Racial differences in adoption and outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization among high-risk adults with carotid artery stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: Differential access to new technologies may contribute to racial disparities in surgical outcomes but has not been well-studied in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. We examined race-based differences in adoption and outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among high-risk non-Hispanic (NH) NH Black and NH white adults undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedures performed for carotid artery stenosis from 1/2015 to 7/2023 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. NH Black and NH white adults were included if they met Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services high-risk criteria. Hospitals and physicians were categorized as TCAR-capable if they had previously performed at least one TCAR prior to the time of a given procedure. We fit logistic and linear regressions, adjusted a priori for common demographic, clinical, and disease characteristics, to estimate associations of race with receipt of TCAR (versus CEA or TF-CAS), and to explore associations between race, hospital and physician characteristics, and perioperative composite stroke/death/myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Of 159,471 high-risk patients undergoing revascularization for carotid artery stenosis (mean age 72 years, 38.5% female, 5.3% NH Black), 28,722 (18.0%) received TCAR, including 16.9% of NH Black adults and 18.1% of NH white adults (P<0.001). After controlling for patient and disease characteristics, NH Black patients were less likely than NH white patients to receive TCAR (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.99). The use of TCAR did not vary by race among patients treated at TCAR-capable hospitals (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05) or by TCAR-capable physicians (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10); however, NH Black race was associated with lower odds of receiving treatment in these settings (TCAR-capable hospital: aOR 0.93 [0.88 to 0.98]; TCAR-capable physician: aOR 0.92 [0.87 to 0.98]). NH Black race was associated with higher odds of stroke/death/MI in the full cohort (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36), but not in the subgroup of patients who received TCAR (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.34). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR attenuated racial disparities in perioperative morbidity and mortality associated with carotid revascularization, but NH Black adults were less likely than NH white adults to receive TCAR. Relatively worse access for NH Black adults to technologically-advanced treatment settings may partially explain the broader persistence of race-based differences in carotid revascularization treatment patterns and outcomes.

Revascularization in a Time After CORAL.

Revascularization of renal artery stenosis became less common following randomized controlled trials that failed to demonstrate benefit in low-risk patients. An 88-year-old patient with recurrent acute pulmonary edema and progressive kidney disease in the setting of high-grade renal artery stenosis, a phenotype excluded from these trials, underwent revascularization.

Appropriateness of care: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis including transcarotid artery revascularization.

Carotid artery stenosis is one of the most common diagnoses treated by vascular specialists in the United States. The optimal management of carotid stenosis remains controversial, however, with notable variation surrounding diagnostic imaging modalities, longitudinal surveillance, medical therapies, and procedural interventions. Data from high-quality randomized controlled trials and observational studies form the foundation for current management paradigms and societal guidelines that inform clinical practice. Presently, a diagnosis of carotid disease is most often established with duplex ultrasound and supplemental cross-sectional imaging using computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography as needed to provide additional anatomic information. All patients with documented occlusive disease should receive goal-directed medical therapy with antiplatelet agents and a lipid-reduction strategy, most commonly with a statin. Those with severe carotid stenosis and an acceptable life expectancy may be considered for carotid artery revascularization. The proceduralist should optimally consider a shared decision-making approach in which the tradeoffs of revascularization can be carefully considered with the patient to optimize informed therapeutic decision making. In current practice, three distinct procedure options exist to treat carotid artery stenosis, including carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, and transcarotid artery revascularization. It should be noted that each procedure, although often used interchangeably in most clinical settings, carry technical nuances and outcome disparities. In this review, each of these topics are explored and various approaches are outlined surrounding the appropriate use of treatments for patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Derivation and Validation of ICD-10 Codes for Identifying Incident Stroke.

