The Sustained Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vascular Surgical Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated postponement of vascular surgery procedures nationally. Whether procedure volumes have since recovered remains undefined. Therefore, our objective was to quantify changes in procedure volumes and determine whether surgical volume has returned to its prepandemic baseline. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study between 2018 and 2023 using the US Fee-for-Service Medicare 5% National Sample as part of the VA Disrupted Care National Project. We studied patients who underwent 1 of 3 procedures: abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair for intact aneurysms, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and major lower extremity amputation (LEA). The case volume of each quarter of 2020-2023 was compared to its corresponding prepandemic quarter in 2019. We then performed a subanalysis of these trends by sex, age, and race. RESULTS: We identified 21,031 procedures: 4,411 AAA repair, 8,361 CEA, and 8,259 LEA. The average percent change during the baseline prepandemic period from 2018 to 2019 was -4.3% for AAA repair, -8.5% for CEA, and -2.6% for LEA. Compared to Q2 of 2019, Q2 of 2020 demonstrated that AAA repair procedures decreased by 47%, CEA by 40%, and LEA by 14%. While procedures initially rebounded in Q3 of 2020, volumes did not return to their prepandemic baseline, demonstrating a persistent volume reduction (-16% AAA, -22% CEA, and -11% LEA). Thereafter, procedure counts again declined in Q1 of 2022 (-25% AAA, -34% CEA, and -25% LEA). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a perception that vascular surgical care was singularly disrupted at the outset of the pandemic, there has been a sustained reduction in vascular surgical volume since 2019. Not only have procedure volumes not returned to prepandemic baseline but it also appears that there has been a cumulative incremental impact on overall procedure volume. The impact of these findings on long-term population health remains uncertain and necessitates a better understanding of postpandemic care delivery.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Changes in global mortality from aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Globally, there has been a marked increase in aortic aneurysm-related deaths between 1990 and 2019. We sought to understand the underlying etiologies for this mortality trend by examining secular changes in both demographics and the prevalence of risk factors, and how these changes may vary across sociodemographic index (SDI) regions. METHODS: We queried the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) for aortic aneurysm deaths from 1990 to 2019 overall and by age group. We identified the percentage of aortic aneurysm deaths attributable to each risk factor identified by GBD modeling (smoking, hypertension, lead exposure, and high sodium diet) and their respective changes over time. We then analyzed aneurysm mortality by SDI region. RESULTS: The number of aortic aneurysm-related deaths have increased from 94,968 in 1990 to 172,427 in 2019, signifying an 81.6% increase, which greatly exceeds the 18.2% increase in all-cause mortality observed over the same time interval. Examination of age-specific mortality demonstrated that the number of aortic aneurysm deaths markedly correlated with advancing age. However, when considering rate of death rather than mortality count, overall age-standardized death rates decreased 18% from 2.72 per 100,000 in 1990 to 2.21 per 100,000 in 2019. Analysis of the specific risk factors associated with aneurysm death revealed that the percentage of deaths attributable to smoking decreased from 45.6% in 1990 to 34.6% in 2019, and deaths attributable to hypertension decreased from 38.7% to 34.7%. Globally, hypertension surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor. The reported rate of death was consistently greater as SDI increased, and this effect was most pronounced among low-middle and middle SDI regions (173.2% and 170.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an overall increase in the number of aneurysm deaths, there was a decrease in the age-standardized death rate, demonstrating that the observed increased number of aortic aneurysm deaths between 1990 and 2019 was primarily driven by an overall increase in the age of the global population. Fortunately, it appears that the increase in overall aneurysm-related deaths has been modulated by improved risk factor modification, in particular smoking. Given the rise in aneurysm-related deaths, global expansion of vascular specialty capabilities is warranted and will serve to amplify improvements in population-based aneurysm health achieved with risk factor control.

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease. RESULTS: Four publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

Readmission After Lower Extremity Bypass Following Discharge to a Rehabilitation or Nursing Facility.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital readmission after lower extremity arterial bypass (LEB) is common. Patients are often discharged to a facility after LEB as a bridge to home. Our objective was to define the association between discharge to a facility and readmission after LEB. METHODS: We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent LEB from 2017 to 2022. The primary exposure was discharge location. The primary outcome was 30-d hospital readmission. RESULTS: We included 6076 patients across 147 centers. The overall 30-d readmission rate was 18%. Readmission occurred among 15% of patients discharged home, 22% of patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility, and 25% of patients discharged to a nursing home. After controlling for patient and procedural factors, there was no significant association between discharge location and 30-d readmission (rehabilitation versus home odds ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.29; nursing facility versus home odds ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.47). Female sex, end-stage renal disease, diabetes, heart failure, pulmonary disease, smoking, preoperative functional impairment, tibial bypass target, critical limb threatening or acute ischemia, and postoperative complications including surgical site infection, change in renal function and graft thrombosis were associated with an increased likelihood of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged home after LEB experienced a similar likelihood of readmission as those discharged to a facility. While discharge to a facility may aid in care transitions, it did not appear to lead to reduced 30-d readmissions. The recommended discharge location should be predicated on patient care needs and not as a perceived mechanism to reduce readmissions.