Association of High Mortality With Postoperative Myocardial Infarction After Major Vascular Surgery Despite Use of Evidence-Based Therapies

Barriers to Antiplatelet and Statin Adherence Following Major Vascular Intervention

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelets and statins therapies are associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes following major vascular intervention. Many vascular surgery institutions are reporting improved prescribing rates for aspirin (ASA), P2Y12 antagonists, and statins. Nevertheless, there remains limited publication describing rates and patient-perceived barriers for postoperative adherence. The purpose of this study is to investigate patient nonadherence to antiplatelet and statin therapies following major vascular intervention.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent major vascular intervention at a single academic center was performed. The prescribing rates of ASA, P2Y12 antagonists, and statins were reviewed. Postoperative adherence, defined as consistent intake as prescribed, was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using electronic documentation of both follow-up clinic appointments and phone call assessments, then corroborated with pharmacy fulfilment records. Patient-reported barriers to medication adherence were also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 101 subjects underwent major vascular intervention between January 2020 and July 2020, 98% of whom were discharged on at least 1 antiplatelet or statin agent. Approximately 90% of patients were discharged with ASA, 32% with a P2Y12 antagonist, and 96% with a statin. All patients who maintained adherence up to 6 months continued to report adherence at 9 and 12 months. Consistent adherence at 12 months was documented in 76% of patients on ASA, 81% on P2Y12 antagonism therapy, and 73% on statins. New adverse drug reactions represented the most common barrier to achieving adherence (37% [n = 20]). Preoperative therapy with ASA, P2Y12 antagonists, and statins were all independently predictive of postoperative adherence to the same regimen (P ≤ 0.001). The female gender was also associated with higher rates of adherence to postoperative P2Y12 antagonism therapy (P ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The current prescribing rates for antiplatelet and statin agents are promising, but postoperative nonadherence remains a multifaceted issue.

Preoperative evaluation profile of patients undergoing arterial vascular surgery in a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients with peripheral arterial disease have an increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications in the postoperative period of arterial surgeries known as Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), which includes acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, malignant arrhythmias, and stroke. The preoperative evaluation aims to reduce mortality and the risk of MACE. However, there is no standardized approach to performing them. The aim of this study was to compare the preoperative evaluation conducted by general practitioners with those performed by cardiologists.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of medical records of patients who underwent elective arterial surgeries from January 2016 to December 2020 at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. The authors compared the preoperative evaluation of these patients according to the initial evaluator (general practitioners vs. cardiologists), assessing patients' clinical factors, mortality, postoperative MACE incidence, rate of requested non-invasive stratification tests, length of hospital stay, among others.

RESULTS

281 patients were evaluated: 169 assessed by cardiologists and 112 by general practitioners. Cardiologists requested more non-invasive stratification tests (40.8%) compared to general practitioners (9%) (p < 0.001), with no impact on mortality (8.8% versus 10.7%; p = 0.609) and postoperative MACE incidence (10.6% versus 6.2%; p = 0.209). The total length of hospital stay was longer in the cardiologist group (17.27 versus 11.79 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The increased request for exams didn't have a significant impact on mortality and postoperative MACE incidence, but prolonged the total length of hospital stay. Health managers should consider these findings and ensure appropriate utilization of human and financial resources.

Preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) is associated with major surgeries and remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in people undergoing vascular surgery, with an incidence rate ranging from 5% to 20%. Preoperative coronary interventions, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), may help prevent acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major vascular surgery when used in addition to routine perioperative drugs (e.g. statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiplatelet agents), CABG by creating new blood circulation routes that bypass the blockages in the coronary vessels, and PCI by opening up blocked blood vessels. There is currently uncertainty around the benefits and harms of preoperative coronary interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, and CINAHL EBSCO on 13 March 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care versus usual care for preventing acute myocardial infarction during major open vascular or endovascular surgery. We included participants of any sex or any age undergoing major open vascular surgery, major endovascular surgery, or hybrid vascular surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes of interest were acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and adverse events resulting from preoperative coronary interventions. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, quality of life, vessel or graft secondary patency, and length of hospital stay. We reported perioperative and long-term outcomes (more than 30 days after intervention). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (1144 participants). Participants were randomised to receive either preoperative coronary revascularisation with PCI or CABG plus usual care or only usual care before major vascular surgery. One trial enrolled participants if they had no apparent evidence of coronary artery disease. Another trial selected participants classified as high risk for coronary disease through preoperative clinical and laboratorial testing. We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis because participants from both the control and the intervention groups were eligible to undergo preoperative coronary revascularisation. We identified a high risk of performance bias in all included trials, with one trial displaying a high risk of other bias. However, the risk of bias was either low or unclear in other domains. We observed no difference between groups for perioperative acute myocardial infarction, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 4.57; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial showed a reduction in incidence of long-term (> 30 days) acute myocardial infarction in participants allocated to the preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care group, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28; 1 trial, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on all-cause mortality in the perioperative period when comparing the preoperative coronary intervention plus usual care group to usual care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of preoperative coronary interventions on long-term (follow up: 2.7 to 6.2 years) all-cause mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.80; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported no adverse effects related to coronary angiography, whereas the other two studies reported five deaths due to revascularisations. There may be no effect on cardiovascular mortality when comparing preoperative coronary revascularisation plus usual care to usual care in the short term (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 1 trial, 426 participants; low-certainty evidence). Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care in the short term may reduce length of hospital stay slightly when compared to usual care alone (mean difference -1.17 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.28; 1 trial, 462 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or vessel graft patency at either time point, and no study reported on adverse effects, cardiovascular mortality, or length of hospital stay at long-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may have little or no effect on preventing perioperative acute myocardial infarction and reducing perioperative all-cause mortality compared to usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain. Similarly, limited, very low-certainty evidence shows that preoperative coronary interventions may have little or no effect on reducing long-term all-cause mortality. There is very low-certainty evidence that preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may prevent long-term myocardial infarction, and low-certainty evidence that they may reduce length of hospital stay slightly, but not cardiovascular mortality in the short term, when compared to usual care alone. Adverse effects of preoperative coronary interventions were poorly reported in trials. Quality of life and vessel or graft patency were not reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence most frequently for high risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. None of the analysed trials provided significant data on subgroups of patients who could potentially experience more substantial benefits from preoperative coronary intervention (e.g. altered ventricular ejection fraction). There is a need for evidence from larger and homogeneous RCTs to provide adequate statistical power to assess the role of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

Prognostic value of extended cardiac risk assessment before elective open abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Major vascular surgery is associated with a high perioperative risk and significant mortality. Despite advances in risk stratification, monitoring, and management of perioperative complications, cardiac complications are still common. Stress echocardiography is well established in coronary artery disease diagnostics; however, its prognostic value before high-risk aortic surgery is unknown. This prospective, single-center study compared the outcome of patients undergoing extended cardiac risk assessment before open abdominal aortic surgery with the outcome of patients who had received standard preoperative assessment.

METHODS

The study included patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic surgery. Patients who underwent standard preoperative assessment before the start of a dedicated protocol were compared with patients who had extended cardiac risk assessment, including dobutamine stress echocardiography, as part of a stepwise interdisciplinary cardiovascular team approach. The combined primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, emergency coronary revascularization, and life-threatening arrhythmia within 30 days. The secondary endpoint was acute renal failure and severe bleeding.

RESULTS

In total, 77 patients (mean age 68.1 ± 8.1 years, 70% male) were included: 39 underwent standard and 38 underwent cardiac risk assessment. The combined primary endpoint was reached significantly more often in patients before than after implementation of the extended cardiac stratification procedure (15% vs. 0%, p = 0.025). The combined secondary endpoint did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with extended cardiac risk assessment undergoing elective open abdominal aortic surgery had better 30-day outcomes than did those who had standard preoperative assessment.