Importance: Claims data with International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes are routinely used in clinical research. However, the use of ICD-10 codes to define incident stroke has not been validated against expert-adjudicated outcomes in the US population. Objective: To develop and validate the accuracy of an ICD-10 code list to detect incident stroke events using Medicare inpatient fee-for-service claims data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from 2 prospective population-based cohort studies, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, and included participants aged 65 years or older without prior stroke who had linked Medicare claims data. Stroke events in the ARIC and REGARDS studies were identified via active surveillance and adjudicated by expert review. Medicare-linked ARIC data (2016-2018) were used to develop a list of ICD-10 codes for incident stroke detection. The list was validated using Medicare-linked REGARDS data (2016-2019). Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023. Exposures: Stroke events detected in Medicare claims vs expert-adjudicated stroke events in the ARIC and REGARDS studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of incident stroke detection using ICD-10 codes. Results: In the ARIC study, there were 110 adjudicated incident stroke events among 5194 participants (mean [SD] age, 80.1 [5.3] years) over a median follow-up of 3.0 (range, 0.003-3.0) years. Most ARIC participants were women (3160 [60.8%]); 993 (19.1%) were Black and 4180 (80.5%) were White. Using the primary diagnosis code on a Medicare billing claim, the ICD-10 code list had a sensitivity of 81.8% (95% CI, 73.3%-88.5%) and a specificity of 99.1% (95% CI, 98.8%-99.3%) to detect incident stroke. Using any diagnosis code on a Medicare billing claim, the sensitivity was 94.5% (95% CI, 88.5%-98.0%) and the specificity was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.0%-98.8%). In the REGARDS study, there were 140 adjudicated incident strokes among 6359 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [7.0] years) over a median follow-up of 4.0 (range, 0-4.0) years. More than half of the REGARDS participants were women (3351 [52.7%]); 1774 (27.9%) were Black and 4585 (72.1%) were White. For the primary diagnosis code, the ICD-10 code list had a sensitivity of 70.7% (95% CI, 63.2%-78.3%) and a specificity of 99.1% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.4%). For any diagnosis code, the ICD-10 code list had a sensitivity of 77.9% (95% CI, 71.0%-84.7%) and a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI, 98.6%-99.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that ICD-10 codes could be used to identify incident stroke events in Medicare claims with moderate sensitivity and high specificity.

Association of Surgeon Self-Reported Gender and Surgical Outcomes in Current US Practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association of surgeon self-reported gender on clinical outcomes in contemporary US surgical practice. BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that there are potentially improved surgical outcomes for female surgeons, yet the underlying causal path for this association remains unclear. METHODS: Using the Vizient Clinical Database(2016-2021), 39 operations categorized by the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network were analyzed. The surgeon self-reported gender as the primary exposure. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, complications, and/or 30-day readmission. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching were used for risk adjustment. RESULTS: The analysis included 4,882,784 patients operated on by 11,955 female surgeons (33% of surgeons performing 21% of procedures) and 23,799 male surgeons (67% of surgeons performing 79% of procedures). Female surgeons were younger (45±9 vs males-53±11 y; P <0.0001) and had lower operative volumes. Unadjusted incidence of the primary outcome was 13.6%(10.7%-female surgeons, 14.3%-male surgeons; P <0.0001). After propensity matching, the primary outcome occurred in 13.0% of patients [12.9%-female, 13.0%-male; OR (M vs. F)=1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03; P =0.001), with female surgeons having small statistical associations with lower mortality and complication rates but not readmissions. Procedure-specific analyses revealed inconsistent or no surgeon-gender associations. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest analysis to date, surgeon self-reported gender had a small statistical, clinically marginal correlation with postoperative outcomes. The variation across surgical specialties and procedures suggests that the association with surgeon gender is unlikely causal for the observed differences in outcomes. Patients should be reassured that surgeon gender alone does not have a clinically meaningful impact on their outcome.

A patient-centered textbook outcome measure effectively discriminates contemporary elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair quality.

BACKGROUND: There is persistent controversy surrounding the merit of surgical volume benchmarks being used solely as a sufficient proxy for assessing the quality of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Importantly, operative volume quotas may fail to reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive depiction of surgical outcomes most relevant to patients. Accordingly, we herein propose a patient-centered textbook outcome (TO) for AAA repair that is analogous to other large magnitude extirpative operations performed in other surgical specialties, and test its feasibility to discriminate hospital performance using Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) volume guidelines. METHODS: All elective open infrarenal AAA repairs (OAR) in the SVS-Vascular Quality Initiative were examined (2009-2022). The primary end point was a TO, defined as a composite of no in-hospital complication or reintervention/reoperation, length of stay of ≤10 days, home discharge, and 1-year survival rates. The discriminatory ability of the TO measure was assessed by comparing centers that did or did not meet the SVS annual OAR volume threshold recommendation (high volume ≥10 OARs/year; low volume <10 OARs/year). Logistic regression and multivariable models adjusted for patient and procedure-related differences. RESULTS: A total of 9657 OARs across 198 centers were analyzed (mean age, 69.5 ± 8.4 years; female, 26%; non-White, 12%). A TO was identified in 44% (n = 4293) of the overall cohort. The incidence of individual TO components included no in-hospital complication (61%), no in-hospital reintervention or reoperation (92%), length of stay of ≤10 days (78%), home discharge (76%), and 1-year survival (91%). Median annual center volume was 6 (interquartile range, 3-10) and a majority of centers did not meet the SVS volume suggested threshold (<10 OARs/year, n = 148 [74%]). However, most patients (6265 of 9657 [65%]) underwent OAR in high-volume hospitals. When comparing high- and low-volume centers, a TO was more likely to occur in high-volume institutions: ≥10 OARs/year (46%) vs <10 OARs/year (42%; P = .0006). The association of a protective effect for higher center volume remained after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.26; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TOs for elective OAR reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive patient centered proxy to measure care delivery, consistent with other surgical specialties. Surprisingly, a TO was achieved in <50% of elective AAA cases nationally. Although the likelihood of a TO seems to correlate with SVS center volume recommendations, it more importantly reflects elements which may be prioritized by patients and thus offers insights into further improving real-world AAA care.

