Search

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA.Summary background dataTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and one-year outcomes compared to CEA. We aimed to compare the one-year and three-year outcomes of TCAR vs. CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked (Vascular Implant Surveillance & Interventional Outcomes Network [VISION]) database.MethodsThe VISION Database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was one-year and three-years survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce two well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression were used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison.ResultsA total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8,089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7,351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in one-year death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.99-1.30; P=0.065). At three-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.30; P=0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased three-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.63; P=0.008). Exploratory analyses of post-operative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary.ConclusionsIn this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at one-year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of three-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard risk patients requiring carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal temporal surgical management of significant carotid stenosis and coronary artery disease remains unknown. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass (CABG) are performed concurrently (CCAB) or in a staged (CEA-CABG or CABG-CEA) approach. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Coordinated Registry Network-Medicare-linked dataset, this study compared operative and long-term outcomes after CCAB and staged approaches. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Coordinated Registry Network dataset was used to identify CEAs from 2011 to 2018 with combined CABG or CABG within 45 days preceding or after CEA. Patients were stratified based on concurrent or staged approach. Primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, stroke and death as composite (SD) and all as composite within 30 days from the last procedure as well as in the long term. Univariate analysis and risk-adjusted analysis using inverse propensity weighting were performed. Kaplan-Meier curves of stroke, MI, and death were created and compared. RESULTS: There were 1058 patients included: 643 CCAB and 415 staged (309 CEA-CABG and 106 CABG-CEA). Compared with staged patients, those undergoing CCAB had a higher preoperative rate of congestive heart failure (24.8% vs 18.4%; P = .01) and decreased renal function (14.9% vs 8.5%; P < .01), as well as fewer prior neurological events (23.5% vs 31.4%; P

ObjectivesGenerating and using real-world evidence (RWE) is a pragmatic solution for evaluating health technologies. RWE is recognized by regulators, health technology assessors, clinicians, and manufacturers as a valid source of information to support their decision-making. Well-designed registries can provide RWE and become more powerful when linked with electronic health records and administrative databases in coordinated registry networks (CRNs). Our objective was to create a framework of maturity of CRNs and registries, so guiding their development and the prioritization of funding.Design setting and participantsWe invited 52 stakeholders from diverse backgrounds including patient advocacy groups, academic, clinical, industry and regulatory experts to participate on a Delphi survey. Of those invited, 42 participated in the survey to provide feedback on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries. An expert panel reviewed the responses to refine the framework until the target consensus of 80% was reached. Two rounds of the Delphi were distributed via Qualtrics online platform from July to August 2020 and from October to November 2020.Main outcome measuresConsensus on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries consisted of seven domains (unique device identification, efficient data collection, data quality, product life cycle approach, governance and sustainability, quality improvement, and patient-reported outcomes), each presented with five levels of maturity.ResultsOf 52 invited experts, 41 (79.9%) responded to round 1; all 41 responded to round 2; and consensus was reached for most domains. The expert panel resolved the disagreements and final consensus estimates ranged from 80.5% to 92.7% for seven domains.ConclusionsWe have developed a robust framework to assess the maturity of any CRN (or registry) to provide reliable RWE. This framework will promote harmonization of approaches to RWE generation across different disciplines and health systems. The domains and their levels may evolve over time as new solutions become available.

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) causes significant morbidity with profound negative effects on health-related quality of life. As the prevalence of peripheral artery disease and diabetes continue to rise in our aging population, the public health impact of CLTI has escalated. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become common and important measures for clinical evaluation in both clinical care and research. PROMs are important for the measurement of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness and for shared decision-making on treatment options. However, the PROMs used to describe the experience of patients with CLTI are heterogeneous, incomplete, and lack specific applicability to the underlying disease processes and diverse populations. For example, certain PROMs exist for patients with extremity wounds, and other PROMs exist for patients with pain, and still others exist for patients with vascular disease. Despite this multiplicity of tools, no single PROM encompasses all of the components necessary to describe the experiences of patients with CLTI. This significant unmet need is evident from both published reports and contemporary large-scale clinical trials in the field. In this systematic review, we review the current use of PROMs for patients with CLTI in clinical practice and in research trials and highlight the gaps that need to be addressed to develop a unifying PROM instrument for CLTI.

