent stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.7; P < .01), a recent hemispheric TIA (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; P < .01), and former symptoms (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5; P = .02), but there was no difference in stroke/death rates in patients with a recent ocular TIA (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4-2.2; P = .78). Conclusions: After TCAR, compared with asymptomatic status, a recent stroke and a recent hemispheric TIA were associated with higher stroke/death rates, whereas a recent ocular TIA was associated with similar stroke/death rates. In addition, a formerly symptomatic status was associated with higher stroke/death rates compared with an asymptomatic status. Overall, our findings suggest that classifying patients undergoing TCAR as symptomatic versus asymptomatic may be an oversimplification and that patients’ specific preoperative neurologic symptoms should instead be used in risk assessment and outcome reporting for TCAR.

Objective: Prior literature has demonstrated worse outcomes for female patients after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Also, prior studies in the context of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysms have reported conflicting results regarding sex-related outcomes. Because the influence of sex on the outcomes after TEVAR for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) remains understudied, we evaluated the association between sex and outcomes after TEVAR for BTAI. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2013 to 2022 and included those who had undergone TEVAR within zones 2 to 5 of the thoracic aorta. Patients with missing information regarding the aortic injury grade (Society for Vascular Surgery aortic injury grading system) were excluded. We performed multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression to determine the influence of sex on the perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality, respectively. Results: We identified 1311 patients, of whom 27% were female. The female patients were significantly older (female, 47 years [interquartile range (IQR), 30-63 years]; male, 38 years [IQR, 28-55 years]; P < .001) with higher rates of comorbidities. Although the female patients had had higher Glasgow coma scale scores (median, 15 [IQR, 11-15]; vs 14 [IQR, 8-15]; P = .028), no differences were found in the aortic injury grade or other coexisting traumatic injuries between the sexes. Apart from the longer procedure duration for the female patients (median, 79 minutes [IQR, 52-119 minutes]; vs 69 minutes [IQR, 48-106 minutes]; P = .008), the procedural characteristics were comparable. After adjustment, no significant association was found between female sex and perioperative mortality (7.1% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.3; P = .34). The male and female patients had had comparable rates of postoperative complications (26% vs 29%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.52-1.5]; P = .26) including access-related complications (0.5% vs 0.8%; P=.83). However, females had a significantly higher risk for reintervention during the index admission (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .024). No significant difference was found between the male and female patients with respect to 5-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.35; P = .50). Conclusions: Unlike the sex-based outcome disparities observed after thoracic aortic aneurysm repair, we found no significant association between sex and perioperative outcomes or long-term mortality after TEVAR for BTAIs. This contrast in the sex-related outcomes after other vascular pathologies might be explained by differences in the pathology, demographics, and anatomic factors in these patients.

Recent studies have highlighted socioeconomic disparities in the severity and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease. However, these studies focus on individual measures of social disadvantage such as income and insurance status. The area deprivation index (ADI), a validated measure of neighborhood deprivation, provides a more comprehensive assessment of social disadvantage. Therefore, we examined the impact of ADI on AAA severity and its management.We identified all patients who underwent endovascular or open repair of an AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between 2003 and 2020. An ADI score of 1 to 100 was assigned to each patient based on their residential zip code, with higher ADI scores corresponding with increasing deprivation. Patients were categorized by ADI quintiles. Outcomes of interest included rates of ruptured AAA (rAAA) repair versus an intact AAA repair and rates of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus the open approach. Logistic regression was used to evaluate for an independent association between ADI quintile and these outcomes.Among 55,931 patients who underwent AAA repair, 6649 (12%) were in the lowest ADI quintile, 11,692 (21%) in the second, 15,958 (29%) in the third, 15,035 (27%) in the fourth, and 6597 (12%) in the highest ADI quintile. Patients in the two highest ADI quintiles had a higher proportion of rAAA repair (vs intact repair) compared with those in the lowest ADI quintile (8.8% and 9.1% vs 6.2%; P .001). They were also less likely to undergo EVAR (vs open approach) when compared with the lowest ADI quintile (81% and 81% vs 88%; P .001). There was an overall trend toward increasing rAAA and decreasing EVAR rates with increasing ADI quintiles (P .001). In adjusted analyses, when compared with patients in the lowest ADI quintile, patients in the highest ADI quintile had higher odds of rAAA repair (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8; P .001) and lower odds of undergoing EVAR (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65; P .001).Among patients who underwent AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative, those with higher neighborhood deprivation had significantly higher rates of rAAA repair (vs intact repair) and lower rates of EVAR (vs open approach). Further work is needed to better understand neighborhood factors that are contributing to these disparities to identify community-level targets for improvement.

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.

