Search

Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms are more common in men. Yet, females often have worse outcomes, fewer interventions, and lower treatment rates. Females have also benefited less from the research and treatment of those diseases than men. Understanding sex- and sex-specific differences in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms can improve care delivery, reduce disparities, and optimize outcomes for females with thoracic aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. The authors reviewed the literature on the presentation and outcomes of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in females, discussing the existing gaps and future directions to address them., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Rana O. Afifi is a consultant for Medtronic and EndoRon Ltd. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive hybrid surgical carotid stenting technique which utilizes cerebral flow reversal as embolic protection during carotid lesion manipulation. This investigation was performed to define the perioperative risks associated with this operation in the obese patient., Methods: A retrospective review of tandem carotid revascularization databases maintained at two high-volume health systems was performed to capture all TCARs performed between 2015 and 2022. A threshold of body mass index of 35 kg/m 2 defined the "obese" patient. Demographics, intraoperative, perioperative, and follow-up characteristics were compared using univariate analysis., Results: We performed 793 TCAR procedures that qualified for study inclusion within the prespecified time. After applying our obesity definition, 129 patients qualified as obese and were compared to the remainder. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics as comparable Charlson Comorbidity Indices were noted between groups; however, obese patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. Intraoperative, case complexity in the obese patients did not seem to be increased, as measured by operative time (68.4 ± 23.0 vs 64.2 ± 25.8 min, p = 0.09), fluoroscopic time (4.9 ± 3.2 vs 4.6 ± 3.6 min, p = 0.38), and estimated blood loss (40.6 ± 49.0 vs 46.6 ± 49.4 min, p = 0.22). Similarly, no disparities were observed with respect to ipsilateral stroke (3.1 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.29), contralateral stroke (0 vs. 0.2%, p > 0.99), death (0 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.61), and stroke/death (3.1 vs. 3.0%, p > 0.99) in the 30-day perioperative period. Both cohorts were followed for approximately 1 year (12.0 ± 13.4 vs 11.6 ± 13.4 months, p = 0.76). During this period, rates of ipsilateral stroke (3.1% vs. 2.7%, p > 0.99), contralateral stroke (1.1 vs. 0.8%, p > 0.99), and death (4.7 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.68) were similar., Conclusions: TCAR performed in the obese population was not more challenging by intraoperative characteristics and did not result in a statistically higher incidence of adverse events in the perioperative phase., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: Significant regional variation is known with multiple surgical procedures. This study describes regional variation in carotid revascularization within the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)., Methods: Data from the VQI carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) databases from 2016 to 2021 were used. Nineteen geographic VQI regions were divided into three tertiles based on the average annual volume of carotid procedures performed per region (low-volume: 956 cases [range, 144-1382]; medium-volume: 1533 cases [range, 1432-1589]; and high-volume: 1845 cases [range, 1642-2059]). Patients' characteristics, indications for carotid revascularization, practice patterns, and outcomes (perioperative and 1-year stroke/death) of different revascularization techniques were compared between these regional groups. Regression models that adjust for known risk factors and allow for random effects at the center level were used., Results: CEA was the most common revascularization procedure (>60%) across all regional groups. Significant regional variation was observed in the practice of CEA such as variability in the use of shunting, drain placement, stump pressure and electroencephalogram monitoring, intraoperative protamine, and patch angioplasty. For transfemoral CAS, high-volume regions had a higher proportion of asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (30.5% vs 27.8%) in addition to higher use of local/regional anesthesia (80.4% vs 76.2%), protamine (16.1% vs 11.8%), and completion angiography (81.6% vs 77.6%) during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) compared with low-volume regions. For transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), high-volume regions were less likely to intervene on asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (32.2% vs 35.8%) than low-volume regions. They also had a higher proportion of urgent/emergent procedures (13.6% vs 10.4%) and were more likely to use general anesthesia (92.0% vs 82.1%), completion angiography (67.3% vs 63.0%), and poststent ballooning (48.4% vs 36.8%). For each carotid revascularization technique, no significant differences were noted in perioperative and 1-year outcomes between low-, medium-, and high-volume regions. Finally, there were no significant differences in outcomes between TCAR and CEA across the different regional groups. In all regional groups, TCAR was associated with a 40% reduction in perioperative and 1-year stroke/death compared with TF-CAS., Conclusions: Despite significant variation in clinical practices for the management of carotid disease, no regional variation exists in the overall outcomes of carotid interventions. TCAR and CEA continue to show superior outcomes to TF-CAS across all VQI regional groups., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To define the risks associated with the replacement of dual antiplatelets for alternate medication regimens., Background: Patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for atherosclerotic disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from September 2016 to June 2022 were included. In all, 29,802 TCAR procedures were captured between 2016 and 2022, consisting of 24,651 (82.7%) maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 5151 (17.3%) on alternative regimens., Methods: Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those on alternative regimens consisting of any combination of single antiplatelet monotherapy and/or anticoagulation., Results: On univariable analysis, patients on alternative medications were more likely to experience in-hospital death, ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, and transient ischemic attacks compared with patients in the DAPT group. The mortality rate was higher at 1 year in the alternative cohort (4.7% vs 7.0%, P <0.01). The use of alternate medication regimens was associated with increased odds of stroke and the composite outcome of in-hospital stroke/death compared with DAPT. There was also a significant association between alternative medication use and increased odds of in-hospital transient ischemic attack, immediate stent occlusion, and return to the operating room. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke between the 2 groups. However, the use of alternate regimens was associated with higher 1-year of mortality after multivariable adjustment., Conclusions: Patients not maintained on DAPT after TCAR experienced an increased risk of stroke and death in the perioperative and follow-up periods. Increased surgeon vigilance is required to ensure compliance with dual antiplatelets as recommended., Competing Interests: R.L.M. is the national principal investigator for the Silk Road Medical sponsored DW-MRI TCAR study but does not receive any personal remuneration. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continues to be the preferred medication regimen after the placement of a carotid stent using the transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) technique despite a dearth of quality data. Therefore, this investigation was performed to define the risks associated with antiplatelet choice., Methods: We queried all patients who underwent TCAR captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to June 2022, to determine the association between antiplatelet choice and outcomes. Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those receiving alternative regimens consisting of single antiplatelet, anticoagulation, or a combination of the two. A 1:1 propensity-score match was performed with respect to baseline comorbidities, functional status, anatomic/physiologic risk, medications, and intraoperative characteristics. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes were compared between the groups., Results: During the study period, 29,802 procedures were included in our study population, with 24,651 (82.7%) receiving DAPT and 5151 (17.3%) receiving an alternative antiplatelet regimen. A propensity-score match with respect to 29 variables generated 4876 unique pairs. Compared with patients on DAPT, in-hospital ipsilateral stroke was significantly higher in patients receiving alternative antiplatelet regimens (1.7% vs 1.1%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.54 [1.10-2.16], P = .01), whereas no statistically significant difference was noted with respect to mortality (0.6% vs 0.5%, 1.35 [0.72-2.54], P = .35). A composite of stroke/death was also more likely in patients receiving an alternative regimen (2.4% vs 1.7%, 1.47 [1.12-1.93], P = .01). Immediate stent thrombosis (2.75 [1.16-6.51]) and a nonsignificant trend toward increased return to the operating room were more common in the alternative patients. Conversely, the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was lower in the alternative regimen group (0.4% vs 0.7%, 0.53 [0.31-0.90], P = .02). At 1 year after the procedure, we observed an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.34 [1.11-1.63], P < .01) but not stroke (0.52 [0.27-0.99], P = .06) in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen., Conclusions: This propensity-score-matched analysis demonstrates an increased risk of in-hospital stroke and 1-year mortality after TCAR in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen instead of DAPT. Further studies are needed to elucidate the drivers of DAPT failure in patients undergoing TCAR to improve outcomes for carotid stenting patients., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Carotid revascularization in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) continues to be a controversial topic, as life expectancy is poor, thus, preventing the recouperation of cumulative stroke-risk reduction in the postoperative period. We performed this primarily descriptive analysis of the results of transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) in renal failure patients., Methods: A retrospective review of two independent carotid revascularization databases maintained at two large health systems were performed to capture all consecutive TCAR procedures. Patients were classified as either (1) ESRD or (2) preserved renal function (PRF) and compared with standard univariate techniques, where appropriate., Results: From December 2015 to April 2022, 851 consecutive TCARs were attempted at our participating facilities. Of these, 27 were performed in ESRD patients (all hemodialysis). These patients were younger and presented with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. The incidence of a high anatomic risk criterion as defined for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were similar between groups, as was the incidence of a symptomatic carotid lesion. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative characteristics and the postoperative medication management were grossly similar by renal function. In the 30-day perioperative period, there were no stroke, death, or myocardial infarction in the 27 ESRD patients treated with TCAR. The mean duration of follow-up in the ESRD cohort was 15.0 months. During this time, there was no ipsilateral stroke events, one contralateral stroke, and one MI. All 27 carotid stents remained patent during this period. Six patients perished after TCAR at a mean interval of 12.2 months after TCAR., Conclusion: Survival is poor after carotid revascularization via the TCAR technique on intermediate follow-up. Careful patient selection is required to identify those who will survive to collect on the cumulative stroke-risk reduction afforded by carotid intervention.