ObjectiveVascular surgeons treating patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm must make rapid treatment decisions and sometimes lack immediate access to endovascular devices meeting the anatomic specifications of the patient at hand. We hypothesized that endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rEVAR) outside manufacturer instructions-for-use (IFU) guidelines would have similar in-hospital mortality compared to patients treated on-IFU or with an infrarenal clamp during open repair (ruptured open aortic aneurysm repair [rOAR]).MethodsVascular Quality Initiative datasets for endovascular and open aortic repair were queried for patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal AAA between 2013-2018. Graft-specific IFU criteria were correlated with case-specific proximal neck dimension data to classify rEVAR cases as on- or off-IFU. Univariate comparisons between the on- and off-IFU groups were performed for demographic, operative and in-hospital outcome variables. To investigate mortality differences between rEVAR and rOAR approaches, coarsened exact matching was used to match patients receiving off-IFU rEVAR with those receiving complex rEVAR (requiring at least one visceral stent or scallop) or rOAR with infrarenal, suprarenal or supraceliac clamps. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality.Results621 patients were treated with rEVAR, with 65% classified as on-IFU and 35% off-IFU. The off-IFU group was more frequently female (25% vs. 18%, P = 0.05) and had larger aneurysms (76 vs. 72 mm, P= 0.01) but otherwise was not statistically different from the on-IFU cohort. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients treated off-IFU vs. on-IFU (22% vs. 14%, P= 0.02). Off-IFU rEVAR was associated with longer operative times (135 min vs. 120 min, P= 0.004) and increased intraoperative blood product utilization (2 units vs. 1 unit, P= 0.002). When off-IFU patients were matched to complex rEVAR and rOAR patients, no baseline differences were found between the groups. Overall in-hospital complications associated with off-IFU were reduced compared to more complex strategies (43% vs. 60-81%, P< 0.001) and in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for off-IFU rEVAR patients compared to the supraceliac clamp group (18% vs. 38%, P= 0.006). However, there was no significantly increased mortality associated with complex rEVAR, infrarenal rOAR or suprarenal rOAR compared to off-IFU rEVAR (all P> 0.05). This finding persisted in a multivariate logistic regression.ConclusionsOff-IFU rEVAR yields inferior in-hospital survival compared to on-IFU rEVAR but remains associated with reduced in-hospital complications when compared with more complex repair strategies. When compared with matched patients undergoing rOAR with an infrarenal or suprarenal clamp, survival was no different from off-IFU rEVAR. Taken together with the growing available evidence suggesting reduced long-term durability of off-IFU EVAR, these data suggest that a patient's comorbidity burden should be key in making the decision to pursue off-IFU rEVAR over a more complex repair when proximal neck violations are anticipated preoperatively.

ObjectivesWe sought to develop a prediction score with data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) EVAR in efforts to assist endovascular specialists in deciding whether or not a patient is appropriate for short-stay discharge.BackgroundSmall series describe short-stay discharge following elective EVAR. Our study aims to quantify characteristics associated with this decision.MethodsThe VQI EVAR and NSQIP datasets were queried. Patients who underwent elective EVAR recorded in VQI, between 1/2010-5/2017 were split 2:1 into test and analytic cohorts via random number assignment. Cross-reference with the Medicare claims database confirmed all-cause mortality data. Bootstrap sampling was employed in model. Deep learning algorithms independently evaluated each dataset as a sensitivity test.ResultsUnivariate outcomes, including 30-day survival, were statistically worse in the DD group when compared to the SD group (all P < 0.05). A prediction score, SD-EVAR, derived from the VQI EVAR dataset including pre- and intra-op variables that discriminate between SD and DD was externally validated in NSQIP (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.79, P < 0.001); deep learning analysis concurred. This score suggests 66% of EVAR patients may be appropriate for short-stay discharge. A free smart phone app calculating short-stay discharge potential is available through QxMD Calculate https://qxcalc.app.link/vqidis.ConclusionsSelecting patients for short-stay discharge after EVAR is possible without increasing harm. The majority of infrarenal AAA patients treated with EVAR in the United States fit a risk profile consistent with short-stay discharge, representing a significant cost-savings potential to the healthcare system.