OBJECTIVE Our aim was to describe the racial and ethnic differences in presentation, baseline and operative characteristics, and outcomes after aortoiliac aneurysm repair. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic differences in prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms and showed more complex iliac anatomy in Asian patients. METHODS We identified all White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients undergoing aortoiliac aneurysm repair in the VQI from 2003 to 2019. We compared baseline comorbidities, operative characteristics, and perioperative outcomes by race and ethnicity. RESULTS In our 60,435 patient cohort, Black patients, followed by Asian patients, were most likely to undergo repair for aortoiliac (W:23%, B:38%, A:31%, H:22%, P < 0.001) and isolated iliac aneurysms (W:1.0%, B:3.1%, A:1.5%, H:1.6%, P < 0.001), and White and Hispanic patients were most likely to undergo isolated aortic aneurysm repair (W:76%, B:59%, A:68%, H:76%, P < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to undergo symptomatic repair and underwent rupture repair at a smaller aortic diameter. The iliac aneurysm diameter was largest in Black and Asian patients. Asian patients were most likely to have aortic neck angulation above 60 degree, graft oversizing above 20%, and completion endoleaks. Also, Asian patients were more likely to have a hypogastric artery aneurysm and to undergo hypogastric coiling. CONCLUSION Asian and Black patients were more likely to undergo repair for aortoiliac and isolated iliac aneurysms compared to White and Hispanic patients who were more likely to undergo repair for isolated aortic aneurysms. Moreover, there were significant racial differences in the demographics and anatomic characteristics that could be used to inform operative approach and device development.

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.

Black and Hispanic patients have had higher rates of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and experienced worse perioperative outcomes after lower extremity bypass compared with White patients. The underlying reasons for these disparities have remained unclear, and data on 3-year outcomes are limited. Therefore, we examined the differences in 3-year outcomes after open infrainguinal bypass for CLTI stratified by race/ethnicity and explored the potential factors contributing to these differences.We identified all CLTI patients who had undergone primary open infrainguinal bypass in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2003 to 2017 with linkage to Medicare claims through 2018 for the 3-year outcomes. Our primary outcomes were the 3-year rates of major amputation, reintervention, and mortality. We also recorded the 30-day major adverse limb events (MALE) defined as major amputation or reintervention. We used Kaplan-Meier estimation methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses to evaluate the outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity and identify contributing factors.Of the 7108 patients with CLTI, 5599 (79%) were non-Hispanic White, 1053 (15%) were Black, 48 (1%) were Asian, and 408 (6%) were Hispanic patients. Compared with White patients, Black patients had higher rates of 3-year major amputation (Black vs White, 32% vs 19%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.2), reintervention (Black vs White, 61% vs 57%; HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3), and 30-day MALE (Black vs White, 8.1% vs 4.9%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) but lower mortality (Black vs White, 38% vs 42%; HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8-0.99). Hispanic patients also experienced higher rates of amputation (Hispanic vs White, 27% vs 19%; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.0), reintervention (Hispanic vs White, 70% vs 57%; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6), and MALE (Hispanic vs White, 8.7% vs 4.9%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7. However, mortality was similar between the two groups (Hispanic vs White, 38% vs 42%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.0). The low number of Asian patients prevented a meaningful assessment of amputation (Asian vs White, 20% vs 19%; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.44-2.0), reintervention (Asian vs White, 55% vs 57%; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51-1.2), MALE (Asian vs White, 8.5% vs 4.9%; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-1.1), or mortality (Asian vs White, 36% vs 42%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.3). In the adjusted analyses, the association of Black race and Hispanic ethnicity with amputation and reintervention was explained by differences in the demographic characteristics (ie, age, sex) and baseline comorbidities (ie, tobacco use, diabetes, renal disease).Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher 3-year major amputation and reintervention rates. However, mortality was lower for Black patients than for the White patients and similar between Hispanic and White patients. Disparities in amputation and reintervention were partly attributable to differences in demographic characteristics and the higher prevalence of comorbidities in Black and Hispanic patients with CLTI. Future work is necessary to determine whether interventions to improve access to care and reduce the burden of comorbidities in these populations will confer limb salvage benefits.

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.

PURPOSE Humanism in medicine is associated with increased patient satisfaction, trust of patients in their doctors, and better outcomes. The authors sought to identify attitudes, habits, and other factors that sustain humanism in academic surgical faculty, and compare these with attributes determined from a previous study of internal medicine faculty. METHOD A mixed-methods study design at University of Pennsylvania Health System was employed from 2016 to 2018 using a survey instrument and semistructured interviews. Surgical residents nominated faculty who exemplified humanism. In-depth interviews were then conducted with surgeons receiving the most nominations. The interviews were transcribed, and common themes were identified using the grounded theory method. These were compared with findings from a previous internal medicine study. RESULTS Ten faculty described three strongly shared attitudes: humility, responsibility, and a desire to live up to a high standard of professional behavior. Five habits were found important to sustaining these attitudes and their practice: self-reflection, finding deep connections with patients, maintaining personal and professional relationships, "having fun" at work, and paying it forward to surgical trainees. Surgeons also cited the importance of past role models in developing humanistic attitudes and sustaining practice. Responses were compared with previously documented attitudes and habits of humanistic internal medicine faculty at the institution. CONCLUSIONS This study identified recurring attitudes and habits that characterize humanistic behaviors in a cohort of academic surgeons. Learning from these exemplary humanistic surgeons may inform the development of future educational programs for residents and faculty in sustaining humanism.

