Assessing trends, morbidity, and mortality in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with 9 years of data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database can be used to assess trends and outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair. The purpose of this study is to examine the morbidity and mortality for ruptured endovascular (rEVAR) and ruptured open (rOPEN) aneurysm repair compared with elective endovascular (EVAR) and elective open (OPEN) aneurysm repair. METHODS: Ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms were identified from the NSQIP database between 2008 and 2016. Data regarding demographics and comorbidities, 30-day mortality, and postoperative complications were collected for rEVAR, rOPEN, EVAR, and OPEN cases. RESULTS: There were 43,105 AAAs, 34,177 (79.28%) EVARs, and 8928 (20.71%) OPENs. There were 3806 rAAAs, 1843 (48.42%) rEVARs, and 1963 (51.58%) rOPENs. The incidence of rEVAR repair lagged behind EVAR considerably. Mortality for rOPEN was 575 (29.29%) and 344 (18.66%) for rEVAR. No difference between the ratio of men to women in rOPEN vs rEVAR was noted. There was a significant increase in mortality for women vs men undergoing rEVAR (P = .0362). No difference in mortality existed between women vs men undergoing rOPEN (P = .0639). There was no difference in the percentage of hypotensive cases undergoing rEVAR vs rOPEN (P =.1873). For all rAAAs with hypotension, rOPEN had an increased mortality compared to rEVAR (P = .0004). There were 20 (3.11%) rEVAR and 40 (8.00%) rOPEN cases with lower extremity ischemia. rOPEN conferred a significant increase in lower extremity ischemia (P = .0002). There were 46 (7.15%) rEVAR and 60 (12.00%) rOPEN cases of ischemic colitis. rOPEN had a significant increase in ischemic colitis (P = .0052). CONCLUSIONS: NSQIP data, over 9 years, demonstrate an increased morbidity and mortality associated with open vs endovascular repair of rAAAs. A great disparity exists between the proportion of rEVAR and rOPEN to EVAR and OPEN. The lagging use of endovascular repair of rAAAs must be further explored.

Relative value unit-based compensation incentivization in an academic vascular practice improves productivity with no early adverse impact on quality.

OBJECTIVE: Given the increased pressure from governmental programs to restructure reimbursements to reflect quality metrics achieved by physicians, review of current reimbursement schemes is necessary to ensure sustainability of the physician's performance while maintaining and ultimately improving patient outcomes. This study reviewed the impact of reimbursement incentives on evidence-based care outcomes within a vascular surgical program at an academic tertiary care center. METHODS: Data for patients with a confirmed 30-day follow-up for the vascular surgery subset of our institution's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program submission for the years 2013 and 2014 were reviewed. The outcomes reviewed included 30-day mortality, readmission, unplanned returns to the operating room, and all major morbidities. A comparison of both total charges and work relative value units (RVUs) generated was performed before and after changes were made from a salary-based to a productivity-based compensation model. P value analysis was used to determine if there were any statistically significant differences in patient outcomes between the two study years. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in outcomes of the core measures studied was identified between the two periods. There was a trend toward a lower incidence of respiratory complications, largely driven by a lower incidence in pneumonia between 2013 and 2014. The vascular division had a net increase of 8.2% in total charges and 5.7% in work RVUs after the RVU-based incentivization program was instituted. CONCLUSIONS: Revenue-improving measures can improve sustainability of a vascular program without negatively affecting patient care as evidenced by the lack of difference in evidence-based core outcome measures in our study period. Further studies are needed to elucidate the long-term effects of incentivization programs on both patient care and program viability.