ObjectiveFrailty is increasingly recognized as a key determinant in predicting postoperative outcomes. Centers that see more frail patients may not be captured in risk adjustment, potentially accounting for poorer outcomes in hospital comparisons. We aimed to (1) determine the effect of frailty on long-term mortality in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and (2) evaluate the variability in frailty burden among centers in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database.MethodsPatients undergoing elective open and endovascular AAA repair (2003-2017) were identified, and those with complete data on component variables of the VQI-derived Risk Analysis Index (VQI-RAI) and centers with ≥10 AAA repairs were included. VQI-RAI characteristics are sex, age, body mass index, renal failure, congestive heart failure, dyspnea, preoperative ambulation, and functional status. Frailty was defined as VQI-RAI ≥35 based on prior work in surgical patients using other quality improvement databases. This corresponds to the top 12% of patients at risk in the VQI. Center-level VQI-RAI differences were assessed by analysis of variance test. Relationships between frailty and survival were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test for open and endovascular procedures. Multivariable hierarchical Cox proportional hazards regression models were calculated with random intercepts for center, controlling for frailty, race, insurance, AAA diameter, procedure type, AAA case mix, and year.ResultsA total of 15,803 patients from 185 centers were included. Mean VQI-RAI scores were 27.6 (standard deviation, 5.9; range, 4-56) and varied significantly across centers (F = 2.41, P < .001). The percentage of frail patients per center ranged from 0% to 40.0%. In multivariable analysis, frailty was independently associated with long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.2) after accounting for covariates and center-level variance. Open AAA repair was not associated with long-term mortality after adjusting for frailty (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.13). There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of frail patients compared with nonfrail patients who were discharged to a rehabilitation facility or nursing home after both open (40.5% vs 17.8%; P < .0001) and endovascular repair (17.7% vs 4.6%; P < .0001).ConclusionsThere is considerable variability of preoperative frailty among VQI centers performing elective AAA repair. Adjusting for center-level variation, frailty but not procedure type had a significant association with long-term mortality; however, frailty and procedure type were both associated with nonhome discharge. Routine measurement of frailty preoperatively by centers to identify high-risk patients may help mitigate procedural and long-term outcomes and improve shared decision-making regarding AAA repair.

Introduction: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a well-described risk factor for mortality, but few studies have examined secular trends in mortality over time for patients with PAD. We characterized trends in mortality in patients with PAD in recent years among Medicare patients. Methods: We used Medicare claims to identify patients with a new diagnosis code for PAD between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2018 using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes. The primary outcome of interest was the 1-year all-cause age-adjusted mortality rate. Our secondary outcome was the 5-year all-cause mortality rate. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors which predict mortality at 1 year. Results: We identified 4,373,644 patients with a new diagnosis code for PAD during the study period. Between 2006 and 2018, 1-year all-cause age-adjusted mortality declined from 12.6% to 9.9% (p < 0.001). One-year crude all-cause mortality also declined from 14.6% to 9.5% (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for 5-year age-adjusted mortality rates (40.9% to 35.2%, p < 0.001). Factors associated with increased risk of death at 1 year included age ⩾ 85 years (hazard ratio [HR] 3.030; 95% CI 3.008–3.053) and congestive heart failure (HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.85–1.88). Patients who were regularly dispensed statins, ace-inhibitors, beta-blockers, antithrombotic agents, and anticoagulants all had lower mortality (range OR 0.36; CI 0.35–0.37 for statins to OR 0.60; CI 0.59–0.61 for anticoagulants; all p < 0.001). Conclusion: Among US Medicare patients diagnosed with PAD between 2006 and 2019, 1-year age-adjusted mortality declined by 2.7%. This decline in mortality among patients with PAD occurred in the context of a younger mean age of diagnosis of PAD and improved cardiovascular prevention therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is wide variation in stress test utilization before major vascular surgery and adherence to practice guidelines is unclear. We defined rates of stress test compliance at our institution and led a quality improvement initiative to improve compliance with American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Methods: We implemented a stress testing order set in the electronic medical record at one tertiary hospital. We reviewed all patients who underwent elective, major vascular surgery in the 6 months before (Jan 1, 2022 – Jul 1, 2022) and 6 months after (Aug 1, 2022 – Jan 31, 2023) implementation. We studied stress test guideline compliance, changes in medical or surgical management, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: Before order set implementation, 37/122 patients (30%) underwent stress testing within the past year (29 specifically ordered preoperatively) with 66% (19/29) guideline compliance. After order set implementation, 50/173 patients (29%) underwent stress testing within the past year (41 specifically ordered preoperatively) with 80% (33/41) guideline compliance. In the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, stress testing led to a cardiovascular medication change or preoperative coronary revascularization in 24% (7/29) and 27% (11/41) of patients, and a staged surgery or less invasive anesthetic strategy in 14% (4/29) and 4.9% (2/41) of patients, respectively. All unindicated stress tests were surgeon-ordered and none led to a change in management. There was no change in MACE after order set implementation. Conclusions: Electronic medical record-based guidance of perioperative stress testing led to a slight decrease in overall stress testing and an increase in guideline-compliant testing. Our study highlights a need for improved preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment prior to major vascular surgery, which may eliminate unnecessary testing and more effectively guide perioperative decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]