Association and interplay of surgeon and hospital volume with mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the modern era

Locoregional Anesthesia's Association With Reduced Intensive Care Unit Stay After Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Impact of Temporal Changes in Practice Patterns

BACKGROUND

Elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed via local anesthetics and/or regional (epidural or spinal) anesthesia (locoregional [LR]), versus general anesthesia (GA), conferring reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. Current analyses fail to account for temporal changes in vascular practice. Therefore, this study aimed to confirm reductions in ICU and hospital stays among LR patients while accounting for changes in practice patterns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Quality Initiative, elective EVARs from August 2003 to June 2021 were grouped into LR or GA. Outcomes included ICU admission and prolonged hospital stay (>2 d). Procedures were stratified into groups of 2 y periods, and outcomes were analyzed within each time period. Univariable and multivariate analyses were used to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

LR was associated with reduced ICU admissions (22.3% versus 32.1%, P < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stays (14.3% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001) overall. When stratified by year, LR maintained its association with reduced ICU admissions in 2014-2015 (21.8% versus 34.0%, P < 0.001), 2016-2017 (23.6% versus 31.6%, P < 0.001), 2018-2019 (18.5% versus 30.2%, P < 0.001), and 2020-2021 (15.8% versus 28.8%, P < 0.001), although this was highly facility dependent. LR was associated with fewer prolonged hospital stays in 2014-2015 (15.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.001) and 2016-2017 (13.3% versus 16.6%, P = 0.006) but not after 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

GA and LR have similar rates of prolonged hospital stays after 2017, while LR anesthesia was associated with reduced rates of ICU admissions, although this is facility-dependent, providing a potential avenue for resource preservation in patients suitable for LR.

Contemporary Indications for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Endovascular Era

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the emergence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as the most common approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, open aneurysm repair (OAR) remains an important option. This study seeks to define the indications for OAR in the EVAR era and how these indications effect outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of all OAR at a single institution from 2004 to 2019. Pre-operative computed tomography scans and operative records were assessed to determine the indication for OAR. These reasons were categorized into anatomical contraindications; systemic factors (connective tissue disorders, contraindication to contrast dye); and patient/surgeon preference (patients who were candidates for both EVAR and OAR). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

370 patients were included in the analysis; 71.6% (265/370) had at least one anatomic contraindication to EVAR; 36% had two or more contraindications. The most common anatomic contraindications were short aortic neck length (51.6%), inadequate distal seal zone (19.2%), and inadequate access vessels (15.7%). The major perioperative complication rate was 18.1% and the 30-day mortality was 3.0%. No single anatomic factor was identified as a predictor of perioperative complications. Sixty-one patients (16.5%) had OAR based on patient/surgeon preference; these patients were younger; had lower incidences of coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and they were less likely to require suprarenal cross clamping compared with patients who had anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR. The patient/surgeon preference group had a lower incidence of perioperative major complications (8.2% versus 20.1%, p=0.034), shorter length of stay (6 versus 8 days, p<0.001) and zero 30-day mortalities. The multivariable adjusted risk for 15-year mortality was lower for patient/surgeon preference patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.44 [95% confidence interval 0.24-0.80], p=0.007) compared to those anatomic/systemic contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a population of patients who did not meet instruction for use (IFU) criteria for EVAR, no single anatomic contraindication was a marker for worse outcomes with OAR. Patients who were candidates for both aortic repair approaches but elected to have open surgical repair due to patient/surgeon preference have very low 30-day mortality and morbidity, and superior long-term survival rates compared with those patients who had OAR due to anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR.

Contemporary Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) can carry extremely high mortality rates and most will only present with symptoms with impending rupture. We present an overview of management of this disease process starting with screening, to medical management, surveillance and treatment options currently available, as well as those being studied for future use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Screening has been proven to reduce the mortality rate. There still remains a paucity of data to support medical therapies to help mitigate the rate of aneurysm growth and prevent rupture. However, on the topic of repair, there have been advancements in endovascular devices which have broadened the scope of treatment for patients with anatomy not amenable to standard endovascular repair or those who are not suitable candidates for open surgical repair. Appropriate surveillance, risk factor modification, and operative repair, when indicated, are the cornerstones of contemporary management of AAAs. Advancements in endovascular technologies have allowed us to treat more patients. Further research is warranted on non-operative medical therapies.

Comparative analysis of open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair outcomes across national registries

OBJECTIVE

In a recent analysis, we discovered lower mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAAA) in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database when compared with previously published reports of other national registries. Understanding differentials in these registries is essential for their utility because such datasets increasingly inform clinical guidelines and health policy.

METHODS

The VQI, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and National Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases were queried to identify patients who had undergone elective OAAA between 2013 and 2016. χ² tests were used for frequencies and analysis of variance for continuous variables.

RESULTS

In total, data from 8775 patients were analyzed. Significant differences were seen across the baseline characteristics included. Additionally, the availability of patient and procedural data varied across datasets, with VQI including a number of procedure-specific variables and NIS with the most limited clinical data. Length of stay, primary insurer, and discharge destination differed significantly. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality also varied significantly between datasets: NIS, 5.5%; NSQIP, 5.2%; and VQI, 3.3%; P < .001. Similarly, 30-day mortality was found to be 3.5% in VQI and 5.9% in NSQIP (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are fundamental important differences in patient demographic/comorbidity profiles, payer mix, and outcomes after OAAA across widely used national registries. This may represent differences in outcomes between institutions that elect to participate in the VQI and NSQIP compared with patient sampling in the NIS. In addition to avoiding direct comparison of information derived from these databases, it is critical these differences are considered when making policy decisions and guidelines based on these "real-world" data repositories.