Incidence of myocardial injury in patients submitted to carotid endarterectomy

Myocardial injury following noncardiac surgery (MINS) is associated with higher mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event rates in the short- and long-term in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, its incidence is still unclear in this subset of patients. Therefore, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to determine the incidence of MINS in patients undergoing CEA. Three electronic databases MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to search for studies assessing the occurrence of MINS in the postoperative setting of patients undergoing CEA. The incidence of MINS was pooled by random-effects meta-analysis, with sources of heterogeneity being explored by meta-regression and subgroup analysis (general anesthesia vs. regional anesthesia). Assessment of studies' quality was performed using National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tool, and Risk of Bias 2 tools. Twenty studies were included, with a total of 117,933 participants. Four of them were RCTs, while the remaining were cohort studies. All observational cohorts had an overall high risk of bias, except for Pereira Macedo et al. Three of them had repeated population, thus only data from the most recent one was considered. On the other hand, all RCT had an overall low risk of bias. In patients under regional anesthesia, the incidence of MINS in primary studies ranged between 2% and 15.3%, compared to 0-42.5% for general anesthesia. The meta-analytical incidence of MINS after CEA was of 6.3% [95% CI 2.0-10.6%], but severe heterogeneity was observed (I2=99.1%). MINS appears to be relatively common among patients undergoing CEA. The observed severe heterogeneity points to the need for further larger studies adopting consistent definitions of MINS and equivalent cut-off values.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Race and Socioeconomic Deprivation on Outcomes After Lower Extremity Bypass

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential pathway, through which race and socioeconomic status, as measured by the social deprivation index (SDI), affect outcomes after lower extremity bypass chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), a marker for delayed presentation.

BACKGROUND

Racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in outcomes after lower extremity bypass; however, limited studies have evaluated the role of disease severity as a mediator to potentially explain these outcomes using clinical registry data.

METHODS

We captured patients who underwent lower extremity bypass using a statewide quality registry from 2015 to 2021. We used mediation analysis to assess the direct effects of race and high values of SDI (fifth quintile) on our outcome measures: 30-day major adverse cardiac event defined by new myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack/stroke, or death, and 30-day and 1-year surgical site infection (SSI), amputation and bypass graft occlusion.

RESULTS

A total of 7077 patients underwent a lower extremity bypass procedure. Black patients had a higher prevalence of CLTI (80.63% vs 66.37%, P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, there were significant indirect effects where Black patients were more likely to present with CLTI, and thus had increased odds of 30-day amputation [odds ratio (OR): 1.11, 95% CI: 1.068-1.153], 1-year amputation (OR: 1.083, 95% CI: 1.045-1.123) and SSI (OR: 1.052, 95% CI: 1.016-1.089). There were significant indirect effects where patients in the fifth quintile for SDI were more likely to present with CLTI and thus had increased odds of 30-day amputation (OR: 1.065, 95% CI: 1.034-1.098) and SSI (OR: 1.026, 95% CI: 1.006-1.046), and 1-year amputation (OR: 1.068, 95% CI: 1.036-1.101) and SSI (OR: 1.026, 95% CI: 1.006-1.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients tended to present with a more advanced disease, CLTI, which in mediation analysis was associated with increased odds of amputation and other complications after lower extremity bypass compared with White patients and those that were not socioeconomically disadvantaged.

The elderly in the post-anesthesia care unit

It is increasingly conceivable that elderly patients will be treated in perioperative settings as the world's population shifts toward an older age distribution. They are more prone to a variety of unfavorable outcomes as a consequence of the physiological changes that accompany aging and the coexistence of multiple medical conditions. Postoperative complications in elderly patients are linked to a large increase in morbidity and mortality and the burden placed on the healthcare system. Our goal is to determine how elderly patients' recovery after anesthesia differs from that of younger patients. In addition, we will discuss the main postoperative complications experienced by elderly patients and the measures that are utilized to limit the risk of these complications developing.

Preoperative Assessment of Patients with Vascular Disease

Patients with vascular disease represent a particularly high-risk surgical population. Many of the comorbidities that contribute to their vascular presentation impact a number of vascular beds or other organ systems. As a result, these patients have the highest rates of cardiac and pulmonary complications among patients with noncardiac surgery. The vascular surgeon is in a unique position to help evaluate and treat many of these conditions to not only reduce the perioperative risk but also to improve the patient's overall health. This article presents a comprehensive review of the common preoperative evaluations that have a high impact on patients with vascular disease.

