Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Association of patient-practitioner sex concordance with specialist referral in primary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has demonstrated barriers to the workup and management of primary hyperparathyroidism. As recent data have suggested that patient and practitioner sex concordance is associated with lower surgical complications, we sought to evaluate the effect of sex concordance on referral for primary hyperparathyroidism. METHODS: We queried an institutional database for patients with first-incident hypercalcemia and subsequent biochemical evidence of primary hyperparathyroidism between 2010 and 2018. Primary care practitioner and endocrinologist sex, laboratory values, and complications of primary hyperparathyroidism were collected. Sex concordance (male patient/male practitioner or female patient/female practitioner) was evaluated as a binary predictor of specialist evaluation using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Among 1,100 patients, mean age was 62.5 (standard deviation 13.6), and 74% were female sex. Primary care practitioner sex was 52% female, and 63% of patients had sex concordance with their primary care practitioner. Endocrinologist sex was 59% female, and 45% of patients had sex concordance with their endocrinologist. Patients with sex concordance with their primary care practitioner (70 vs 80%, P = .001) and endocrinologist (71 vs 82%, P < .001) were less likely to be female sex compared to those with discordance. After adjusting for demographics and clinical covariates, those patients with primary care practitioner sex concordance had 32% higher odds of endocrinologist evaluation (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.003-1.734, P = .047). Similarly, those patients with endocrinologist sex concordance had a 48% higher rate of surgeon evaluation (hazard ratio 1.48, confidence interval 1.1-2.0, P = .009). Stratified analysis revealed that sex discordance reduced the rate of surgeon referral for female patients (hazard ratio 0.63, confidence interval 0.44-0.89, P = .008) but not male patients (hazard ratio 1.06, CI 0.58-1.93, P = .861). CONCLUSION: Sex discordance between patients and their health care professionals may contribute to under-referral in primary hyperparathyroidism. Further evaluation of the effect of patient and practitioner identities on communication and decision-making in surgery are needed.

Social vulnerability and time to surgeon evaluation for primary hyperparathyroidism in a Massachusetts cohort.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients at risk for under-evaluation of primary hyperparathyroidism is essential to minimizing long-term sequelae, including osteoporosis, nephrolithiasis, and cardiovascular disease. This study assessed the impact of social vulnerability on time-to-surgery evaluation among patients with primary hyperparathyroidism in a Massachusetts cohort. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients from an institutional database with the first incident of hypercalcemia between 2010 and 2018 and subsequent biochemical diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism. The overall social vulnerability index and social vulnerability index subthemes were merged with the institutional data via patient ZIP code. Patients were stratified into social vulnerability index quartiles, where quartile 4 represented the highest vulnerability. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared, and Cox regression was used to assess the association between social vulnerability index and time to surgeon evaluation. RESULTS: Of 1,082 patients included, those with a higher social vulnerability index were less likely to be evaluated by a surgeon (quartile 1 social vulnerability index: 31.1% vs. quartile 2 social vulnerability index: 31.41% vs. quartile 3 social vulnerability index: 25.93% vs. quartile 4 social vulnerability index: 21.92%, P = .03). On adjusted analysis, patients with the highest vulnerability had a 33% lower estimated rate of surgeon evaluation and were seen 67 days later compared with patients with the lowest vulnerability (hazard ratio: 0.67, confidence interval 0.47-0.97, P = .032). Differential rates of surgical evaluation by vulnerability persisted for the social vulnerability index subthemes for socioeconomic status, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation. CONCLUSION: Among a Massachusetts cohort, highly vulnerable populations with primary hyperparathyroidism are at greater risk for under-evaluation by a surgeon, which may contribute to the development of long-term sequelae of their disease.

Sex-related Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Repair for intact isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between sex and outcomes following TEVAR for intact isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (iiDTAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Data regarding sex-related long-term outcomes after TEVAR for iiDTAA are limited and conflicting results regarding perioperative outcomes have been reported. METHODS: We included all TEVAR for iiDTAA between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims, allowing reliable assessment of long-term outcome data. Primary outcomes included 5-year mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures of the thoracic aorta. Secondarily we assessed perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 685 patients, of which 54% were females. Females had higher aortic size index (females vs. males: 3.31 [IQR, 2.81-3.85] cm/m2 vs. 2.93 [IQR, 2.42-3.36] cm/m2; P<.001), were more frequently symptomatic (31% vs. 20%; P=.001), had longer procedure time (111 [IQR, 72-165] min vs. 97 [IQR, 70-146] min) and more iliac procedures (16% vs. 7.6%; P=.001). Compared with males, females had similar rates of 5-year mortality (58% vs. 53%; HR, 0.93; 95%CI 0.71-1.22; P=.61), reinterventions (39% vs. 30%; HR, 1.12; 95%CI 0.73-1.73; P=.60) and late ruptures (0.6% vs. 1.2%; HR, 0.87; 95%CI 0.12-6.18; P=.89). After adjustment, these outcomes remained similar through 5-years. Furthermore, perioperative mortality was not significantly different between sexes (4.1% vs. 2.2%; P=.25), as were rates of any complication as a composite outcome (16% vs. 21%; P=.16), as well as of individual complications (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that females who undergo TEVAR for iiDTAA have similar 5-year and perioperative outcomes as compared with males.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of metachronous thoracic aortic aneurysms following prior infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of metachronous thoracic aortic aneurysms (M-TAAs) following previous infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been associated with higher spinal cord ischemia (SCI) risk compared with TEVAR of primary thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs). However, data on the impact of the type of prior infrarenal aortic repair on outcomes are scarce. In this study, we examined perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality following TEVAR M-TAA compared with primary TEVAR of TAA. METHODS: We identified all Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) patients who underwent TEVAR of TAA in the descending thoracic aorta from 2013 to 2022. Only patients undergoing primary TEVAR or TEVAR following infrarenal open (OAR) or endovascular (EVAR) repair were included. We performed univariate analyses to identify differences in baseline and procedural characteristics, and multivariable analyses for perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality using logistic and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: We included 1493 patients who underwent primary TEVAR (81%) or TEVAR following prior OAR (9.0%) or prior EVAR (9.7%). Compared with primary TEVAR, patients undergoing TEVAR M-TAA were older, more commonly male, white, and had higher rates of hypertension, smoking, and renal dysfunction. Patients with M-TAA were more likely to be asymptomatic and have larger diameters at presentation but were exposed to greater contrast volume and procedural times relative to primary TEVAR patients. Following risk-adjustment, compared with primary TEVAR, TEVAR after prior EVAR was associated with higher perioperative mortality (9.7% vs 3.9%; odds ratio [OR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-12; P < .001) and 5-year mortality (40% vs 24%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.1; P = .001). Specifically, among octogenarians (n = 375; 25%), the perioperative and 5-year mortality differences were even more pronounced (perioperative mortality: 17% vs 8.4%; OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 2.2-21; P = .001; 5-year mortality: 50% vs 27%; HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7; P = .010). However, in-hospital complications, including SCI (2.6% vs 2.8%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.33-3.3; P = .77), were not notably different. In contrast, TEVAR after previous OAR was associated with comparable perioperative mortality (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.32-3.8; P = .73), 5-year mortality (28% vs 24%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.80-2.1; P = .54), and in-hospital complications, including SCI (2.6% vs 0.7%; OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-1.1; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TEVAR of M-TAAs after prior EVAR, particularly octogenarians, have higher perioperative and 5-year mortality and therefore, represent a high-risk group. Future efforts should strive to discern the underlying factors leading to these poorer outcomes; meanwhile, these findings emphasize the need for careful patient selection and appropriate preoperative counseling in these high-risk individuals.