Introduction: Much of the previous robust analyses of the results associated with transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) derives from industry-sponsored trials or the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). This investigation was performed to identify preoperative predictors of 30-day stroke and death using institutional databases., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of carotid revascularization databases created at two high-volume TCAR centers and maintained independently of the VQI carotid module between December 2015 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of perioperative (30-day) stroke and death. Univariate regression analyses, followed by multivariate regression analyses, were performed to identify potential predictors of adverse events., Results: During the study period, 750 TCAR procedures were performed at our combined health systems, resulting in 24 (3.2%) individuals who experienced either stroke and/or death in the perioperative period. Of these, we observed nine (1.2%) mortality events and 18 (2.4%) strokes. On univariate analysis, candidate protectors of stroke/death were found to be coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.01; P = 0.05) and protamine reversal (0.51; 0.21-1.21; P = 0.15). Candidate predictors of the primary outcome were anticoagulant usage (3.03; 1.26-7.24; P = 0.01), postprocedural debris in the filter (2.30; 0.97-5.43; P = 0.06), symptomatic carotid lesion (2.03; 0.90-4.50), and cardiac arrhythmia (1.98; 0.80-4.03; P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, two predictors remained, cardiac arrhythmia (4.21; 1.10-16.16; P = 0.04) and symptomatic carotid lesion (14.49; 1.80-116.94; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: A symptomatic carotid lesion, and to a lesser extent cardiac arrhythmia, are strong predictors of 30-day stroke/death after TCAR. Surgeons should be cognizant of the increased risk of adverse events in the perioperative period in these patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is uncertain whether preoperative anemia is independently associated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) outcomes. Using a national vascular surgery database, we evaluated the associations between preoperative anemia and 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and 1-year survival for patients undergoing TEVAR., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone TEVAR for aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, penetrating aortic ulcer, hematoma, or thrombus between January 2011 and December 2019. We excluded patients with a ruptured aneurysm, traumatic dissection, emergent repair, treated aorta distal to zone 5, polycythemia, transfusion of >4 U of packed red blood cells intraoperatively or postoperatively, and missing data on hemoglobin level or surgical indications. The final study cohort was dichotomized into two groups: normal/mild anemia (women, ≥10 g/dL; men, ≥12 g/dL) and moderate/severe anemia (women, <10 g/dL; male, <12 g/dL). Propensity scores by stratification were used to control for confounding in the analysis of the association between the outcomes of 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and 1-year survival and a binary indicator variable of moderate/severe anemia vs normal/mild anemia. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 1-year survival between the two groups. A Cox regression model was fitted to assess the associations between anemia and survival outcomes., Results: A total of 3391 patients were analyzed, 958 (28.3%) of whom had had moderate/severe anemia. After adjustment for multiple clinical factors using propensity score stratification, moderate/severe anemia was associated with a 141% increased odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.05; P = .019), 58% increased odds of any in-hospital complication (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17-2.13; P = .003), 281% increased odds of intraoperative transfusion (aOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.68-5.53; P < .001). In addition, moderate/severe anemia was associated with significantly worse survival within the first year after TEVAR (log-rank P < .001; 1-year survival rate using Kaplan-Meier estimates, 86.4% ± 1.3% standard error vs 92.5% ± 0.6% standard error) and with an increased risk of mortality in the first postoperative year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.82; P = .009)., Conclusions: We found that moderate or severe anemia is associated with significantly increased odds of mortality, postoperative complications, and worse 1-year survival after TEVAR. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anemia correction on the outcomes of TEVAR., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid open and endovascular technique to treat carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to present a large cohort of patients who underwent TCAR at 2 high-volume TCAR health systems., Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review of all instances of TCAR within the Memorial Hermann Health System and Indiana University Health, from December 2015-January 2022, using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection Device (Silk Road Medical, Sunnyvale, CA). We report patient demographics, intraoperative metrics, 30-day results and long-term results., Results: In all, 750 patients underwent TCAR in the designated time period. Average patient age was 73 years, with 68% being male. Overall, 53.9% of patients had coronary artery disease, 45.4% had diabetes, and 36.9% were symptomatic. Technical success was achieved in 98.8% of patients with conversion to open endarterectomy in 1.1%. Average reverse flow time was 9.1 minutes with length of stay greater than 1 day 38%. Ipsilateral stroke rate within 30 days was 2.3% and long-term cumulative stroke rate was 3.0%. Death within 30 days occurred in 1.2% of patients and in 5.9% over long-term follow up. In all, 1% of patients required reintervention., Conclusions: TCAR is a safe and effective treatment modality for carotid artery stenotic disease. Its outcomes are similar to historical results associated with carotid endarterectomy, long considered the gold standard.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of TCAR with flow reversal to the gold standard CEA using data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project., Summary of Background Data: TCAR is a novel minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients that is associated with significantly lower stroke rates compared with carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach., Methods: Patients in the United States and Canada who underwent TCAR and CEA for carotid artery stenosis (2016-2019) were included. Propensity scores were calculated based on baseline clinical variables and used to match patients in the 2 treatment groups (n = 6384 each). The primary endpoint was the combined outcome of perioperative stroke and/or death., Results: No significant differences were observed between TCAR and CEA in terms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR, 1.6% vs CEA, 1.6%, RR (95% CI): 1.01 (0.77-1.33), P = 0.945], stroke [1.4% vs 1.4%, RR (95% CI): 1.02 (0.76-1.37), P = 0.881], or death [0.4% vs 0.3%, RR (95% CI): 1.14 (0.64-2.02), P = 0.662]. Compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction [0.5% vs 0.9%, RR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.35-0.83), P = 0.005], cranial nerve injury [0.4% vs 2.7%, RR (95% CI): 0.14 (0.08-0.23), P < 0.001], and post-procedural hypertension [13% vs 18.8%, RR (95% CI): 0.69 (0.63-0.76), P < 0.001]. They were also less likely to stay in the hospital for more than 1 day [26.4% vs 30.1%, RR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.82-0.94), P < 0.001]. No significant interaction was observed between procedure and symptomatic status in predicting postoperative outcomes. At 1 year, the incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death was similar between the 2 groups [HR (95% CI): 1.09 (0.87-1.36), P = 0.44]., Conclusions: This propensity-score matched analysis demonstrated significant reduction in the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury after TCAR compared to CEA, with no differences in the rates of stroke/death., Competing Interests: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Advancements in carotid revascularization have produced promising outcomes in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, the optimal timing of revascularization procedures after symptomatic presentation remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within different time intervals after most recent symptoms., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of United States patients in the vascular quality initiative. All carotid revascularizations performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between September 2016 and November 2019 were included. Procedures were categorized as urgent (0-2 days after most recent symptom), early (3-14 days), or late (15-180 days). The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital stroke and death. Secondary outcomes include in-hospital stroke, death, and transient ischemic attacks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes., Results: A total of 18 643 revascularizations were included: 2006 (10.8%) urgent, 7423 (39.8%) early, and 9214 (49.42%) late. Patients with TFCAS had the highest rates of stroke/death at all timing cohorts (urgent: 4.0% CEA, 6.9% TFCAS, 6.5% TCAR, P =0.018; early: 2.5% CEA, 3.8% TFCAS, 2.9% TCAR, P =0.054; late: 1.6% CEA, 2.8% TFCAS, 2.3% TCAR, P =0.003). TFCAS also had increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with CEA in all 3 groups (urgent adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.9] P =0.03; early aOR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4] P =0.01; and late aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2-3.0] P =0.01). TCAR and CEA had comparable odds of in-hospital stroke/death in all 3 groups (urgent aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-4], P =0.10), (early aOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7], P =0.66), (late aOR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.9-2.3], P =0.08)., Conclusions: CEA remains the safest method of revascularization within the urgent period. Among revascularization performed outside of the 48 hours, TCAR and CEA have comparable outcomes.

Objective: Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS., Methods: All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures., Results: A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P = .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .004). At 1 year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P = .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = .027). At 1 year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .033)., Conclusions: In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The concept of frailty has been proposed to capture the vulnerability resulting from aging and has been implemented for the prediction of perioperative outcomes. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is considered an appropriate minimally invasive procedure for patients considered to high risk to undergo carotid endarterectomy. Recently, the predictive accuracy for perioperative outcomes using the five-item modified frailty index (5mFI) has been reported to be relatively poor for cardiovascular surgery compared with other surgeries. The effects of functional status and the 5mFI on the outcomes after CAS remain unknown. Thus, in the present study, we investigated the relationship between 5mFI, functional status, and perioperative outcomes., Methods: All the patients who had undergone CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from November 15, 2016 to December 31, 2018 were included. Good functional status was defined as the ability to perform all predisease activities without restriction using a new variable added to the Vascular Quality Initiative from November 15, 2016 onward. The 5mFI was calculated using functional status and a history of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. The perioperative outcomes included in-hospital stroke or death within 30 days after CAS, a prolonged postoperative stay (≥2 days), and nonhome discharge. The associations between functional status, 5mFI, and perioperative outcomes were examined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for sex, age, race, degree of stenosis, symptomatic status, and the usage of preoperative medications. An analysis stratified by functional status was also performed., Results: Of the 7836 patients, 188 (2.4%) had experienced perioperative stroke or death, 765 (9.8%) had required a nonhome discharge, and 2584 (33.0%) had required a prolonged postoperative stay. A higher (≥0.6 vs <0.6) 5mFI score was associated with greater odds of perioperative stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-5.28; P = .003), non-home discharge (aOR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.89-3.85; P < .001), and a prolonged postoperative length of stay (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.56-2.46; P < .001). For the predictive accuracy of the perioperative outcomes, the 5mFI model had an area under the curve for in-hospital stroke or death, nonhome discharge, and prolonged postoperative length of stay of 0.714, 0.767, and 0.668, respectively. The functional status model was not inferior to the 5mFI model for any of these outcomes. In the subgroup analysis, of the asymptomatic patients, a higher 5mFI score was associated with greater odds of perioperative stroke or death (aOR, 7.08; 95% CI, 2.02-24.48; P = .002), nonhome discharge (aOR, 5.87; 95% CI, 2.45-13.90; P < .001), and a prolonged postoperative stay (aOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.82-3.71; P < .001)., Conclusions: Frailty, as measured using the 5mFI, and functional status were independent predictors of perioperative stroke or death, nonhome discharge, and an increased length of stay for patients undergoing CAS. These results were greatly pronounced in asymptomatic patients. The results from the present study, thus, caution against the use of CAS for asymptomatic frail patients., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Multiple studies have shown improved outcomes and higher utilization of care with the increase of insurance coverage. This study aims to assess whether Medicaid expansion (ME) has changed the utilization and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the United States., Design: Retrospective observational study., Materials: Data of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2017)., Methods: Interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was utilized to evaluate changes in annual trends of postoperative outcomes after elective AAA repair before and after 2014. We also assessed if these trend changes were significant by comparing the changes in states which adopted ME in 2014 versus nonexpansion states (NME), and conducting a difference-in-difference analysis. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and adverse events (bowel and leg ischemia, cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke and return to the OR)., Results: A total of 19,143 procedures were included (Endovascular: 85.8% and open: 14.2%), of which 40.9% were performed in ME States. Compared to preexpansion trends (P1), there was a 2% annual increase in elective AAA repair in ME states (P1: -1.8% versus P2: +0.2%, P< 0.01) with no significant change in NME (P1: +0.3% versus P2: +0.2%, P = 0.97). Among elective cases, annual trends in the use of EVAR increased by 2% in ME states (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.1, 4.1, P = 0.06), compared to a 3% decrease in NME States [95%CI = -5.8, -0.6, P = 0.01) (P ME versus NME < 0.01]. There was no association between ME and in-hospital mortality. Nonetheless, it was associated with a decrease in the annual trends of in-hospital complications (ME: -1.4% (-2.1,-0.8) versus NME: +0.2% (-0.2, +0.8), P < 0.01)., Conclusions: While no association between ME and increased survival was noted in states which adopted ME, there was a significant increase of elective AAA cases and EVAR utilization and a decrease in in-hospital complications in ME States., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Previous studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA., Methods: Patients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group., Results: A total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13)., Conclusions: The results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a suitable alternative to open aortic surgery especially for older patients with poor general health and functional status. However, data on the benefit of TEVAR in elderly patients are limited. The aim of this study was to use a large national database to compare the outcomes of TEVAR in octogenarians vs nonoctogenarians in the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection., Methods: All patients who underwent TEVAR for nonruptured thoracic aneurysms or dissection (zones 1-5) between January 2014 and February 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiac adverse events; neurologic events; respiratory complications; new-onset dialysis; leg compartment syndrome; postoperative hematoma in addition to spinal, bowel, arm, and leg emboli/ischemia; and return to the operating room. Outcomes were compared between octogenarians (age ≥80 years) and nonoctogenarians (age <80 years) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models., Results: A total of 2042 patients were identified, including 390 octogenarians (19.1%). Compared with nonoctogenarians, octogenarians had higher percentages of females (49.5% vs 40.4%; P < .01) and White patients (75.9% vs 68.6%; P < .01) and were more likely to present with thoracic aneurysms (86.2% vs 64.3%; P < .001). They also had larger aortic diameters (maximum diameter, 60.3 ± 15.8 mm vs 53.4 ± 17.4 mm), less proximal disease zones (zone 1, 3.3% vs 5.5%; zone 2, 13.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo the procedure under local/regional anesthesia (5.4% vs 2.4%; P < .01) compared with patients less than 80 years of age. No association was observed between octogenarians and in-hospital mortality after TEVAR for aneurysms (5.1% vs 3.3%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-2.61; P = .33) or dissection (5.6% vs 4.9%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.14-3.32; P = .63). However, for thoracic aneurysm repair, octogenarians had a 44% higher adjusted odds of in-hospital complications (27.4% vs 20.7%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-1.98; P = .03) compared with their younger counterparts. In-hospital complications (27.8% vs 26.2%; P = .79; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.50-2.11; P = .95) were similar in octogenarians undergoing endovascular repair for dissections of the thoracic aorta. Octogenarians were also associated with 1.74 times the mortality hazard compared with nonoctogenarians (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.18-2.58; P = .01)., Conclusions: TEVAR is an acceptable treatment option for octogenarians who have aortic arch and descending aortic aneurysms or dissections (zones 1-5). However, in case of aneurysms, they might be at a higher risk of in-hospital complications. Octogenarians also had increased hazard of 1-year mortality; however, the exact cause of this mortality could not be deciphered. Our findings suggest that elderly patients should not be denied TEVAR based on age if they are medically and anatomically fit for this procedure., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Standard endovascular repair (EVAR) is not suitable in patients with hostile aortic anatomy. Open aneurysm repair (OAR) has been the gold-standard approach in managing these patients. EndoAnchors have been introduced as a technique to make EVAR in patients with short and angulated necks possible. The use of EndoAnchors in managing hostile aneurysms in octogenarians has not been studied before. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate both short and long-term outcomes in octogenarians versus nonoctogenarians patients with hostile aortic anatomy undergoing EVAR using EndoAnchors., Methods: Only patients enrolled in the primary arm of the ANCHOR registry were included and stratified into octogenarians (80-89 years) and nonoctogenarians (<80 years). Standard univariate (chi-square, fisher's exact, student's t-tests) and multivariable (logistic, cox-regression) analysis was used to evaluate patients' characteristics and outcomes between octogenarians versus nonoctogenarians as appropriate., Results: Of 461 patients, 21% (N = 97) were octogenarians. Compared to nonoctogenarians, octogenarians were more likely to have a history of renal (32.0% vs. 18.4%) and genitourinary (30.9% vs. 21.2%) disease (both P < 0.05). They were also more likely to have an AAA diameter greater than 55 mm compared to nonoctogenarians (59% vs. 46%), had increased neck tortuosity index (mean [S.D.] 1.07 [0.08] vs. 1.05 [0.05]), greater proximal neck angulation (mean [S.D.]: 28.2 [17.3] vs. 23.7 [16] degrees) and were more likely to have localized (29.3% vs. 18.7%) and diffuse (25.6% vs. 20.7%) neck calcification (All P < 0.05). The overall procedural success was similar between both groups. However, octogenarians had higher rates of endoleaks at completion (32.0% vs. 21.2%, P = 0.03) and 30-day bleeding (12.4% vs. 5.8%) and cardiac (13.4% vs. 5.2%) complications (All P < 0.05). Additionally, compared to nonoctogenarians, octogenarians had lower freedom from all-cause mortality (87.90% vs. 96.50%) and type II endoleak (73.30% vs. 88.60%) based on Kaplan Meier estimates through one year (Both P < 0.05). In multivariable cox-regression analysis, octogenarians demonstrated a 5-fold increase in all cause mortality (HR [95% CI]: 5.19 [1.92-14], P = 0.001) and a 3-fold increase in type II endoleak (HR [95% CI]: 2.99 [1.54-5.81], P = 0.001) at 1-year. However, no significant difference was seen in aneurysm/device related mortality (HR [95% CI]: 1.42 [0.14-14.7], P = 0.77) and type I endoleak (HR [95% CI]: 1.71 [0.31-9.55], P = 0.54) at 1-year., Conclusions: Despite a worse aortic neck anatomy, octogenarians undergoing EVAR using EndoAnchors showed acceptable short and long-term outcomes. The results of our study could expand the utilization of EVAR in octogenarians with hostile neck., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Recent studies have suggested that the low risk of stroke and death associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is partially attributable to a robust dynamic flow reversal system and the avoidance of the atherosclerotic aortic arch during stenting. However, the benefits of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection (DEP) in reducing stroke or death in TCAR have not been studied., Methods: All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) via the transcarotid route with either dynamic flow reversal (TCAR) or DEP (TCAS-DEP) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to November 2019 were analyzed. Both multivariable logistic regression and nearest neighbor propensity score-matched analysis were performed to explore the differences in outcomes between the two procedures. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. The secondary outcomes were stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite of stroke, death, and MI. A secondary analysis was performed to compare transcarotid stenting with DEP vs transfemoral CAS with DEP to evaluate the effects of crossing the aortic arch., Results: A total of 8426 patients were identified (TCAS-DEP, n = 287; 3.4%). TCAR was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 5.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.64; P = .001), stroke (1.4% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P = .002), and stroke/death/MI (2.0% vs 5.2%; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.71; P = .001) compared with TCAS-DEP. Among the 274 pairs of patients identified with propensity score matching, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of stroke/death (1.1% vs 4.7%; risk ratio [RR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .021) and stroke (0.4% vs 4.0%; RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70; P = .006) compared with TCAS-DEP but no differences in stroke/death/MI (1.8% vs 4.7%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-1.02; P = .077). The secondary analysis found no differences in stroke between TCAS-DEP and transfemoral CAS with DEP (4.9% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.36-1.63; P = .65)., Conclusions: Compared with TCAS-DEP, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke or death and stroke. This finding implies that dynamic flow reversal might provide better neuroprotection than does a distal embolic filter in reducing the perioperative risk of stroke. Avoiding the aortic arch did not confer any reduction in the stroke rate. The present findings serve to separate the clinical benefit of dynamic flow reversal from that of avoiding the aortic arch during TCAR., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poststent ballooning/angioplasty (post-SB) have been shown to increase the risk of stroke risk after transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the advancement of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic cerebral blood flow reversal, we aimed to study the impact of post-SB during TCAR., Methods: Patients undergoing TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between September 2016 and May 2019 were included and were divided into three groups: those who received prestent deployment angioplasty only (pre-SB, reference group), those who received poststent deployment ballooning only (post-SB), and those who received both prestent and poststent deployment ballooning (prepost-SB). Patients who did not receive any angioplasty during their procedure (n = 367 [6.7%]) were excluded because these represent a different group of patients with less complex lesions than those requiring angioplasty. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Analysis was performed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models., Results: Of 5161 patients undergoing TCAR, 34.7% had pre-SB only, 25% had post-SB only, and 40.3% had both (prepost-SB). No differences in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death were observed among the three groups; in-hospital stroke/death in the pre-SB group was 1.4% (n = 25), post-SB 1.2% (n = 16), and prepost-SB 1.4% (n = 29; P = .92). However, patients undergoing post-SB and prepost-SB had higher rates of in-hospital transient ischemic attacks (TIA) (post-SB, 0.9%; prepost-SB, 1% vs pre-SB, 0.2%, P < .01) and postprocedural hypotension (16.6% and 16.8% vs 13.1%, respectively; P < .001). Post-SB also had longer operative times, as well as flow reversal and fluoroscopy times. On multivariable analysis, no association was seen between post-SB and the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke/death (post-SB odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.73; prepost-SB OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.57-1.70). Similarly, no significant differences were noted in terms of postprocedural hemodynamic instability and 30-day outcomes. However, post-SB and prepost-SB were associated with four times the odds of in-hospital TIA compared with pre-SB alone (post-SB OR, 4.24 [95% CI, 1.51-11.8]; prepost-SB OR, 4.76 [95% CI, 1.53-14.79]; P = .01). Symptomatic patients had higher rates of in-hospital stroke/death compared with their asymptomatic counterparts; however, there was no significant interaction between symptomatic status and ballooning in predicting the primary outcome., Conclusions: Post-SB was used in 65.3% of TCAR patients. This maneuver seems to be safe without an increase in the odds of postoperative in-hospital stroke/death. However, the increased rates of TIA associated with post-SB requires further investigation., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Racial disparities in open thoracic aortic aneurysm repair have been well-documented, with Black patients reported to suffer from poor outcomes compared with their White counterparts. It is unclear whether these disparities extend to the less invasive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study aims to examine the clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and 1-year survival of Black vs White patients undergoing TEVAR in a national vascular surgery database., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively queried to identify all patients who underwent TEVAR between January 2011 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival after TEVAR. Secondary outcomes included various types of major postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and perioperative complications. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of 1-year survival., Results: A total of 2669 patients with TEVAR were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative, of whom 648 were Black patients (24.3%). Compared with White patients, Black patients were younger and had a higher burden of comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, dialysis dependence, and anemia. Black patients were more likely to be symptomatic, present with aortic dissection, and undergo urgent or emergent repair. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between Black and White patients (3.4% vs 4.9%; P = .1). After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and operative factors, Black patients were independently associated with a 56% decrease in 30-day mortality risk compared with their White counterparts (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85; P = .01) and not associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.17; P = .42). Black patients also had a significantly better 1-year overall survival (log-rank, P = .024) and were associated with a significantly decreased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P = .01) after adjusting for multiple clinical factors., Conclusions: Although Black patients carried a higher burden of comorbidities, the racial disparities in perioperative outcomes and 1-year survival do not persist in TEVAR., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the best revascularization procedure for patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO). We aim to compare the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in patients with CCO., Study Design: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative dataset who underwent CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR, and had CCO between September 2016 and April 2020, were included. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to evaluate in-hospital outcomes., Results: The final cohort included 1,144 TCARs, 1,182 TFCAS, and 2,527 CEA procedures performed in patients with CCO. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of in-hospital stroke or death (odds ratio [OR] 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12-0.59; p < 0.01). However, no significant difference in stroke was noted (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.34-1.51; p = 0.38). These results persisted after stratifying with respect to symptomatic status (p values of interaction = 0.92 and 0.74, respectively). There was no significant difference between TCAR and CEA in odds of in-hospital stroke or death on multivariable adjustment (OR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.29-1.10, p = 0.10). The interaction between procedure type and symptomatic status in predicting in-hospital stroke was statistically significant (p = 0.04). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a 50% to 60% reduction in the odds of stroke (p = 0.04). Yet, no significant differences were observed in symptomatic patients., Conclusions: TCAR has lower odds of in-hospital stroke or death compared to TFCAS, independent of symptomatic status. Compared to CEA, TCAR seems to be a better option in asymptomatic patients, with lower odds of in-hospital stroke. Yet, no significant difference is observed in symptomatic patients., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The association between stent design and outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) has remained controversial. The available data are conflicting regarding the superiority of any specific stent design. The present study investigated the association between cell design and outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) in a real world setting., Methods: Patients who had undergone CAS with distal embolic protection in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database from 2016 to 2018 were included in the present study. Patients undergoing CAS for trauma or dissection or more than two treated lesions were excluded. We also excluded lesions for which more than two carotid stents had been used and lesions confined to the common or external carotid artery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to compare the outcomes after CAS between the open- and closed-cell stent designs., Results: Of the 2671 CAS procedures included in the present analysis, 1384 (51.8%) had used closed-cell stents and 1287 (48.2%) had used open-cell stents. On univariable analysis, no significant differences were noted between the closed- and open-cell stents in in-hospital mortality (1.8% vs 1.4%; P = .40), stroke (1.8% vs 2.4%; P = .28), and stroke/death (3.3% vs 3.5%; P = .81). After adjusting for potential confounders (ie, age, symptomatic status, previous major amputation, statin and antiplatelet use, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, elective procedures, approach, and post-stent dilatation), no difference was noted in in-hospital stroke/death between the two stent designs (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.74; P = .74). However, the interaction between stent design (open vs closed) and lesion location (bifurcation vs internal carotid artery [ICA]) was statistically significant (P = .02). Closed-cell stents were associated with five times the odds of in-hospital stroke/death when used in carotid artery bifurcation (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.3-22.2; P = .02). However, when the stent was limited to the ICA, no differences were noted (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45; P = .62). One-year follow-up data were available for 19% of patients. No differences in ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year were noted between the open- and closed-cell stents, except when the lesion was located in the carotid bifurcation (hazard ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.4-31.4; P = .02)., Conclusions: Closed-cell stents were associated with an increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death for carotid bifurcation lesions, which might be related to the relatively lower conformability of closed-cell stents in the tortuous and diameter-mismatched bifurcation anatomy vs the relatively linear uniform diameter of the ICA. Improved follow-up and in-depth analysis of lesion-specific characteristics that might influence the outcomes of these two designs are needed to validate these results., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The current recommendations are to perform carotid endarterectomy within 2 weeks of symptoms for maximum long-term stroke prevention, although urgent carotid endarterectomy within 48 hours has been associated with increased perioperative stroke. With the development and rapid adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we decided to study the effect of timing on the outcomes after TCAR., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was searched for symptomatic patients who had undergone TCAR from September 2016 to November 2019. These patients were stratified by the interval to TCAR after symptom onset: urgent, within 48 hours; early, 3 to 14 days; and late, >14 days. The primary outcome was the in-hospital rate of combined stroke and death (stroke/death), evaluated using logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcome was the 1-year rate of recurrent ipsilateral stroke and mortality, evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis., Results: A total of 2608 symptomatic patients who had undergone TCAR were included. The timing was urgent for 144 patients (5.52%), early for 928 patients (35.58%), and late for 1536 patients (58.90%). Patients undergoing urgent intervention had an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death, which was driven primarily by an increased risk of stroke. No differences were seen for in-hospital death. On adjusted analysis, urgent intervention resulted in a threefold increased risk of stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-6.2; P = .01) and a threefold increased risk of stroke/death (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.4; P = .01) compared with late intervention. Patients undergoing early intervention had comparable risks of stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3; P = .40) and stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.1; P = .48) compared with late intervention. On subset analysis, the type of presenting symptoms was an effect modifier. Patients presenting with stroke and those presenting with transient ischemic attack or amaurosis fugax both had an increased risk of stroke/death when undergoing urgent compared with late TCAR (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.6; P = .04; and OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .03, respectively). However only patients presenting with transient ischemic attack or amaurosis fugax had experienced an increased risk of stroke with urgent compared with late TCAR (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.4-17.5; P < .01). At 1 year of follow-up, no differences were seen in the incidence of recurrent ipsilateral stroke (urgent, 0.7%; early, 0.2%; late, 0.1%; P = .13) or postdischarge mortality (urgent, 0.7%; early, 1.6%; late, 1.8%; P = .71)., Conclusions: We found that TCAR had a reduced incidence of stroke when performed 48 hours after symptom onset. Urgent TCAR within 48 hours of the onset of stroke was associated with a threefold increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death, with no added benefit for ≤1 year after intervention. Further studies are needed on long-term outcomes of TCAR stratified by the timing of the procedure., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO) are controversial. CCO has been defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a high-risk criterion and is used as an indication for transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the promising outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we aimed to study the perioperative outcomes of TCAR in patients with CCO and to assess the feasibility of TCAR in these high-risk patients., Methods: All patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent TCAR with flow reversal between September 2016 and May 2019 were included. Patients with trauma, dissection, or more than two treated lesions were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were used to compare the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke or death after TCAR in patients with CCO and those without CCO (patent and <99% stenosis). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative neurologic changes and the individual outcomes of in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction as well as 30-day mortality., Results: A total of 5485 TCAR cases were included, of which 593 (10.8%) had CCO. In patients with CCO, mean flow reversal time was shorter (10.1 ± 6.7 minutes vs 11.1 ± 7.8 minutes; P < .01); intraoperative neurologic changes occurred in 1% of these patients compared with 0.7% of those with patent contralateral carotid arteries (P = .43). On univariable analysis, no significant difference in in-hospital stroke or death was shown between patients with and patients without CCO (1.7% vs 1.5%; P = .65). Similarly, no significant differences were noted between the groups in terms of in-hospital death (0.7% vs 0.4%; P = .27), stroke (1.7% vs 1.2%; P = .32), and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.2% vs 1.8%; P = .53) as well as 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.6%; P = .55). The results remained statistically nonsignificant after adjustment for baseline differences between the groups; the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of in-hospital stroke/death in patients with CCO compared with those with patent contralateral carotid arteries was not significant (OR, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-3.0; P = .40). In symptomatic patients presenting with prior stroke, CCO was associated with significantly higher odds of stroke or death (OR, 4.