Racial and Gender Disparity in Aortoiliac Disease Open Revascularization Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The impact of race and gender on surgical outcomes has been studied in infrainguinal revascularization for peripheral arterial disease. The aim of this study is to explore how race and gender affect the outcomes of suprainguinal bypass (SIB) for aortoiliac occlusive disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent SIB were identified from the procedure-targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set (2011-2016). Patients were stratified into four groups: nonblack males, black males (BM), nonblack females, and black females (BF). Primary outcomes were 30-d major adverse cardiac events, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death; postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion or intervention; major amputation and prolonged length of stay (>10 d). Predictors of outcomes were determined by multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: About 5044 patients were identified. BM were younger, more likely to be smokers, less likely to be on antiplatelet drug or statin, and to receive elective SIB (all P ≤ 0.01). BFs were more likely to be diabetic and functionally dependent (all P ≤ 0.02). Major adverse cardiac events were not significantly different among all groups. BM had a threefold higher risk of amputation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (95% CI)], 3.10 [1.50-6.43]; P < 0.002). Female gender was associated with bleeding in both races, that association was more drastic in BF (OR [95% CI], 2.43 [1.63-3.60]; P < 0.0001), whereas nonblack females (OR [95% CI], 1.46 [1.19-1.80]; P < 0.0001). BF had higher odds of prolonged length of stay (OR [95% CI]: 1.62 [1.08-2.42]; P < 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective study, we demonstrated the racial and gender disparity in SIB outcomes. BM had more than threefold increase in amputation risk as compared with nonblack males. Severe bleeding risk was more than doubled in BF. Race and gender consideration is warranted in risk assessment when patients are selected for aortoiliac disease revascularization, which in turn necessitate preoperative risk modification and optimization in addition to enhancing their access to primary preventive care measures.

Trend and Economic Burden of Intravenous Narcotic Analgesic Utilization in Major Vascular Interventions in the United States.

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.

Age modifies the efficacy and safety of carotid artery revascularization procedures.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials have shown that carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) is safer than carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the elderly. However, those studies were limited by their strict inclusion criteria that might make their findings inapplicable to real-world practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the association of age with the efficacy of CEA and CAS in a population-based registry. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was inquired (2005-2017). The primary outcome was 30-day and 2-year stroke and a combined outcome of stroke/death. Logistic regression models with age-by-treatment interaction term were fitted adjusting for patients' characteristics. Restricted cubic spline modelling was also implemented. Two-year events were assessed via survival analysis methods. RESULTS: Overall, 89,853 patients were included, 26.9% were less than 65 years of age, 39.1% were 65 to 74 years of age, and 34.1% were 75 years of age or older. The CAS-to-CEA odds of 30-day stroke became significant at age 56.5 and doubled at age 72.5 years. After CEA, the risk of stroke rose by 1.3-fold when age increased from 76 to 85 (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.62). Yet after CAS, when age increased from 65 to 71 years, the OR of stroke was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.04-1.76); from 71 to 76 years, the OR was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.10-1.96), and from 76 to 85 years the OR was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.06-1.81). The superiority of CEA with increasing age extended to 2 years after the procedure. The CAS-to-CEA 2-year hazard of stroke was significant at age 53 and it doubled at 71.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter registry, we confirmed the effect modification role that age plays in the safety and efficacy of carotid revascularizations. The risk-adjusted effectiveness of CAS was particularly sensitive to patient age, whereas CEA performance was relatively stable across various age strata. Of note, the observed effect was more pronounced and a decade earlier than what previously reported in the ideal setting of a randomized clinical trial.