Objective: Several studies have demonstrated the advantages of a retroperitoneal (RP) vs a transperitoneal (TP) approach during open repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). We compared the outcomes after open repair of complex AAAs (cAAAs) using an RP vs a TP approach and evaluated the relative use of these approaches over time. Methods: We identified all patients who had undergone open intact cAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to -2019 and created 1:1-propensity score-matched cohorts stratified by the operative approach (RP vs TP). The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and approach usage over time. To create 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts, the patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic and/or intraoperative characteristics, including proximal clamp site and renal revascularization. The approach usage over time was determined by plotting the proportion of RP usage over time for the overall open cAAA cohort and subgroups of repairs using a supraceliac cross clamp, repair with concomitant renal revascularization, and repairs performed at high-volume centers (highest quintile, >11 cases annually). Results: Of a total of 4613 patients, 2843 (62%) had undergone open cAAA repair using the TP approach and 1770 (38%) using the RP approach. Of the 1256 matched pairs, the RP approach was associated with lower risk of perioperative mortality compared with the TP approach (3.9% vs 6.8%; relative risk [RR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Furthermore, the RP approach was associated with a lower risk of cardiac complications (7.2% vs 9.6%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98), bowel ischemia (3.1% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84), and postoperative dialysis (3.3% vs 5.5%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87). Overall, the proportion of patients who had undergone repair via an RP approach became lower over time (−1.0%/y; 95% CI, −1.5 to −0.5; P < .001). A similar trend in the decrease was found for the patients who had undergone repair with a supraceliac clamp (−2.3%/y; 95% CI, −3.6 to −1.0; P < .001) and in the high-volume hospitals (−2.1%/y; 95% CI, −3.4 to −0.8; P = .001), although no statistically significant decrease in RP usage was found for the patients who had undergone concomitant renal revascularization (−0.9%/y; 95% CI, −2.6 to 0.8; P = .28). Conclusions: For open cAAA repair, an RP approach was associated with lower perioperative mortality and complications compared with a TP approach. However, the relative usage of the RP approach has been decreasing over time. An increased adoption of the RP approach, when appropriate, might lead to improved outcomes with open cAAA repair.

Compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) clinical practice guideline (CPG)-diameter thresholds is variable for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). To evaluate the implications and appropriateness of repairs that are noncompliant with current guidelines, we investigated the long-term outcomes, adherence to imaging follow-up, and associated health care costs in patients undergoing EVAR for AAA who do or do not meet recommended diameter thresholds.All patients receiving elective EVAR from 2003 to 2016 in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative with linked Medicare claims were reviewed. Weekend procedures and isolated iliac aneurysms, as well as symptomatic and ruptured presentations, were excluded. Diameter thresholds for noncompliant repairs were defined as: men 55 mm; women 50 mm who did not have an iliac diameter ≥30 mm. We evaluated adherence to postoperative imaging surveillance, reimbursement amounts, reintervention, rupture, and all-cause mortality. We defined an EVAR quality metric as performance of the index procedure with freedom from conversion to open repair, 5-year rupture-free survival, and adherence to minimum imaging surveillance (at least one computed tomography scan documented between 6 and 24 months postoperatively).Among 19,018 elective EVARs, 35% did not meet CPG diameter thresholds (26% within 5 mm of threshold). The rate of noncompliant repairs increased over time (24% in 2003 vs 36% in 2016; P .001). Patients undergoing noncompliant repairs were younger, less likely to have multiple comorbidities, and more likely to receive EVAR with adherence to instructions for use criteria (89% vs 79%; P .001). Patients undergoing noncompliant repairs had greater 5-year freedom from reintervention (86% vs 81%; P .001), rupture-free survival (94% vs 92%; P = .01), and overall survival rates (71% vs 61%; P .001) compared with repairs that complied with CPG diameter thresholds. Although noncompliant repairs had higher rates of 1-year imaging surveillance, overall differences were modest (68% vs 65%; P = .003). Importantly, for the entire cohort, follow-up imaging surveillance decreased over time (93% in 2003 vs 63% in 2014; P .001). Notably, although noncompliant repairs had higher rates of achieving the composite quality metric compared with compliant repairs (43% vs 38%; P .001), failure occurred with a significant majority of all repairs.Compliance with SVS-endorsed CPG diameter thresholds for elective EVAR is poor, and rates of noncompliance are increasing. Noncompliant repairs appear to be offered more commonly to patients with fewer comorbidities and favorable anatomy, and these repairs are associated with improved rates of reintervention, rupture, and survival compared with procedures meeting CPG diameter thresholds. Importantly, noncompliant repairs fail to meet minimum quality standards in a majority of cases, which underscores the need for further policies to improve the overall quality and appropriateness of AAA care delivery nationally.