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-15.4; P = .01) compared with no CCO. On the other hand, in asymptomatic patients, no significant difference in outcomes was observed between the groups., Conclusions: In this analysis, TCAR seems to be safe in patients with CCO. Caution should be taken in symptomatic patients with CCO and a history of prior stroke as they might have worse outcomes compared with patients with patent contralateral carotid arteries. Studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to assess the perioperative and long-term outcomes of TCAR in patients with CCO in comparison to other procedures., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of intraoperative completion imaging (completion carotid duplex ultrasound or angiography) to confirm the technical adequacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study was to describe vascular surgeons' practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after CEA and to study the association between completion imaging and postoperative stroke/death and high-grade restenosis (>70%)., Methods: Patients who underwent CEA without concomitant procedures in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018 were included. Surgeons' practice patterns were defined on the basis of the distribution of completion imaging use among annual CEA cases per surgeon. Multivariable and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the association between different practice patterns of completion imaging and perioperative and 1-year outcomes after CEA., Results: Of 98,055 CEA cases, 26,716 (27.3%) were performed with completion imaging. Compared with cases in which completion imaging was not performed, completion imaging was associated with increased rates of immediate re-exploration (3.5% vs 0.9%; odds ratio [OR], 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74-5.38; P < .001), overall return to the operating room (RTOR; 1.6% vs 1.2%; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P < .01), and longer operative time (median [interquartile range], 105 minutes [82-132] vs 119 minutes [92-148]; P < .001). Of 1920 surgeons in our cohort, 45% never performed completion imaging, whereas 26% rarely performed completion imaging (for ≤20% of annual CEA cases), 9.5% performed it selectively (21%-79% of annual CEAs), and 19.6% used completion imaging routinely (≥80% of annual CEAs). Rarely performing completion imaging had higher rates of immediate re-exploration (6.5% vs 0.9%; OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 5.7-9.2; P < .001), in-hospital stroke (4.0% vs 1.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6; P < .001), RTOR for bleeding (1.9% vs 0.9%; aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-2.9; P < .001), and neurologic events (1.5% vs 0.4%; aOR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001) compared with not performing completion imaging. It was also associated with increased stroke/death and repeated revascularization at 30 days and significant restenosis at 1 year. On the other hand, performance of selective and routine completion imaging was associated with increased immediate re-exploration (selective: aOR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.9-5.5; P < .001]; routine: aOR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.5-5.6; P < .001]) without any increase in in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year adverse outcomes compared with cases performed without completion imaging., Conclusions: The performance of selective or routine completion imaging during CEA is safe and is not associated with increased adverse events compared with not using intraoperative completion imaging. However, rarely performing completion imaging is associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative stroke/death and RTOR, possibly because of unnecessary re-exploration for minor defects. The operator's experience and establishing a criterion for fixing residual defects are important to avoid unnecessary re-exploration., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anemia has been identified as a risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality after major vascular procedures. Carotid revascularization carries less cardiac morbidity and physiologic stress compared with other vascular interventions. This study evaluated the association between preoperative anemia and major adverse events after carotid revascularization., Methods: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) between January 2012 and June 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database were identified. Anemia was defined as a preoperative hemoglobin level of <12 g/dL in women and <13 g/dL in men. Multivariable logistic analysis and 1:1 coarsened exact matching were used to study the association between preoperative anemia and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction, and between anemia and 30-day mortality after CEA and CAS., Results: Of 102,719 patients included in the analysis, 34.8% were anemic (CEA, 34.1%; CAS, 37.8%; P < .001). Anemic patients were older and had more medical comorbidities compared with nonanemic patients. In-hospital MACEs (2.8% vs 1.9%; P < .001) and 30-day mortality (0.9% vs 0.4%; P < .001) were higher among anemic patients. On multivariable analysis, anemia was associated with 18% higher odds of in-hospital MACEs (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.31, P = .001) and 74% higher odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.17, P < .001). Coarsened exact matching showed similar results. The association between preoperative anemia and adverse outcomes was similar in both CAS and CEA and in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (P interaction > .05)., Conclusions: Anemia is associated with increased odds of adverse events after CEA and CAS. It should be factored into the preoperative risk assessment of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Prospective studies are needed to study the effectiveness of correcting low preoperative hemoglobin levels in these patients and the association between anemia and long-term outcomes after CEA and CAS., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Previous data showed superior outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in elderly patients because of an increased stroke risk in TFCAS-treated patients. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal was developed to mitigate the maneuvers at highest risk for causing stroke during TFCAS, such as manipulation of a diseased aortic arch and crossing of the carotid lesion before deployment of an embolic protection device. This study aimed to compare the association between age and outcomes after TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA., Methods: All patients undergoing carotid procedures in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2015 and November 2018 were included. Patients were divided into three different age groups (≤70 years, 71-79 years, and ≥80 years). In-hospital outcomes after TCAR vs TFCAS and after TCAR vs CEA were compared in each age group by introducing an interaction term between treatment type and age in the logistic regression analysis after adjustment for patients' preoperative characteristics., Results: The study cohort included 3152 TCAR, 10,381 TFCAS, and 61,650 CEA cases. The absolute and adjusted in-hospital outcomes after TCAR did not change across the different age groups. The rates of in-hospital stroke/death after TCAR were 1.4% in patients ≤70 years vs 1.9% in patients 71 to 79 years and 1.5% in patients ≥80 years (P = .55). Comparison of TCAR to CEA across different age groups showed no significant differences in outcomes, and no interaction was noted between treatment and age in predicting in-hospital stroke/death (P = .80). In contrast, TCAR was associated with a 72% reduction in stroke risk (4.7% vs 1%; odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.65; P < .01), 65% reduction in risk of stroke/death (4.6% vs 1.5%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.20-0.62; P < .001), and 76% reduction in the risk of stroke/death/myocardial infarction (5.3% vs 2.5%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.47; P < .001) compared with TFCAS in patients ≥80 years. Moreover, compared with TCAR, the odds of stroke/death after TFCAS doubled at 77 years (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.0; P < .01) and tripled at 90 years (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.8; P < .01; P value for the interaction = .08)., Conclusions: TCAR is a relatively safe procedure regardless of the patient's age. The advantages of TCAR become more pronounced in elderly patients, with significant reductions in in-hospital stroke compared with TFCAS in patients ≥77 years old, independent of symptomatic status and other medical comorbidities. These findings suggest that TCAR should be preferred to TFCAS in elderly patients who are at high surgical risk., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few centers in the United States have the expertise to manage patients with a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). The purpose of this study is to use a nationally representative vascular database to assess the role of hospital volume on outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular repair for TAAA., Methods: All patients undergoing complex endovascular repair (cEVAR) for TAAA were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database (2012-2018). The total mean number of cases per year was identified at each center and were used to group into three quantiles containing an equal number of patients (Low [LVH], Medium [MVH], High [HVH]). Standard univariate and multivariable (logistic regression) analyses were performed to evaluate the patient's characteristics and short-term outcomes., Results: A total of 2,115 patients from 118 centers (Low - 92, Medium - 19, High - 7) were identified in VQI from 2012 to 2018. The annual mean (S.D.) number of cases at HVH, MVH, LVH were 22.7 (4.7), 9.6 (3.0), 3.6 (1.4), respectively. The repair of Type III TAAA was slightly higher in HVH versus MVH versus LVH (22.5% vs. 21.0% vs. 15.1%), while Type I was more common among LVH versus MVH versus HVH (13.7% vs. 11.5% vs. 3.7%) (Both P < 0.001). Custom/modified devices were more likely to be used in HVH versus MVH versus LVH (67.9% vs. 27.6% vs. 27.2%) (P < 0.001). Additionally, HVH and MVH utilized fenestrated/branched or chimney/snorkel options more frequently, whereas surgical bypasses were common in LVH for revascularization of visceral arteries. In univariate analysis, HVH were associated with significantly lower mortality (2.2% vs. 5.1% and 6.5%), failure to rescue [FTR] (3.5% vs. 11.6% and 12.1%) and any complication (24.6% vs. 27.1% and 31.2%) compared to LVH and MVH (All P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, both LVH and MVH were associated with 2-4 fold increase in the odds of mortality [OR (95% CI): 2.30 (1.20-4.41) and 2.14 (1.16-3.93)] and FTR [OR (95% CI): 4.42 (1.86-10.54) and 4.08 (1.73-9.62)] compared to HVH., Conclusions: Our study demonstrates significantly lower morbidity and mortality in high volume hospitals performing cEVAR for TAAA, despite operating on older patients with more complex TAAA types. This is likely due to better rescue phenomenon in addition to more experienced operators. Complex endovascular repair of TAAA can be performed safely in high volume aortic centers of excellence., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of IV narcotic analgesics (IVNA) within the context of vascular procedures is not fully described. We sought to evaluate the burden of IVNA including narcotic analgesia-related adverse drug events (NARADE), associated mortality and hospitalization cost in open and endovascular vascular procedures, and to compare it with nonnarcotic analgesia (IVNNA)., Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study in hospitals participating in Premier database (2009-2015). Logistic regression analysis was implemented to report the risks of NARADE and in-hospital mortality. Negative binomial regression was used to assess length of stay and generalized linear modeling was used to estimate the hospitalization cost., Results: A total of 171,473 patients were identified. NARADE occurred in 6.2% of the cohort. NARADE group was similar in gender and race but was slightly older (median age 71 vs. 70; P < 0.001). After risk-adjustment, NARADE risk was higher in patients who received IVNA-alone in carotid and lower extremity revascularization (LER) [OR (odds ratio) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 1.17 (1.02-1.34) and 1.31 (1.14-1.50)] or combined with IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 1.34 (1.13-1.59) and 1.81 (1.54-2.13)], respectively. Patients receiving aortic repair benefited from the use of IVNA + IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.69-0.98)]. Occurrence of NARADE doubled the LOS, amplified mortality risk and increased cost in all domains. NARADE increased the odds of mortality by 24.3, 6.5 (4.9-8.68) and 16.6 times and added $5,368, $12,737 and $11,349 to the cost of carotid, aortic and LER interventions, respectively. In contrast, IVNNA was not associated with NARADE risk, increased LOS or cost and showed a survival benefit in patients undergoing open aortic repair [aOR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.36-0.75)]., Conclusions and Relevance: The use of opioid-based narcotics had increased the risk of NARADE, resources utilization and NARADE-related mortality. Yet the use of nonopioid-based analgesic was safe, did not increase the cost and reduced mortality in open AA repair. This entices shifting the paradigm toward exploring nonopioid-based analgesia options in order to replace or minimize opioid requirements., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although the choice of anesthesia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) does