Clinical implications of preoperative echocardiographic findings on cardiovascular outcomes following vascular surgery: An observational trial

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral artery disease and cardiac disease are often comorbid conditions. Echocardiography is a diagnostic tool that can be performed preoperatively to risk stratify patients by a functional cardiac test. We hypothesized that ventricular dysfunction and valvular lesions were associated with an increased incidence of expanded major adverse cardiac events (Expanded MACE).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Retrospective cohort study from 2011 to 2020 including all patients from a major academic center who had vascular surgery and an echocardiographic study within two years of the index procedure.

RESULTS

813 patients were included in the study; a majority had a history of smoking (86%), an ASA score of 3 (65%), and were male (68%). Carotid endarterectomy was the most common surgery (24%) and the least common surgery was open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (5%). We found no significant association between the echocardiographic findings of left ventricular dysfunction, right ventricular dysfunction, or valvular lesions and the postoperative development of Expanded MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative echocardiographic findings of left ventricular dysfunction, right ventricular dysfunction and moderate to severe valvular lesions were not predictive of an increased incidence of postoperative Expanded MACE. We identified a significant association between RV dysfunction and post-operative dialysis that should be interpreted carefully due to the small number of outcomes. The transition from open to endovascular surgery and advances in perioperative management may have led to improved cardiovascular outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial Registration: NCT04836702 (clinicaltrials.gov). https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=NCT04836702.

Preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of patients undergoing major vascular surgery

Patients undergoing major vascular surgery have an increased risk of perioperative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Accordingly, in this population, it is of particular importance to appropriately risk stratify patients' risk for these complications and optimize risk factors prior to surgical intervention. Comorbidities that portend a higher risk of perioperative MACE include coronary artery disease, heart failure, left-sided valvular heart disease, and significant arrhythmic burden. In this review, we provide a current approach to risk stratification prior to major vascular surgery and describe the strengths and weaknesses of different cardiac risk indices; discuss the role of noninvasive and invasive cardiac testing; and review perioperative pharmacotherapies.

Migration of High Cardiac Risk Patients from Open to Endovascular Procedures is Evident within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

In this study, pre-operative medical complexity is estimated by the independently validated Vascular Quality Initiative VQI Cardiac Risk Index (CRI). This study aims to identify and correlate trends of CRI for open abdominal aortic aneurysm (OAR) with trends in the CRI for corresponding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). This assessment of differences in estimated procedural risks will be used to support the theory that, patient migration is an important factor contributing to decreased POMI following open vascular procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of VQI data from 2003 to 2020 for all patients undergoing elective aortic repairs (OAR and EVAR) was conducted. The CRI scoring developed for the open repair (oCRI) was applied to both the OAR and EVAR cohorts, with variables specific to EVAR translated from similar open repair factors in the model where feasible. To evaluate for changes across time, patients were grouped into Eras based on year of procedure, subsequently, univariate analysis of post-operative myocardial infarction (POMI) rates and CRI scores were perfomed between each era.

RESULTS

A total of 56,067 elective aortic repairs were identified (83% EVAR, 17% OAR). Within the OAR cohort, the average oCRI estimate was 7.1% with significant decrease across the studied timeframe (8% ± 4.6%→6.9% ± 4.4%, P < 0.001), which corresponded to a significant decrease in observed clinical myocardial infarction (MI) rate (4.1%→1.4%, P < 0.001). Over that same time period, the open CRI was applied to the EVAR cohort, and the average oCRI estimate was 7.2% and showed a significant increase (6.6% ± 2.8%→7.2% ± 4.4%, P < 0.001). Within the EVAR cohort, the eCRI estimate did not show any significant changes over time (average 0.48%), while the actual rate of clinical MI showed a significant decrease (1.1%→0.3%, P = 0.002). Gap analysis was conducted within the EVAR cohort between CRI estimates of procedural risks from an open operation versus an EVAR, which demonstrated that patients within the EVAR cohort would, on an average, has had 6.7% higher risk of POMI had they undergone an open procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Paradigm shifts with regard to patient selection for aortic repair is evident within this large national cohort. Over time, OAR patients had fewer preoperative estimated cardiac comorbidities and there is a corresponding decrease in POMI rates. As high-risk patients migrate from OAR to EVAR, there has been a subsequent increase in EVAR estimated pre-operative risks as the patients become more medically high-risk. Despite increasing complexity, rates of POMI in EVAR significantly decreased, potentially explained by improved operative technique and peri-operative care.