Infrapopliteal Endovascular Interventions for Claudication Are Associated with Poor Long-Term Outcomes in Medicare-Matched Registry Patients.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data supporting or opposing the use of infrapopliteal peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) for the treatment of claudication. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the association of infrapopliteal PVI with long-term outcomes compared with isolated femoropopliteal PVI for the treatment of claudication. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients in the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication from January 2004-December 2019 using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 14,261 patients (39.9% female; 85.6% age ≥65 years, 87.7% non-Hispanic white) who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication, 16.6% (N=2,369) received an infrapopliteal PVI. The median follow-up after index PVI was 3.7 years (IQR 2.1-6.1). Compared to patients who underwent isolated femoropopliteal PVI, patients receiving any infrapopliteal PVI had a higher 3-year cumulative incidence of conversion to CLTI (33.3% vs. 23.8%; P<0.001); repeat PVI (41.0% vs. 38.2%; P<0.01); and amputation (8.1% vs. 2.8%; P<0.001). After risk-adjustment, patients undergoing infrapopliteal PVI had a higher risk of conversion to CLTI (aHR 1.39, 95% CI, 1.25-1.53); repeat PVI (aHR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.01-1.19); and amputation (aHR 2.18, 95% CI, 1.77-2.67). Findings were consistent after adjusting for competing risk of death; in a 1:1 propensity-matched analysis; and in subgroup analyses stratified by TASC disease, diabetes, and end-stage kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Infrapopliteal PVI is associated with worse long-term outcomes than femoropopliteal PVI for claudication. These risks should be discussed with patients.

Most preoperative stress tests fail to comply with practice guideline indications and do not reduce cardiac events.

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.

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has had a dynamic impact on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) care, often supplanting open AAA repair (OAR). Accordingly, US AAA management is often highlighted by disparities in patient selection and guideline compliance. The purpose of this analysis was to define secular trends in AAA care. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all EVARs and OARs (2011-2021). End points included procedure utilization, change in mortality, patient risk profile, Society for Vascular Surgery-endorsed diameter compliance, off-label EVAR use, cross-clamp location, blood loss, in-hospital complications, and post-EVAR surveillance missingness. Linear regression was used without risk adjustment for all end points except for mortality and complications, for which logistic regression with risk adjustment was used. RESULTS: In all, 66 609 EVARs (elective, 85% [n=55 805] and nonelective, 15% [n=9976]) and 13 818 OARs (elective, 70% [n=9706] and nonelective, 30% [n=4081]) were analyzed. Elective EVAR:OAR ratios were increased (0.2 per year [95% CI, 0.01-0.32]), while nonelective ratios were unchanged. Elective diameter threshold noncompliance decreased for OAR (24%→17%; P=0.01) but not EVAR (mean, 37%). Low-risk patients increasingly underwent elective repairs (EVAR, +0.4%per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]; OAR, +0.6 points per year [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Off-label EVAR frequency was unchanged (mean, 39%) but intraoperative complications decreased (0.5% per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). OAR complexity increased reflecting greater suprarenal cross-clamp rates (0.4% per year [95% CI, 0.1-0.8]) and blood loss (33 mL/y [95% CI, 19-47]). In-hospital complications decreased for elective (0.7% per year [95% CI, 0.4-0.9]) and nonelective EVAR (1.7% per year [95% CI, 1.1-2.3]) but not OAR (mean, 42%). A 30-day mortality was unchanged for both elective OAR (mean, 4%) and EVAR (mean, 1%). Among nonelective OARs, an increase in both 30-day (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.1-1.5]) and 1-year mortality (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.3-1.6]) was observed. Postoperative EVAR surveillance acquisition decreased (67%→49%), while 1-year mortality among patients without imaging was 4-fold greater (9.2% versus imaging, 2.0%; odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 3.8-4.3]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in EVAR and a corresponding reduction in OAR across the United States, despite established concerns surrounding guideline adherence, reintervention, follow-up, and cost. Although EVAR morbidity has declined, OAR complication rates remain unchanged and unexpectedly high. Opportunities remain for improving AAA care delivery, patient and procedure selection, guideline compliance, and surveillance.