Search

Objective: The association of higher hospital volume with lower mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (OAAA) repair is well known; however, the underlying mechanism for improved outcomes is poorly understood. Better patient selection, lower risk of complications, and improved ability to rescue patients after adverse events are assumed mechanisms, but few data exist to validate this hypothesis. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association of hospital volume with patient selection, incidence of complications, and failure to rescue (FTR) after adverse events resulting from OAAA repair., Methods: The Vizient (Irving, Tex) database (>95% of all academic hospitals) was reviewed for OAAA repairs (elective, n = 2827; nonelective, n = 1622) performed from 2012 to 2014. Presentation type (elective vs nonelective) was considered in all analyses. Elixhauser comorbidity index and van Walraven weighted scores were assigned to patients and volume-outcome relationships explored. By use of logistic regression, risk-adjusted complications (including preventable complications; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators [PSIs]) and FTR rates were determined. Predicted risk scores were assigned to delineate hospital volume association with these outcomes., Results: Overall, no relationship between hospital volume and composite patient comorbidity severity score was identified (Elixhauser comorbidity index and van Walraven weighted scores: Pearson [ρ, 0.02], P = .2; [ρ, -0.01], P = .4; Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ, 0.02], P = .4; [ρ, -0.02], P = .2). The lack of correlation persisted in considering elective vs nonelective status. However, for elective cases, differences in specific comorbidities were noted because high-volume hospitals were more likely to repair patients with a history of peripheral vascular disease (P = .01), diabetes (P = .07), obesity (P = .004), and alcohol abuse (P = .05). Lower volume hospitals more frequently repaired patients with hypothyroidism (P = .05), fluid and electrolyte disorders (P = .007), and chronic blood loss anemia (P = .05). No specific individual comorbidity differences were detected for nonelective cases. In examining hospital volume effects on the likelihood for development of any complication (45%), PSIs (12%), and FTR (9%), a significant risk reduction was noted in high-volume institutions. Specifically, a nonlinear relationship between hospital volume and risk of any complication (P = .0004), PSI (P = .0004), and FTR (P =. 0003) was present. In exploring the risk of specific complications or PSI events, greater hospital volume was strongly correlated to a lower likelihood of multiple adverse outcomes., Conclusions: Although high-volume institutions performing OAAA repair do not necessarily operate on patients with more comorbidities, there are important differences in the patients selected compared with lower volume hospitals. The risk for development of multiple specific postoperative complications as well as for preventable adverse events preceding FTR is significantly lower in high-volume centers. These findings provide benchmarks for multiple selected quality indicators and further support national initiatives to incentivize regionalization of OAAA care., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Failure to rescue (FTR), a patient safety indicator (PSI) defined, codified, and adjudicated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, is classified as a preventable inpatient death following major complications. FTR has been reported to be a significant driver of postoperative mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (OAAA) repair. The association between hospital volume (HV) and mortality is well known; however, the mechanisms responsible for these improved outcomes and relative contribution to observed interhospital variation is poorly understood. Similarly, HV influence on specific complications predictive of FTR is unknown; therefore, we sought to determine how HV influences risk and contributes to interhospital variation in PSI events leading to FTR and/or in-hospital mortality after OAAA repair., Methods: The Vizient database (174 academic/nonacademic hospitals) was queried for all OAAA repairs (elective, n = 2827; nonelective, n = 1622) completed from 2012 to 2014. The primary endpoint was combined FTR and/or in-hospital 30-day mortality. Risk-adjusted rates of complications, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-designated PSIs, and FTR were determined. Additional modeling identified PSIs associated with FTR, whereas HV effects on PSIs and FTR were evaluated using mixed-effect models accounting for interhospital variation. Proportion of variation attributable to HV was estimated by contrasting hospital random effect variances in the presence/absence of volume effects., Results: The combined overall FTR/in-hospital 30-day mortality rate was 9.3% (n = 414). For elective and nonelective cases, the overall FTR and 30-day mortality rates were: FTR, 1.6%, 4.9%; and 30-day in-hospital mortality, 3.4%, 17.5%, respectively. HV significantly influenced FTR/30-day in-hospital mortality (P < .0001). FTR/30-day mortality odds for hospitals with 3-year volumes of 50, 100, 150, and 200 cases were 1.4, 2.0, 2.7, and 3.0 times lower, respectively, than hospitals performing ≤25 cases/3 years. The proportion of interhospital variation attributed to HV was greatest for FTR/30-day mortality (62%). Procedural volume accounted for 41% and 38% of interhospital variation in postoperative bleeding and myocardial infarction, respectively. Preoperative predictors of FTR included coagulopathy, arrhythmia (nonelective cases); congestive heart failure, obesity (elective cases); and age, neurological disease, hypertension, and valvular disease (all cases)., Conclusions: OAAA FTR/30-day in-hospital mortality strongly correlated with annual case volume with higher volume centers having the lowest risk. Notably, HV accounted for a significant proportion of the observed variation in FTR and specific complications providing direct evidence for how the volume-outcome relationship may influence perioperative mortality. These findings can inform stakeholders to strategically enable them to implement processes of care directed at the most vulnerable patients that are designed to reduce the likelihood of preventable adverse events and death after OAAA repair. Furthermore, these results underscore the need to regionalize OAAA repair and potentially other complex operations, to HV centers because of their improved ability to rescue patients experiencing complications associated with postoperative mortality., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Controversy exists surrounding gender outcome disparity and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Previous reports have demonstrated worse outcomes for women undergoing open aneurysm repair (OAR); however, these differences are less evident with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Epidemiologic studies have documented that women score higher on most frailty assessment scales but paradoxically have longer life expectancy compared to men. The interaction of gender/frailty and the influence on outcomes and practice patterns surrounding EVAR and OAR is poorly described. This analysis characterizes the association of frailty/sex interactions on mortality as well as patient selection surrounding elective AAA repair in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative., Methods: All elective infrarenal AAA (EVAR + OAR; 2003-2017) cases were queried from the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Each patient was assigned a previously published modified frailty index (mFI) score derived from comorbidity and preoperative functional status data. Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for statistically significant covariates, including procedural complexity, determined associations within full models and sex-stratified models., Results: A total of 20,750 elective AAA cases were analyzed (EVAR 15,893 [77%]; OAR 4857 [23%]). Thirty-day mortality for EVAR and OAR was 0.7% (n = 115) and 3.5% (n = 169), respectively. Patients who died were significantly more likely to be older (EVAR, 78 vs 73 years; OAR, 74 vs 69 years; P < .0001), have larger AAA diameters (EVAR, 59 vs 56 mm; P = .005; OAR, 62 vs 59 mm; P = .001), higher mFI scores (EVAR, 3.2 vs 2.4; OAR, 3.1 vs 2.2; P < .0001), and be of female sex (EVAR hazard ratio = 1.66 [95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.52]; P = .007; OAR-1.43 [1.02-1.99]; P = .003). Significant differences in the gender distribution of frailty scores among EVAR patients were evident (mean mFI: male 2.42 vs female 2.34; P = .02), but no difference was detected for OAR (male 2.17 vs female 2.22; P = .38). The mFI was a strong independent predictor of mortality (30 days: EVAR hazard ratio = 1.36 [1.22-1.53] and OAR 1.46 [1.32-1.60]; 1 year: EVAR 1.32 [1.25-1.39] and OAR-1.38 [1.28-1.48]). There was no interaction between mFI and gender on the association with mortality. Across frailty strata, male patients were nearly twofold more likely to undergo either elective EVAR or OAR for an AAA below recommended minimum diameter thresholds (male, <5.5 cm; female, <5.0 cm). Greater mFI score did not alter OAR selection but was associated with less frequent EVAR of small AAA., Conclusions: Given the strong association between frailty and postoperative mortality, mFI can be used as a predictive tool to aid in surgical planning of patients undergoing elective AAA repair. While mFI can predict postoperative mortality for both men and women, it does not account for the survival disparity between sexes, and further research is warranted to explain this difference. There appear to be significant gender differences in patient selection based on current Society for Vascular Surgery-endorsed treatment thresholds that may have important implications on the appropriateness of AAA care delivery nationally., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the performance of the chimney (ch) technique in the treatment of type Ia endoleaks after standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)., Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2014, 517 chEVAR procedures were performed in 13 US and European vascular centers (PERICLES registry). Thirty-nine patients (mean age 76.9±7.1 years; 33 men) were treated for persistent type Ia endoleak and had computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography follow-up at >1 month. Endurant abdominal stent-grafts were used in the 20 cases. Single chimney graft placement was performed in 18 (46%) patients and multiple in 21 (54%). Overall, 70 visceral vessels were targeted for revascularization., Results: Technical success was achieved in 35 (89.7%) cases; 3 persistent type Ia endoleaks and 1 chimney graft occlusion were detected within the first 30 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6%. Two other deaths (not aneurysm related) occurred during a mean follow-up of 21.9 months (0.23-71.3). Primary patency of the chimney grafts was 94.3% at 36 months. In a subgroup analysis comparing Endurant to other stent-grafts, no significant differences were observed regarding persistent endoleak [1/20 (5%) vs 2/19 (11%), p=0.6] or reintervention [1/20 (5%) vs 0/19 (0%)]., Conclusion: The present series demonstrates that chEVAR in the treatment of post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks has satisfactory results independent of the abdominal and chimney graft combinations. Midterm results show that chEVAR is an effective method for treating type Ia endoleaks.