Perioperative cardiovascular outcome in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing major vascular surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background:

Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing major vascular surgeries. We aim to assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of MACE in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing aortic surgeries.

Methods:

In this retrospective observational study, we included patients with CAD who underwent elective major vascular surgery, namely, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs and vascular bypass surgeries for aorto-occlusive disease, in our institute from January 2010 to December 2019. The association of preoperative risk factors including revised cardiac risk index factors, functional status of patients, severity of CAD, and its treatment status and technique of anesthesia with occurrence of MACE was analyzed.

Results:

Medical records of 141 patients were studied. The incidence of perioperative MACE was 11.3% (16/141) and overall in-hospital mortality was 6.4% (9/141), all of them related to MACE; implicating a 56.2% mortality in patients who develop MACE. The odds of a patient who had undergone preoperative coronary revascularization to develop a MACE was higher than a nonrevascularized patient (odds ratio: 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–11.34). There was found to be no benefit in the addition of epidural analgesia to general anesthesia in reducing perioperative MACE.

Conclusions:

Major vascular surgeries in patients with CAD are a highly morbid procedure and a perioperative MACE places them at a significantly high risk of mortality. Early detection of CAD and preoperative medical optimization can play a major role in reducing the risk of MACE.

Coronary artery disease in aortic aneurysm and dissection

Coexisting coronary artery disease is a significant risk factor of untoward outcomes after surgical and endovascular aortic repair. This article reviewed the data, consensus, and remaining controversy about the diagnosis and management of coexisting coronary artery disease in the patients who require intervention for aortic aneurysm and dissection. It can be summarized as follows: (1) the current guidelines generally recommend the same diagnostic algorithm, including indications of coronary artery angiography, as one for non-surgical patients; (2) they also recommend the same indications of coronary revascularization; and (3) there are minor, but important, remaining issues regarding the details of management and surgical techniques most of which are still at the discretion of individual surgeons and institutions. Because it is not likely to get large-scale investigational data about these issues, the collection of individual experiences should be promoted in future scientific meetings to build up the consensus.

Comparison of contemporary and historical outcomes of elective and ruptured open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Recently, open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OSR) has become less common and will often be reserved for patients with more complex aortic anatomy. Despite improvements in patient management, the reduced surgical volume has raised concerns for potentially worsened outcomes in the contemporary era (2014-2019) compared with an earlier era in which OSR was more widely practiced (2005-2010). In the present study, we compared the 30-day outcomes of open AAA repair between these two eras.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program general database was queried for open AAA repair using the Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th, codes. The cases were stratified into two groups by operation year: 2005 to 2010 (early) and 2014 to 2019 (contemporary). In each era, the cases were further divided into elective and ruptured groups. The 30-day outcomes, including mortality, major morbidity, postoperative sepsis, and unplanned reoperation, were compared between the contemporary and early eras in the elective and ruptured groups. Preoperative variables with a P value <.25 were adjusted for in the multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