Anemia and postoperative outcomes after open and endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Anemia is associated with increased cardiac adverse events during the early postoperative period because of high physiologic stress and increased cardiac demand. The aim of this study was to assess the surgical outcomes and prognostic implications of anemia in patients undergoing repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent open aortic repair (OAR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2008-2017) was performed. Patients with preoperative polycythemia, patients with ruptured aneurysms, and patients transfused with >4 units of packed red blood cells were excluded. Hemoglobin levels were categorized into three groups: moderate-severe anemia (<10 g/dL), mild anemia (10-12 g/dL in women and 10-13 g/dL in men), and no anemia (>12 g/dL in women and >13 g/dL in men). Multivariate logistic models and coarsened exact matching were used to analyze the association between anemia and 30-day mortality and between anemia and major in-hospital complications after OAR and EVAR. RESULTS: A total of 34,397 patients were identified undergoing AAA repair. Of those, 28.5% had mild anemia and 4.3% had moderate-severe anemia. In both OAR (n = 6112) and EVAR (n = 28,285), patients with moderate-severe anemia had significantly higher rates of in-hospital adverse events, such as in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, renal and respiratory complications, and reoperation, compared with patients with mild or no anemia. They also had higher rates of 30-day mortality. After multivariate analysis and 1:1 coarsened exact matching, no association was found between anemia and 30-day mortality and other in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing OAR. On the other hand, in EVAR, moderate-severe anemia was associated with 2.7 times the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-4.18), 2.5 times the odds of renal complications (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.78-3.43; P < .05), and twice the risk of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.18-3.25) and respiratory complications (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.26-3.19). Mild anemia was also associated with increased odds of 30-day mortality and renal and respiratory complications in patients undergoing EVAR. Interestingly, preoperative blood transfusion in mildly anemic patients undergoing EVAR was associated with double the odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (stroke, death, and myocardial infarction; OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.38-3.11; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative anemia is associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality and in-hospital adverse outcomes after EVAR but not after OAR. These findings highlight the need to incorporate anemia into the preoperative risk assessment of patients undergoing EVAR. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of medical therapies in improving postoperative outcomes in anemic patients undergoing AAA repair.

Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting When Performed by a Single Vascular Surgeon.

OBJECTIVES:: Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are 2 effective treatment options for carotid revascularization and stroke prevention. The long-term outcomes of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) reported similar stroke and death rate between the 2 procedures. This study presents the short- and long-term outcomes of CEA and CAS of all risk patients performed by a single vascular surgeon in a real-world setting. METHODS:: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent CEA and CAS from September 2005 to June 2017 at our institute. Student t test, χ2, and Fisher exact tests were used to compare patient's characteristics. Multivariate logistic, cox regression models and survival analysis were used to compare postoperative and long-term outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS:: Over 2000 patients were evaluated for carotid artery stenosis during the study period, and 313 revascularization procedures were performed (CEA: 47%, CAS: 53%). Patients' age (Mean [95% confidence interval, CI] 68.8 [67.2-70.4] vs 69.7 [68.2-71.3], P = .40) was similar between CEA and CAS. Patients who underwent CAS had significantly higher comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], chronic heart failure [CHF], hyperlipidemia, and prior ipsilateral intervention, all P < .05). No difference was found in 30-day complications after CEA versus CAS including stroke (2.0% vs 1.2%), myocardial infarction (MI; 0.7% vs 1.2%), death (0% vs 1.2%) as well as combined major adverse events (stroke/death/MI; 2.7% vs 3.0%; all P > .05). Overall 7-year survival, stroke-free survival and restenosis-free survival were similar between the 2 groups ( P > .5). Significant predictors of mortality were diabetes (hazard ratio, HR [95% CI]: 2.41 [1.15-5.08]), chronic kidney disease (HR [95% CI]: 4.89 [1.97-12.13]), and COPD (HR [95% CI]: 3.31 [1.43-7.71]; all P values <.05). Statin use was protective with 71% reduction in risk of mortality (HR [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.12-0.67], P = .004). CONCLUSION:: Our experience showed comparable short- and long-term outcomes of CAS and CEA performed for carotid artery stenosis by vascular surgeon. There was no difference between single institutional long-term outcomes and CREST outcomes following CEA and CAS.

