Search

Background Severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) is traditionally treated with aorto-bifemoral bypass (ABF) or aorto-unifemoral bypass (AUF). However, cross-femoral bypass (CFB) and hybrid femoral endarterectomy and patch angioplasty with iliac stenting (EPS) have gained popularity as less invasive options. We sought to compare 1-year survival, primary patency, and major amputation rates between open surgical (ABF and AUF) and 2 less invasive reconstruction techniques (CFB and EPS) using a large, multicenter cohort. Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent either ABF/AUF or CFB/EPS for AIOD between 2006 and 2013 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry. Baseline patient and periprocedural variables were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to predict the likelihood of more invasive repair. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models were performed for 1-year survival, primary patency, and major amputation. Results 1872 patients underwent procedures for AIOD, including 1,133 ABF/AUF and 739 CFB/EPS, during the study period. Indication was critical limb ischemia in 47.3% (n = 886). Median follow-up time was 305 days (range, 10–406). After PSM, the matched cohort included 1,094 ABF/AUF and 711 CFB/EPS patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that patient factors and procedure indication were significant predictors of 1-year mortality and major amputation, but not procedure type. ABF/AUF was associated with improved primary patency over CFB/EPS at 1 year (94.1% ± 1.1% vs. 92.3% ± 1.5%, hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.45–0.94; P = 0.02). Conclusions In a propensity-matched cohort from a multicenter vascular surgery registry, a direct approach to AIOD (ABF/AUF) demonstrated better 1-year primary patency than commonly used less invasive strategies. However, treatment approach was not a predictor of 1-year survival or limb salvage, suggesting that patient factors and procedure indication have a greater impact on outcome.

Loss to follow-up (LTF) after surgery impacts quality of care and can adversely affect short- and long-term clinical outcomes. This study identifies modifiable factors contributing to LTF after vascular surgery and the factors' effect on short- and long-term clinical outcomes.This is a retrospective single-center cohort study of 440 consecutive adult patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy, infrainguinal bypass, percutaneous lower extremity revascularization, or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair at Northwestern Memorial Hospital between November 2011 and November 2013. Twenty-six patients who died within 9 months after surgery were excluded because of competing risks with the study end points. Demographics, medical history and medications, hospitalization and procedure-related factors, and postoperative complications were collected from the medical record. The primary end point was LTF 1 month after surgery (LTF1M), defined as lack of an in-person outpatient visit with a vascular surgeon 1 month after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes were LTF 1 year after surgery (LTF1Y), defined as lack of an in-person outpatient visit with a vascular surgeon between 9 and 22 months after discharge, and overall 5-year survival.Overall LTF1M and LTF1Y rates were 27.3% and 46.8%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in survival based on the LTF1M status (P = 0.72), but patients who were LTF1Y had significantly worse survival at 5 years (P 0.001). Seeing a nonvascular surgeon specialist at our institution (odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-0.94, P = 0.03) and having a reintervention (OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08-0.37, P 0.001) were associated with decreased LTF1Y in a multivariable model. Overall mortality was more likely with LTF1Y (hazard ratio (HR) 3.27, 95% CI: 1.86-5.76, P 0.001) and less likely with seeing another specialist at our institution (HR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, P = 0.005).LTF rates after vascular surgery are high and associated with poor long-term outcomes. Patients who did not see a nonvascular surgeon specialist at our institution had higher rates of LTF1Y and worse overall mortality, suggesting that improved integration of care can improve LTF and survival.

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is usually performed with eversion (ECEA) or conventional (CCEA) technique. Previous studies report conflicting results with respect to outcomes for ECEA and CCEA. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes for ECEA and CCEA.Deidentified data for CEA patients were obtained from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI) database for years 2003 to 2013. Second (contralateral) CEA, reoperative CEA, CEA after previous carotid stenting, or CEA concurrent with cardiac surgery were excluded, leaving 2365 ECEA and 17,155 CCEA for comparison. Univariate analysis compared patients, procedures, and outcomes. Survival analysis was also performed for mortality. Multivariate analysis was used selectively to examine the possible independent predictive value of variables on outcomes.Groups were similar with respect to sex, demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative neurologic symptoms, except that ECEA patients tended to be older (71.3 vs 69.8 years; P.001). CCEA was more often performed with general anesthesia (92% vs 80%; P.001) and with a shunt (59% vs 24%; P.001). Immediate perioperative ipsilateral neurologic events (ECEA, 1.3% vs CCEA, 1.2%; P = .86) and any ipsilateral stroke (ECEA, 0.8% vs CCEA, 0.9%; P = .84) were uncommon in both groups. ECEA tended to take less time (median 99 vs 114 minutes; P.001). However, ECEA more often required a return to the operating room for bleeding (1.4% vs 0.8%; P = .002), a difference that logistic regression analysis showed was only partly explained by differential use of protamine. Life-table estimated 1-year freedom from any cortical neurologic event was similar (96.7% vs 96.7%). Estimated survival was similar comparing ECEA with CCEA at 1 year (96.7% vs 95.9%); however, estimated survival tended to decline more rapidly in ECEA patients after ∼2 years. Cox proportional hazards modeling confirmed that independent predictors of mortality included age, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking, but also demonstrated that CEA type was not an independent predictor of mortality. The 1-year freedom from recurrent stenosis50% was lower for ECEA (88.8% vs 94.3%, P.001). However, ECEA and CCEA both had a very high rate of freedom from reoperation at 1 year (99.5% vs 99.6%; P = .67).ECEA and CCEA appear to provide similar freedom from neurologic morbidity, death, and reintervention. ECEA was associated with significantly shorter procedure times. Furthermore, ECEA obviates the expenses, including increased operative time, associated with use of a patch in CCEA, and a shunt, more often used in CCEA in this database. These potential benefits may be reduced by a slightly greater requirement for early return to the operating room for bleeding.

Quality care of vascular surgery patients extends to the post-operative coordination of care and the long-term surveillance, including the medical management of vascular disease. This is particularly highlighted in contemporary modern vascular surgery practice as tremendous focus is being placed on post-operative adverse events and hospital readmissions. The purpose of this review is to provide a contemporary perspective of transitions of care at discharge and long-term surveillance recommendations after vascular surgery interventions.