In the contemporary and early eras, 3749 and 3798 patients had undergone elective OSR and 1148 and 907 had undergone ruptured OSR, respectively. These samples were of similar sizes owing to the National Quality Improvement Program sampling process and our relatively strict inclusion criteria. In the contemporary era, fewer patients were elderly and fewer were smokers or had hypertension or dyspnea in the elective and rupture cohorts. More patients had had American Society of Anesthesiologists class >3 in the elective contemporary era (39% vs 24%; P < .0001). The contemporary elective repair group demonstrated increased 30-day mortality (3.7% vs 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.36; P = .006), major adverse cardiac events (5.7% vs 3.4%; aOR, 1.87; P < .0001), and bleeding requiring transfusion (58.5% vs 13.7%; aOR, 8.96; P < .0001). The incidence of pulmonary complications (12.1% vs 15.2%; aOR, 0.80; P = .02) and sepsis (3.7% vs 8.4%; aOR, 0.47; P < .0001) had decreased in the contemporary era, with a similar rate of unplanned reoperations (8.4% vs 7.7%; aOR, 1.16; P = .09). The incidence of renal complications in the contemporary era had increased, with a statistically significant difference. However, the absolute increase of <0.5% was likely not clinically relevant (5.5% vs 5.1%; aOR, 1.23; P = .049). In the ruptured cohort, contemporary repair was associated with increased 30-day mortality (41.4% vs 40%; aOR, 1.53; P < .0001), major adverse cardiac events (25.8% vs 12.8%; aOR, 2.49; P < .0001), and bleeding requiring transfusion (88.2% vs 27%; aOR, 23.03; P < .0001). The incidence of pulmonary complications (36.9% vs 48.1%; aOR, 0.67; P < .0001), sepsis (14.6% vs 23%; aOR, 0.75; P = .03), and unplanned reoperations (18.1% vs 22.7%; aOR, 0.74; P = .008) had decreased in the contemporary OSR group. No differences were detected in the incidence of renal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The 30-day mortality has worsened after open AAA repair in the elective and rupture settings despite the improvements in perioperative management over the years. These complications likely stem from increased bleeding events and major cardiac events, which were increased in the contemporary era.

A statewide quality improvement collaborative significantly improves quality metric adherence and physician engagement in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement national registries provide structured, clinically relevant outcome and process-of-care data to practitioners-with regional meetings to disseminate best practices. However, whether a quality improvement collaborative affects processes of care is less clear. We examined the effects of a statewide hospital collaborative on the adherence rates to best practice guidelines in vascular surgery.

METHODS

A large statewide retrospective quality improvement database was reviewed for 2013 to 2019. Hospitals participating in the quality improvement collaborative were required to submit adherence and outcomes data and meet semiannually. They received an incentive through a pay for participation model. The aggregate adherence rates among all hospitals were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 39 hospitals participated in the collaborative, with attendance of surgeon champions at face-to-face meetings of >85%. Statewide, the hospital systems improved every year of participation in the collaborative across most "best practice" domains, including adherence to preoperative skin preparation recommendations (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-1.79; P < .001), intraoperative antibiotic redosing (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .018), statin use at discharge for appropriate patients (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.2; P < .001), and reducing transfusions for asymptomatic patients with hemoglobin >8 mg/dL (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.66-0.66; P < .001). The use of antiplatelet therapy at discharge remained high and did not change significantly during the study period. Teaching hospital and urban or rural status did not affect adherence. The adherence rates exceeded the professional society mean rates for guideline adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a statewide hospital collaborative with incentivized semiannual meetings resulted in significant improvements in adherence to "best practice" guidelines across a large, heterogeneous group of hospitals.

Diabetes mellitus was not associated with lower amputation-free survival after open revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia - A nationwide propensity score adjusted analysis

The risk of major amputation is higher after urgently planned endovascular therapy for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). The aim of this nationwide cohort study was to compare outcomes between patients with and without DM following urgently planned open revascularization for CLTI from 2010 to 2014. Out of 1537 individuals registered in the Swedish Vascular Registry, 569 were registered in the National Diabetes Register. A propensity score adjusted Cox regression analysis was conducted to compare outcome between the groups with and without DM. Median follow-up was 4.3 years and 4.5 years for patients with and without DM, respectively. Patients with DM more often had foot ulcers (p = 0.034) and had undergone more previous amputations (p = 0.001) at baseline. No differences in mortality, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or major amputation were observed between groups. The incidence rate of stroke was 70% higher (95% CI: 1.11–2.59; p = 0.0137) and the incidence rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) 39% higher (95% CI: 1.00–1.92; p = 0.0472) among patients with DM in comparison to those without. Open vascular surgery remains a first-line option for a substantial number of patients with CLTI, especially for limb salvage in patients with DM. The higher incidence rates of stroke and AMI among patients with DM following open vascular surgery for infrainguinal CLTI require specific consideration preoperatively with the aim of optimizing medical treatment to improve cardiovascular outcome postoperatively.