not seem to increase the risk of perioperative stroke, it might affect the outcomes of shunting during CEA. This study aims to evaluate whether the choice of anesthesia modifies the association between shunting and in-hospital stroke/death after CEA., Methods: We retrospective reviewed all CEA cases performed between 2003 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) no shunting during CEA (n = 29,227 [48.4%]), (2) routine shunting (n = 28,673 [47.5%]), and (3) selective shunting based on an intraoperative indication (n = 2499 [4.1%]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to study the interaction between anesthesia (local anesthesia [LA]/regional anesthesia [RA] vs general anesthesia [GA]) and intraoperative shunting (no shunting vs routine and selective shunting) during CEA in predicting the risk of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA., Results: The final cohort included 60,399 patients. The majority of CEA cases (90.2%) were performed under GA. Of the study cohort, 29,227 (48.4%) underwent CEA without shunting, 28,673 patients (47.5%) had routine shunting, and the remaining (n = 2499 [4.1%]) were selectively shunted. The interaction between intraoperative shunting and anesthesia in predicting in-hospital stroke/death was statistically significant (P < .05). When CEA is performed under LA/GA, routine shunting was associated with 3.5 times the adjusted odds of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.8; P < .001) compared with no shunting, whereas selective shunting was associated with 7.1 the odds (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 3.5-14.7; P < .001). In contrast, under GA, there was no significant association between routine shunting and in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P = .12), whereas selective shunting was associated with 1.7 times the odds (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P < .01) compared with not performing shunting during CEA., Conclusions: The use of LA/RA is associated with increased odds of stroke/death compared with GA when intraoperative shunting is performed. The effect of anesthesia is more pronounced in patients who develop clamp-related ischemia and undergo selective shunting. More controlled studies are needed to explain these findings and validate them., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Carotid endarterectomy remains the reference standard procedure for carotid revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. However, carotid artery stenting was established as a minimally invasive procedure for patients who are not candidates for open surgery due to medical or anatomic high-risk factors. However, despite years of technical refinement and significant improvement in proper patient selection and aggressive medical management, carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach has been scrutinized due to a higher risk of stroke or death in the perioperative period compared with carotid endarterectomy. The higher risk of stroke after carotid artery stenting was attributed to manipulation of the diseased aortic arch and the carotid lesion before placement of distal embolic protection devices, as well as failure of these devices to provide adequate neuroprotection. These limitations led to the development of transcarotid artery revascularization, which avoids the need to cross the aortic arch through direct access to the common carotid artery and utilizes a robust neuroprotection mechanism through clamping the proximal carotid artery and establishing active reversal of cerebral blood flow to clear embolic debris. Earlier studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization in high-risk patients. In this study, we aimed to compare the in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization with those of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hostile infrarenal proximal neck (β) anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysm has been associated with increased risk of aneurysm-related complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, there is a paucity of literature addressing the suprarenal angle (α). The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes after EVAR in patients with severe suprarenal neck angulation (α >60 degrees)., Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of 561 patients who underwent EVAR between January 2005 and December 2017 was performed. The main exclusion criteria were preoperative aneurysm rupture and fenestrated or branched endograft placement. High-resolution computed tomography images of 452 patients were available. Patients were grouped into angulated (α >60 degrees) and nonangulated (α ≤60 degrees) groups. The primary end point was freedom from type IA endoleak. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, long-term survival, primary clinical success, and freedom from aneurysm rupture and graft migration. Primary clinical success was defined according to Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure., Results: Of 452 patients, 45 (10%) were included in the angulated group (α >60 degrees). Median follow-up time was 34 months (interquartile range, 14-56 months). Compared with patients in the nonangulated group, those in the angulated group had larger neck diameter at the level of the renal arteries (mean [standard deviation], 25.6 [3.8] mm vs 24.6 [3.4] mm; P = .06) and increased β angle (mean [standard deviation], 50.5 [22.9] degrees vs 41.6 [23.9] degrees; P = .01). The 3-year freedom from type IA endoleak estimate was 80.2% for the angulated group compared with 97.8% for the nonangulated group (P < .001). The angulated group showed significantly higher 30-day mortality (11.1% vs 0.25%; P < .001).The 3-year results showed that patients in the nonangulated group had higher rates of primary clinical success (90.2% vs 67.1%; P < .001), freedom from rupture (99% vs 97.1%; P = .02), freedom from migration (100% vs 92.4%; P < .001), and long-term survival (91.6% vs 75.8%; P = .006) compared with those in the angulated group. After adjustment for age, sex, neck diameter, and β angle, severe suprarenal neck angulation was associated with higher odds of type IA endoleak (adjusted hazard ratio, 8.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-27), loss of primary clinical success (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.6-8.9), and 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 52.5; 95% CI, 5.3-514) compared with α ≤60 degrees (all P < .001)., Conclusions: This is the first report to show a significant increase in operative mortality in patients undergoing EVAR with severely angulated suprarenal neck. Patients who survive the operation are at increased risk of secondary interventions. These findings suggest that EVAR should be used with caution in patients with severe α angulation and underpin the role of close follow-up in this particular population., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Restenosis after carotid revascularization is clinically challenging. Several studies have looked into the management of recurrent restenosis; however, studies looking into factors associated with restenosis are limited. This study evaluated the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using a large national database., Methods: Patients undergoing CEA or CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative data set (2003-2016) were analyzed. Patients with no follow-up (33%) and those who had prior ipsilateral CEA or CAS were excluded. Significant restenosis was defined as ≥70% diameter-reducing stenosis, target artery occlusion or peak systolic velocity ≥300 cm/s, or repeated revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and bootstrapped Cox regression models with stepwise forward and backward selection were used., Results: A total of 35,720 procedures were included (CEA, 31,329; CAS, 4391). No significant difference in restenosis rates was seen between CEA and CAS at 2 years (7.7% vs 9.4% [P = .09]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.25; P = .97). However, after adjustment for age, sex, and symptomatic status at the time of the index operation, CAS patients who had postoperative restenosis were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .01) and to undergo repeated revascularization at 2 years (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4; P < .001) compared with patients who had restenosis after CEA. Predictors of restenosis after CAS included a common carotid artery lesion (HR, 1.65; 95% CI,1.06-2.57; P = .03), whereas age (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P = .03) and dilation after stent placement (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.72; P < .001) were associated with decreased restenosis at 2 years. Predictors of restenosis after CEA included female sex (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; P < .001), prior neck irradiation (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.66-3.30; P < .001), and prior bypass surgery (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P = .04). On the other hand, factors associated with decreased restenosis after CEA included age (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P < .001), black race (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89; P = .01), patching (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < .001), and completion imaging (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95; P = .02)., Conclusions: Our results show no significant difference in restenosis rates at 2 years between CEA and CAS. Restenosis after CAS is more likely to be manifested with symptoms and to undergo repeated revascularization compared with that after CEA. Poststent ballooning after CAS and completion imaging and patching after CEA are associated with decreased hazard of restenosis; however, further research is needed to assess longer term outcomes and to balance the risks vs benefits of certain practices, such as poststent ballooning., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although the majority of vascular surgeons perform conventional carotid endarterectomy (c-CEA), others prefer eversion CEA (e-CEA). Despite several randomized controlled trials and single center studies, the advantage of one technique over the other is still not clearly defined. The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes and durability of c-CEA versus e-CEA in a nationally representative cohort., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018. Patients with prior ipsilateral carotid intervention (CEA and carotid artery stenting) and those undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Multivariable logistic and Cox-regression analyses were used to compare risk-adjusted perioperative and 1-year outcomes (stroke, death, and high-grade restenosis [>70%]) between c-CEA (using direct closure or patch angioplasty) and e-CEA., Results: A total of 95,726 CEA cases were included, of which 12,050 (12.6%) were e-CEA and the remaining (87.4%) were c-CEA. Patch angioplasty was used in 94.9% of c-CEA compared with 49.7% of e-CEA (P < 0.001). On univariable analysis, no difference in perioperative outcomes was noted between the 2 approaches except for higher rates of in-hospital dysrhythmia (1.5% vs. 1.3%) and postprocedural hemodynamic instability (27.3% vs. 24.3%) after c-CEA compared with e-CEA (all P < 0.05). On the other hand, e-CEA patients were more likely to return to the operating room for bleeding (1.3% vs. c-CEA: 0.9%, P < 0.001). The outcomes of e-CEA did not differ if the common carotid artery was closed primarily or with a patch. After adjusting for potential confounders and stratifying with respect to patch use, there was no significant difference in outcomes between e-CEA and c-CEA when a patch is used in both procedures. However, when no patching was performed, e-CEA was associated with lower stroke/death at 30 days (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.95, P = 0.02) and at 1 year (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97, P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Both e-CEA and c-CEA are safe and durable techniques with similar stroke/death and restenosis rates up to 1-year of follow up, as long as c-CEA is performed with patch angioplasty. However, e-CEA is superior to c-CEA without patch angioplasty and is associated with 28% and 25% reduction in 30-day and 1-year stroke/death, respectively., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to provide a nationwide, all-payer, real-world cost analysis of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) in patients with nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (non-rAAA)., Methods: All non-rAAA patients registered between July 2009 and March 2015 in the Premier Healthcare Database were analyzed. The Student t-test and the χ 2 test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively; median value comparisons were done with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test. The in-hospital absolute mean total cost (sum of fixed cost and variable cost) and subcategories were analyzed after adjustment for inflation at July 2015. Fixed costs included all overhead costs while variables costs included in-hospital services including procedures, room and board, services provided by hospital staff, and pharmacy costs. Total cost was stratified based on admission type (emergency vs nonemergency), 75th percentile of length of hospital stay among individual procedures (expected vs extended stay), mortality, and complications. Student t-test and Fisher's analysis of variance were used for comparing mean cost. Year-wise comparison of mean cost was done with analysis of variance to look for a trend over time., Results: Our study cohort included 38,809 non-rAAA patients (33,171 EVAR and 5638 OAR). The mean total cost of index admission was lower in EVAR in comparison with OAR ($32,052 vs $36,091; P < .001), with lower fixed costs ($11,309 vs $16,818; P < .001) and higher variable costs ($20,743 vs $19,272; P < .001). Cost of pharmacy, labor, operating room, room and board and other costs were significantly higher with OAR, whereas the supply cost was higher with EVAR. The expected hospital length of stay of patients who underwent EVAR was associated with a higher total cost ($27,271 vs $25,680; P < .001) and a higher variable cost ($18,186 vs $13,671; P < .001) than OAR patients. However, the extended hospital stay of patients who underwent EVAR had lower costs in all categories compared with the extended length of stay of those who underwent OAR. Mortality associated with EVAR was costlier than OAR associated mortality (mean $72,483 vs $59,804; P = .017). From 2009 to 2014, the mean total cost of EVAR increased significantly by 18.5% ($28,745 vs $34,049; P < .001) owing to a 7.8% increase in fixed costs ($10,931 vs $11,789; P < .001) and a 25.0% increase in variable costs ($17,804 vs $22,257; P < .001). The mean total cost OAR remained stable over time., Conclusions: Overall hospitalization costs associated with EVAR of non-rAAA was lower than the hospitalization cost of OAR. Interestingly, we found that, among patients who had an expected hospital length of stay, the hospitalization cost after OAR was significantly lower than after EVAR. The average hospitalization cost of OAR was stable during the 5 years study period, whereas the hospitalization cost of EVAR increased significantly over time. Further studies are required to identify reasons for increased costs associated with EVAR., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) was introduced as an alternative carotid revascularization procedure in patients deemed to be at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. Although techniques and selection criteria for patients have dramatically improved, CAS continues to have higher risk of stroke and death in comparison to carotid endarterectomy. Several risk factors are known to be associated with worse outcomes. Whereas knowledge of these independent factors is helpful, clinical decision-making is further refined when these are considered in aggregate. This study aimed to develop a score to predict the risk of stroke/death after transfemoral CAS (TFCAS)., Methods: We analyzed the Vascular Quality Initiative CAS data set from 2010 to 2018. Lesions due to trauma, dissection, or transcarotid artery stenting and cases performed without an embolic protection device were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods with bootstrapping (1000 repetitions) were used to identify predictors associated with 30-day stroke/death. Stepwise backward selection for variables was used to achieve model parsimony. A risk score was made by converting regression coefficients for each predictor to integers from which probability was calculated. Scores were grouped into simplified categories., Results: We identified 10,753 patients undergoing TFCAS during the study period with a combined 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.1%. On multivariable adjustment, independent predictors of 30-day stroke/death included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.06; P < .001), nonwhite race (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.16-1.74; P = .001), diabetes (OR,1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.67; P = .01), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.73; P = .001), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.85; P = .02), symptomatic status (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.64-2.72; P < .001), and contralateral occlusion (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.22-2.19; P = .001). On the other hand, preoperative use of statins (OR, 0.074; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93; P = .02) and dual antiplatelet therapy (P2Y 12 inhibitors and aspirin; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P < .001) were associated with a significant reduction in stroke/death after TFCAS. The model had a C statistic of 69.0%. The coefficients of these predictors were used to develop a risk score calculator that estimates the probability of 30-day stroke/death after TFCAS., Conclusions: In an analysis of 10,753 patients undergoing TFCAS between 2010 and 2018, significant predictors of perioperative stroke or death included old age, nonwhite race, symptomatic status, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and contralateral occlusion in addition to perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy and statin use. These variables were used to develop a risk score calculator that estimates the probability of 30-day stroke/death after TFCAS. External validation of this tool in different populations of patients and data sets is warranted to evaluate its predictive performance., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) whether on dialysis therapy (DT) or who received a kidney transplant (KT) have previously shown unfavorable surgical outcomes. Little is known about the comparative efficacy and durability of lower extremity bypass (LEB) in those patients. The Vascular Quality Initiative database was explored to identify DT or KT recipients (2003-2016) who had LEB. We included 1,714 bypass procedures; DT: 1,512 (88.2%). Primary patency (PP) at 2 year was comparable between KT and DT groups (PP [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 77.0% [69.7%-82.8%] vs. 80.5% [77.8%-82.9%]; P = 0.212), and the risk-adjusted hazard was similar (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] [95% CI]: 0.89 [0.61-1.30]; P = 0.540). Amputation-free survival (AFS) at 2 year was more favorable in KT group (AFS [95% CI]: 73.1% [66.3%-78.8%] vs. 48.0% [45.4%-50.6%]; P < 0.001), (aHR [95% CI]: 2.29 [1.62-3.23]; P < 0.001). Patients on DT exhibited a higher risk of mortality than KT recipients (aHR [95% CI]: 2.94 [2.07-4.17]; P < 0.001). This study demonstrated superior limb outcomes in KT recipients than patients on DT after LEB. Despite the comparable PP, the risk of amputation or death was doubled in patients on DT compared with KT recipients. Because both groups were similar in several baseline characteristics, the difference in outcome is likely driven by the positive effect of KT on the physiological milieu of these patients., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The vast majority of patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) are anemic. The severity of anemia in these patients may influence the postoperative outcomes and the durability of vascular access. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the association between anemia and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing HD access placement (arteriovenous grafts and fistula)., Methods: Patients with chronic kidney disease stages IV and V recorded in the Vascular Quality Initiative Hemodialysis database between 2011 and 2017 were included. Patients were divided into 3 study groups based on preoperative hemoglobin (Hgb) levels: normal/mild anemia (Hgb: females ≥10 g/dL, males ≥12 g/dL), moderate anemia (Hgb: females: 7-9.9 g/dL, males: 9-11.9 g/dL), and severe anemia (Hgb: females<7 g/dL, males<9 g/dL). Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were implemented to evaluate the association between anemia and 30-day mortality and primary patency (PP) at 1 year., Results: A total of 28,000 patients undergoing HD access surgery were identified (normal/mild [42%], moderate [49%], and severe [9%] anemia). Postoperative bleeding (2.1% vs. 2.2% vs. 2.2%) and 30-day outcomes including swelling (0.4% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.7%) and wound infection (0.4% vs. 0.3% vs. 0.1%) were similar in mild/normal, moderate, and severe anemia groups, respectively (All P > 0.05). However, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with severe anemia compared with normal/mild and moderate anemia (2.1% vs. 1.1% and 1.1%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, severe anemia was associated with 90% higher risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.90 [1.20-3.00], P = 0.006) and 17% increase in PP loss at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.17 [1.02-1.35], P = 0.01) compared with the normal/mild anemia group. However, no significant difference was seen between normal/mild and moderate anemia., Conclusions: In this large study of patients undergoing HD access placement, severe anemia was associated with 90% increased risk of 30-day mortality and 17% increased risk of loss of PP compared with those with normal/mild anemia. Management of severe anemia before surgery might be indicated to reduce operative mortality and improve the durability of HD access., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers., Methods: We compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death., Results: A total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes., Conclusions: Despite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Although blood transfusion can be lifesaving in active hemorrhage or severe anemia, it is also associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Several trials have established this risk and therefore defined a restrictive standard for transfusion, but this threshold and the risk of transfusions have not been specifically examined in vascular surgery patients. We therefore sought to assess transfusion practices and outcomes of anemic patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing EVAR between the years 2008 and 2017. Anemic patients were included in the study and were further stratified into mild anemia, defined by a hemoglobin level of 10 to 13 g/dL in men or 10 to 12 g/dL in women, and moderate to severe anemia, defined by a hemoglobin level <10 g/dL. The primary study outcomes were in-hospital mortality and complications., Results: Among 27,777 EVAR patients, one-third (n = 9232) were anemic and included in the study. One-fifth (n = 1866) of anemic patients received a perioperative transfusion. Transfused patients were more likely to have a history of cardiovascular disease. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher for anemic patients who received transfusions, both in mild anemia (mortality, 3.6% vs 0.4% in no transfusion; P < .001) and in moderate to severe anemia (4.5% vs 1.3%; P < .01). Morbidity was also significantly higher, with anemic patients who received a transfusion having higher rates of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, renal complications, leg ischemia, respiratory complications, and reoperation compared with anemic patients who did not receive any transfusion. The 30-day mortality was also higher in transfused patients (P < .001). After adjustment for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and operative factors, transfusion in anemic patients was associated with a nearly 4.4-fold increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.72-7.05; P < .001) and 4.3-fold higher odds of any in-hospital complication (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 3.47-5.34; P < .001). This was more pronounced among patients with mild anemia, with 5.7 times (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.78-18.0) and 4.3 times (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 3.46-5.29) the odds of in-hospital mortality and complications, respectively., Conclusions: Among anemic patients undergoing elective EVAR, transfusion is associated with an increased risk of death and in-hospital complications, even after controlling for patients' comorbidities and operative factors. These data suggest that the restrictive use of blood transfusions might be safer in vascular surgery EVAR patients. Medical management of anemia may be warranted in these patients to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, further studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the utilization and outcomes of surgery after Medicaid Expansion (ME) for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD)., Summary Background Data: Recent studies have demonstrated increased insurance coverage and improved care with the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) state expansion of Medicaid., Methods: Infrainguinal bypass procedures performed due to occlusive pathology in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2010 and 2017 were included. Primary outcomes including postoperative mortality and major adverse limb events (MALE) at 1-year of follow-up were analyzed using interrupted time-series analysis (ITS)., Results: Out of 26,446 infrainguinal bypass procedures, 13,955 (52.8%) were included in this analysis. ME states witnessed an annual decrease in infrainguinal surgery for acute ischemia [annual change in post vs pre-ME period (95% confidence interval): -4.3% (-7.5% to -1.0%), P = 0.02] and an increase in revascularization for claudication [3.7% (1.7%-5.6%), P = 0.01]. Among nonacute cases, elective procedures increased in ME states [3.9% (0.1%-7.7%), P = 0.05] along with a significant annual decrease in in-hospital mortality [-0.4% (-0.8 to -0.02), P = 0.04) and MALE at 1 year of follow up [-9.0% (-20.3 to 2.3), P = 0.09]. These results were statistically significant after comparing them with the annual trend changes in states which did not adopt ME., Conclusions: The adoption of ME in 2014 was associated with significant increase in the use of infrainguinal bypass for nonsevere and elective cases, along with improved in-hospital mortality and MALE at 1 year. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the impact of ME on other aspects of care and longer term outcomes of PAD patients.