Objective: The ideal stent combination for chimney endovascular aneurysm repair remains undetermined. Therefore, we sought to identify optimal aortic and chimney stent combinations that are associated with the best outcomes by analyzing the worldwide collected experience in the PERformance of chImney technique for the treatment of Complex aortic pathoLogiES (PERICLES) registry., Methods: The PERICLES registry was reviewed for patients with pararenal aortic disease electively treated from 2008 to 2014. Eleven different aortic devices were identified with three distinct subgroups: group A (n = 224), nitinol/polyester; group B (n = 105), stainless steel/polyester; and group C (n = 69), nitinol/expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. The various chimney stent subtypes included the balloon-expandable covered stent (BECS), self-expanding covered stent, and bare-metal stent. Deidentified aortic and chimney device combinations were compared for risk of chimney occlusion, type IA endoleak, and survival. Effects of high-volume centers (>100 cases), use of an internal lining chimney stent, number of chimney stents, and number of chimney stent subtypes deployed were also considered. We considered demographics, comorbidities, and aortic anatomic features as potential confounders in all models., Results: The 1- and 3-year freedom from BECS chimney occlusion was not different between groups (group A, 96% ± 2% and 87% ± 5%; groups B and C, 93% ± 3% and 76% ± 10%; Cox model, P = .33). Similarly, when non-BECS chimney stents were used, no difference in occlusion risk was noted for the three aortic device groupings; however, group C patients receiving BECS did have a trend toward higher occlusion risk relative to group C patients not receiving a BECS chimney stent (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-18.84; P = .08). Patients receiving multiple chimney stents, irrespective of stent subtype, had a 1.8-fold increased risk of occlusion for each additional stent (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9; P = .01). Use of a bare-metal endolining stent doubled the occlusion hazard (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0-4.5; P = .05). Risk of type IA endoleak (intraoperatively and postoperatively) did not significantly differ for the aortic devices with BECS use; however, group C patients had higher risk relative to groups A/B without BECS (C vs B: odds ratio [OR], 3.2 [95% CI, 1-11; P = .05]; C vs A/B: OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.9-6.4; P = .08]). Patients treated at high-volume centers had significantly lower odds for development of type IA endoleak (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .01) irrespective of aortic or chimney device combination. Mortality risk was significantly higher in group C + BECS vs group A + BECS (HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.6-17.5; P = .006). The 1- and 3-year survival for groups A, B, and C (+BECS) was as follows: group A, 97% ± 1% and 92% ± 3%; group B, 93% ± 3% and 83% ± 7%; and group C, 84% ± 7% and 63% ± 14%. Use of more than one chimney subtype was associated with increased mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4-7.5; P = .006)., Conclusions: Within the PERICLES registry, use of nitinol/polyester stent graft devices with BECS during chimney endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with improved survival compared with other aortic endografts. However, this advantage was not observed for non-BECS repairs. Repairs incorporating multiple chimney subtypes were also associated with increased mortality risk. Importantly, increasing chimney stent number and bare-metal endolining stents increase chimney occlusion risk, whereas patients treated at low-volume centers have higher risk of type IA endoleak., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)