Diagnosis of silent coronary ischemia with selective coronary revascularization might improve 2-year survival of patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia

BACKGROUND

Patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) have had poor long-term survival after lower extremity revascularization owing to coexistent coronary artery disease. A new cardiac diagnostic test, coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR_CT), can identify patients with ischemia-producing coronary stenosis who might benefit from coronary revascularization. We sought to determine whether the diagnosis of silent coronary ischemia before limb salvage surgery with selective postoperative coronary revascularization can reduce the incidence of adverse cardiac events and improve the survival of patients with CLTI compared with standard care.

METHODS

Patients with CLTI and no cardiac history or symptoms who had undergone preoperative testing to detect silent coronary ischemia with selective postoperative coronary revascularization (group I) were compared with patients with standard preoperative cardiac clearance and no elective postoperative coronary revascularization (group II). Both groups received guideline-directed medical care. Lesion-specific coronary ischemia in group I was defined as FFR_CT of ≤0.80 distal to a stenosis, with severe ischemia defined as FFR_CT of ≤0.75. The endpoints included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse CV events (i.MACE; CV death, MI, unplanned coronary revascularization, stroke) through 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Groups I (n = 111) and II (n = 120) were similar in age (66 ± 9 vs 66 ± 7 years), gender (78% vs 83% men), comorbidities, and surgery performed. In group I, unsuspected, silent coronary ischemia was found in 71 of 103 patients (69%), with severe ischemia in 58% and left main coronary ischemia in 8%. Elective postoperative coronary revascularization was performed in 47 of 71 patients with silent ischemia (66%). In group II, the status of silent coronary ischemia was unknown. The median follow-up was >2 years for both groups. The 2-year outcomes for groups I and II were as follows: all-cause death, 8.1% and 20.0% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.84; P = .016); CV death, 4.5% and 13.3% (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.88; P = .028); MI, 6.3% and 17.5% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.79; P = .012); and major adverse CV events, 10.8% and 23.3% (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .021), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative evaluation of patients with CLTI and no known coronary artery disease using coronary FFR_CT revealed silent coronary ischemia in two of every three patients. Selective coronary revascularization of patients with silent coronary ischemia after recovery from limb salvage surgery resulted in fewer CV deaths and MIs and improved 2-year survival compared with patients with CLTI who had received standard cardiac evaluation and care. Prospective controlled studies are required to further define the role of FFR_CT in the evaluation and treatment of patients with CLTI.

Disease Mechanisms of Perioperative Organ Injury

Despite substantial advances in anesthesia safety within the past decades, perioperative mortality remains a prevalent problem and can be considered among the top causes of death worldwide. Acute organ failure is a major risk factor of morbidity and mortality in surgical patients and develops primarily as a consequence of a dysregulated inflammatory response and insufficient tissue perfusion. Neurological dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, intestinal dysfunction, and hepatic impairment are among the most serious complications impacting patient outcome and recovery. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative arrangements, such as enhanced recovery after surgery programs, can contribute to lowering the occurrence of organ dysfunction, and mortality rates have improved with the advent of specialized intensive care units and advances in procedures relating to extracorporeal organ support. However, no specific pharmacological therapies have proven effective in the prevention or reversal of perioperative organ injury. Therefore, understanding the underlying mechanisms of organ dysfunction is essential to identify novel treatment strategies to improve perioperative care and outcomes for surgical patients. This review focuses on recent knowledge of pathophysiological and molecular pathways leading to perioperative organ injury. Additionally, we highlight potential therapeutic targets relevant to the network of events that occur in clinical settings with organ failure.

Comparative Analysis of Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Femoral Endarterectomy plus Endovascular (Hybrid) or Bypass for Femoropopliteal Occlusive Disease

INTRODUCTION

The gold-standard for management of combined common femoral artery (CFA) and superficial femoral artery (SFA) atherosclerotic occlusive disease has traditionally been open femoral endarterectomy and femoral-popliteal bypass. Hybrid approaches involving an open and endovascular component are increasingly common. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent an open versus hybrid revascularization.