Objective: We sought to assess whether sex-related differences in timely repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) were associated with excess risk of early mortality in women., Summary Background Data: rAAA is a surgical emergency and timeliness of intervention affects outcomes. A door-to-intervention time of <90 minutes is recommended., Methods: All rAAA repairs in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2017 were reviewed. Patients were stratified by sex and time-delay cohorts. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed., Results: There were 3719 rAAA repairs, of which 797 (21%) were performed in women. Sex did not affect repair type: open versus endovascular (21% females, each). Despite similar presentation delays [median 6 hours (inter quartile range, IQR: 3-16)], admission-to-intervention time was longer for women than men [median 1.5 hours (IQR 1-4] vs 1.2 hours (IQR 1-3), P=0.047]. Overall, 45% of patients had a >90-minute delay from admission to repair, with more women than men experiencing this delay (49% vs 44%, P=0.01). Neither were more likely to undergo transfer for treatment. After risk adjustment, female sex was associated with a 48% increase in 30-day mortality. Sex differences in mortality were no longer observed in patients with intervention delays of ≤90 minutes. In patients with >90-minute delays, a 77% increase in 30-day mortality of women over men was noted., Conclusions: Nearly half of rAAA patients have a door-to-intervention time longer than recommended societal guidelines. Sex differences in mortality after rAAA repair seem to be driven by in-hospital treatment delays.

Objective: The benefit of statins in reducing perioperative cardiovascular events in patients undergoing suprainguinal bypass is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between statin use and perioperative mortality in patients undergoing aortobifemoral bypass (ABFB) for aortoiliac occlusive disease., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who had ABFB in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set from 2011 to 2016. Univariable (t-test, χ 2 test, or Fisher exact test) and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to compare patients' characteristics and the primary outcome (30-day mortality) between statin users and nonstatin users. Propensity score matching between statin users and nonusers was also performed on the basis of variables that were different between the two groups., Results: A total of 4445 patients underwent ABFB. Of those, 3032 (68.2%) were taking statins. Compared with nonstatin users, statins users were older (median [interquartile range], 67 years [59-74 years] vs 63 years [56-72 years]; P < .01) and more likely to be diabetic (31% vs 16%) and hypertensive (84% vs 63%) and to have a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (20% vs 17%; all P < .05). Statin users had lower rates of 30-day mortality (3.4% vs 4.7%; P = .03) and renal complications (2.5% vs 3.7%; P = .04) compared with nonstatin users. After adjustment for patients' demographics (age, sex, race), comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, dialysis, bleeding disorder), smoking, clinical presentation (claudication vs critical limb ischemia), and elective surgery status, statin use was associated with 32% reduction in 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.96; P = .03). Propensity score matching showed similar results (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.95; P = .03)., Conclusions: This is the largest study to date demonstrating an association between preoperative statin use and lower 30-day mortality after ABFB for aortoiliac occlusive disease. This study highlights an area of potential quality improvement as one-third of the patients undergoing this procedure are not receiving statins., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) offered outstanding survival benefit but at the expense of cost, periodic radiographic monitoring, and higher reinterventions rates. Perioperative complications, although rare, can occur after EVAR, contributing to longer hospitalization, higher cost, and significant comorbidity and mortality. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the predictors of in-hospital events (IHEs) after elective EVAR., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was explored from 2003 to 2017. Patients who had converted to open repair were excluded. IHEs were defined as any in-hospital myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, pneumonia, respiratory failure, renal failure, lower extremity ischemia, bowel ischemia, or reoperation. Stepwise backward selection based on the Akaike information criterion statistic was implemented to select the predictors of IHE from the multivariable logistic regression models. Bootstrapping was performed with 1000 replications to internally validate the model and to obtain bias-corrected estimates. Receiver operating characteristic curves (area under the curve [AUC]) and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were used to assess the discrimination and calibration of the models., Results: A total of 28,240 patients with full information about IHEs were included. Any IHE took place in 2365 (8.4%) patients. Patients who had an IHE were slightly older (mean age ± standard deviation, 75.6 ± 8.1 years vs 73.3 ± 8.5 years; P < .001]. A higher proportion of women had an IHE (25.6% vs 17.9%; P < .001). Comorbid conditions were more prevalent in patients who developed an IHE (chronic kidney disease, 49.1% vs 33.2%; coronary artery disease, 34.3% vs 29.0%; moderate to severe CHF, 3.9% vs 1.4%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 42.5% vs 31.9%; hypertension, 87.0% vs 83.1%; and diabetes, 18.0% vs 16.1%; all P ≤ .015). An IHE was associated with high in-hospital (5.6% vs 0.03%) and 30-day mortality (6.3% vs 0.3%; both P < .001) and worse 3-year survival beyond the perioperative period (81.1% [79.3%-82.9%] vs 91.1% [90.7%-91.5%]; P < .001). Two models were constructed, one from preoperative factors and the second from preoperative and intraoperative factors. The selected predictors of IHEs were female sex, moderate or severe CHF, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and aneurysm diameter. Intraoperative factors were contrast material volume, operative time, and packed red blood cell transfusion. Nomograms were constructed from the final models. AUC significantly improved after adding intraoperative factors (AUC [95% confidence interval], 0.71 [0.70-0.73] vs 0.65 [0.64-0.66]; P < .001]., Conclusions: In-hospital adverse events can complicate the perioperative course of EVAR and increase the risk of operative and long-term mortality. Predicting IHEs and identifying their risk factors can potentially mitigate their development in patients at high risk. Predicting IHE risk can have tremendous prognostic value and help disposition planning. This study introduces an internally validated tool to enable vascular surgeons to identify patients' chance of having an IHE., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug abuse may affect lower extremity vessels due to ischemia following intra-arterial injections, vasospasm, arterial and venous pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulae, vasculitis, and complicated abscesses. Little is known about the outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in patients with a history of drug abuse disorder. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of LEB in this patient population., Methods: A retrospective study of the Premier Healthcare Database 2009-2015 was performed. In-hospital complications, mortality, and hospitalization costs were assessed in patients with a history of drug abuse disorder (opioids, cannabis, cocaine, sedatives/hypnotics/anxiolytics, and hallucinogens/methamphetamine/psychoactive drugs) who underwent LEB for PAD. Multivariable logistic and generalized linear models were utilized to study the association between drug use/misuse and in-hospital outcomes after LEB., Results: Our cohort included 50,976 patients, of which 967 (2%) had a history of drug abuse disorder on admission. The majority of drugs were cannabis (38.5%), followed by opioids (21.5%) and cocaine (14.5%). Patients with a history of drug use/misuse were significantly at a higher risk of developing complications during their hospital stay (71.9% vs. 64.2%, P < 0.001) including acute renal failure (11.8% vs. 9.1%), stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%), respiratory complications (pneumonia and respiratory failure) (15.0% vs. 9.6%), hemorrhage/shock (36.2% vs. 31.8%), vascular or graft-related complications (29.8% vs. 26.4%), wound complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%), cellulitis (8.5% vs. 6.8%), and sepsis (2.1% vs. 1.2%, all P < 0.001). In addition, drug users were found to have higher risk of concomitant major amputations compared to nondrug users (2.0% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, no difference was noted between the 2 groups in terms of in-hospital mortality and concomitant major amputations. However, drug use/misuse was associated with 57% higher odds of overall in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.83, P < 0.001), a prolonged length of hospital stay (median: 7 days vs. 5 days in nonabusers, P < 0.001), and higher hospitalization costs compared to nonusers (adjusted mean difference: OR $3,075, 95% CI $2,096-$4,055, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Drug use/misuse is significantly associated with increased odds of in-hospital complications, longer hospital stays, and higher hospitalization costs following LEB. Vascular surgeons need to pay special attention to this patient population and explore interventions to decrease the morbidity and economic burden associated with drug use., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The timing of carotid revascularization in symptomatic patients is a matter of ongoing debate. Current evidence indicates that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within 2 weeks of symptoms is superior to delayed treatment. However, there is little evidence on the outcomes of emergent CEA (eCEA). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of emergency eCEA vs nonemergent CEA (non-eCEA), stratified by type of presenting symptoms., Methods: We analyzed the Vascular Targeted-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset from 2011 to 2016. Symptomatic patients were divided into two groups: eCEA and non-eCEA. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to compare patient characteristics and to evaluate stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI within 30 days of surgery adjusting for all potential confounders. A further subgroup analysis was done to compare the outcomes of eCEA vs non-eCEA stratified by the type of presenting symptoms (amaurosis, transient ischemic attack [TIA], and stroke)., Results: A total of 9271 patients were identified, of which 10.7% were eCEA vs 89.3% non-eCEA. Comparing eCEA vs non-eCEA, the two groups were similar in age (70.8 vs 70.5), female gender (36.3% vs 36.9%), diabetes (26.2% vs 28.9%), and smoking status (31.9% vs 28.7%; all P > .05). Patients undergoing eCEA were less likely to be hypertensive (76.2% vs 80.2%; P = .025), but more likely to belong to non-white race (51.5% vs 20.5%; P < .001). The eCEA patients were less likely to be on preprocedural medication vs non-eCEA (antiplatelets, 76.8% vs 89.2%; statins, 74.2% vs 79.9%; beta-blockers, 44.6% vs 50.4%; all P < .05). The 30-day outcomes comparing eCEA vs non-eCEA were: stroke, 6.2% vs 3.1%; death, 2% vs 1%; and stroke/death, 6.9% vs 3.7% (all P < .05). After risk adjustment, perioperative stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-3.0), stroke/death (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.13-2.45), and stroke/death/MI (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23) were higher after eCEA (all P < .01). When stratified by the type of presenting symptom, eCEA vs non-eCEA stroke outcomes were similar in patients who presented with stroke or amaurosis fugax. However, in the subset of patients presenting with TIA, eCEA had much worse outcomes compared with non-eCEA (stroke, 8.3% vs 2.5%; stroke/death, 8.3% vs 3.2%) and had significantly higher odds of stroke (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.71-5.68) and stroke/death (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.25-4.03) in the adjusted analysis (all P < .05)., Conclusions: In patients presenting with stroke, eCEA does not seem to add significant risk compared with non-eCEA. However, patients presenting with TIA might be better served with non-emergent surgery as their risk of stroke is tripled when CEA is performed emergently., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)