Statins reduce mortality and failure to rescue after carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of statins has been well established in reducing morbidities and mortality after carotid endarterectomy. However, the potential advantage of statin use in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of statins on postoperative outcomes after CAS. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was retrospectively analyzed to identify all patients who underwent CAS from 2009 to 2015. Univariate (χ2 test, t-test) and multivariate models (logistic regression) were used to evaluate the effect of statins on postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17,800 patients underwent CAS during the study period; 12,416 (70%) patients were taking statins. The statin group had more symptomatic patients (41% vs 31%; P < .001) and had significantly higher comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, history of congestive heart failure, history of stroke, history of myocardial infarction (MI), and peripheral artery disease (all P < .05). Postoperative mortality was 1.0% vs 1.8% in the statin and nonstatin groups, respectively (P < .001). Statin use had no effect on odds of postoperative stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.34; P = .44) and higher odds of MI (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.26-3.45; P = .004). After adjustment for potential confounders, statins were associated with 64% reduction in the odds of death (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.47; P < .001) and 18% reduction in stroke/death (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .03). In patients who had a stroke or MI, statin users had significantly lower failure to rescue (lower mortality) compared with nonstatin users (11.4% vs 30.8%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Statin use is associated with significant reduction in mortality and failure to rescue in patients who develop major complications (stroke/MI) after CAS. Therefore, statin use should be strongly encouraged in all patients undergoing CAS.

Outcomes and cost of open versus endovascular repair of intact thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Many previous studies have evaluated the outcomes of open and endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, little is known about the differences in cost of these procedures and the potential factors driving these differences. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and cost of open aortic repair (OAR) vs endovascular repair of intact TAAA. METHODS: All patients undergoing repair for intact TAAA were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database (July 2009-March 2015). Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the χ2 test, Student t-test, and median test as appropriate. A multivariable generalized linear model was used to examine total in-hospital cost. RESULTS: A total of 879 TAAA repairs were identified (481 [55%) endovascular repairs vs 398 [45%] OARs). Patients undergoing endovascular repair were on average 5 years older (71.2 [±10.0] years vs 66.5 [±10.9] years; P < .001) and more likely to be female (48% vs 42%; P = .05) and hypertensive (87% vs 80%; P = .009). Otherwise, there were no significant differences in comorbidities between the two groups. Patients undergoing OAR were more likely to stay longer in the hospital (median [interquartile range], 11 [7-20] days vs 5 [2-9] days; P < .001). In-hospital mortality (15% vs 5%; P < .001) and all major complications were two to three times higher after OAR. The median total cost of OAR was significantly higher compared with endovascular repair (cost [interquartile range], $44,355 [$32,177-$54,824] vs $36,612 [$24,395-$53,554]; P = .004). The majority of the cost attributed to TAAA repair was also higher in patients undergoing open repair: room and board ($11,561 vs $4720), operating room ($9230 vs $4929), pharmacy ($2309 vs $900), blood bank ($1189 vs $195), rehabilitation/physical therapy ($378 vs $236), and respiratory therapy ($875 vs $168; all P < .001). Only the cost of central supplies, which includes endovascular grafts and stents, was the highest among patients undergoing endovascular repair ($17,472 vs $5501; P < .001). The cost of diagnostic imaging ($625 vs $595) and anesthesia ($479 vs $478) was similar in both approaches. In a multivariable analysis, the adjusted total hospitalization cost for OAR was $5974 (95% confidence interval, $1828-$10,120; P = .005) higher compared with endovascular repair. However, after adjusting for in-hospital complications, no difference was seen between the two approaches (-$460; 95% confidence interval, -$4390 to $3470; P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of intact TAAAs, we showed a significantly higher adjusted total hospitalization cost of open compared with endovascular repair despite the additional cost of endografts. This is likely driven by longer length of stay and higher morbidity after OAR.