METHODS

NSQIP data, years 2012-2017, were queried for patients who underwent nonemergent CFA endarterectomy with either SFA transluminal intervention or bypass. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal complications (systemic) and mortality. Two propensity-weight adjusted analyses were performed: 1) comparing hybrid and prosthetic bypass 2) comparing hybrid and vein bypass.

RESULTS

There were 4,478 patients included (1,537 hybrid, 1,408 prosthetic, 1,533 vein); 64.8% were men, and the mean age was 67.8 ± 9.7 years; 29.9% had claudication, 38.8% had tissue loss, and 31.3 were unspecified. In the propensity-weighted analysis comparing hybrid to prosthetic bypass, there was no difference in systemic complications (OR = 1.29 for prosthetic vs. hybrid; 95% CI: 0.95-1.76; P = 0.107) or mortality (OR = 1.54; 95% CI: 0.71-3.33; P = 0.275). Prosthetic bypass was associated with more deep surgical-site infections (OR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.19-3.45; P = 0.010), postoperative sepsis (OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.13-3.76; P = 0.018), unplanned 30-day readmission (OR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.04-1.58; P = 0.021), and the composite of any complication (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.18-1.61; P < 0.001). In the propensity-weighted analysis comparing hybrid to vein bypass, there was no difference in systemic complications (OR = 1.10 for vein vs. hybrid; 95% CI: 0.81-1.49; P = 0.552) or mortality (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.42-2.00; P = 0.819). Vein bypass was associated with more superficial surgical-site infections (OR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.04-2.02; P = 0.028), and the composite of any complication (OR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.13-1.54; P = 0.001). Overall mortality was significantly higher patients with systemic complications (13.9% vs 0.1%; P < 0.001). Systemic complications were less common in patients with claudication undergoing hybrid revascularization than vein or prosthetic bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

Claudicants undergoing bypass experienced more systemic complications than those undergoing hybrid procedures, but there appears to be no increased risk of systemic complications or mortality with open reconstruction when compared to hybrid procedures for other indications. Other complications, such as infection, postoperative transfusion, and readmission, were more common in the bypass groups.

Diagnosis and management of silent coronary ischemia in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is the primary cause of death in patients with carotid artery disease and silent ischemia is a marker for adverse coronary events. A new noninvasive cardiac diagnostic test, coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR_CT) can reliably identify ischemia-producing coronary stenosis in patients with coronary artery disease and help to select patients for coronary revascularization. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of silent coronary ischemia in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and to evaluate the usefulness of FFR_CT in selecting patients for coronary revascularization to decrease cardiac events and improve survival.

METHODS

Patients with no cardiac history or symptoms admitted for elective CEA were enrolled in a prospective, open-label, institutional review board-approved study and underwent preoperative coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and FFR_CT with results available to physicians for patient management. Lesion-specific coronary ischemia was defined as FFR_CT of 0.80 or less distal to a focal coronary stenosis with an FFR_CT of 0.75 or less, indicating severe ischemia. Primary end point was incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Coronary CTA and FFR_CT was performed in 90 CEA patients (age 67 ± 8 years; male 66%). Lesion-specific coronary ischemia was found in 51 patients (57%) with a mean FFR_CT of 0.71 ± 0.14. Severe coronary ischemia was present in 39 patients (43%), 26 patients had multivessel ischemia, and 5 had left main disease. CEA was performed as scheduled in all patients with no postoperative deaths or myocardial infarctions. There were no MACE events at 30 days. After recovery from surgery, 36 patients with significant lesion-specific ischemia underwent coronary angiography with coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting) in 30 patients (33%). Survival at 1 year was 100% and freedom from MACE was 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CEA have a high prevalence of unsuspected (silent) coronary ischemia, which may place them at risk for coronary events. Preoperative diagnosis of silent ischemia using CTA and FFR_CT can identify high-risk patients and help to guide patient management. Selective postoperative coronary revascularization of patients with significant ischemia may decrease the risk of cardiac events and improve survival, but longer follow-up is needed and prospective, controlled trials are indicated.