In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveOutcome studies using databases collecting only hospital discharge data underestimate morbidity and mortality because of failure to capture postdischarge events. The proportion of postdischarge major adverse events is well characterized in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has yet to be characterized after carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CAS from 2011 to 2017 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted database to evaluate rates of 30-day major adverse events, stratified by in-hospital and postdischarge occurrences. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death. Multivariable analysis using purposeful selection was used to identify independent factors associated with in-hospital, postdischarge, and 30-day stroke/death events.ResultsOf the 899 patients undergoing CAS, reporting of in-hospital outcomes alone would yield a stroke/death rate of 2.7%, substantially underestimating the 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.0%. In fact, 35% of stroke/deaths, 27% of strokes, 73% of deaths, 35% of cardiac events, and 35% of stroke/death/cardiac events occurred after discharge. More postdischarge stroke/death events occurred after treatment of symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients (47% vs 27%; P < .001). During this same study period, the 30-day stroke/death rate after CEA was 2.6%, with similar proportions of postdischarge strokes (28% vs 27%; P = .51) compared with CAS but lower proportions of postdischarge deaths (55% vs 73%; P < .001). After CAS, patients experiencing postdischarge stroke/death events had a shorter postoperative length of stay compared with patients with in-hospital stroke/death (1 [1-2] vs 5 [3-10] days; P < .001). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was independently associated with postdischarge stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16; P = .02) after CAS. Nonwhite ethnicity was independently associated with overall 30-day stroke/death (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-7.9; P < .01), whereas statin use was associated with not having stroke/death within 30 days (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .049).ConclusionsMore than one-quarter of perioperative strokes occur following discharge after both CAS and CEA. A higher proportion of postdischarge deaths occur after CAS in symptomatic patients, which may reflect treatment of a population of higher risk patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of postdischarge stroke to develop methods to reduce these complications.     

Evaluating postoperative outcomes in patients with hostile neck anatomy undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting

BackgroundCarotid endarterectomy is relatively contraindicated in patients with a hostile neck anatomy who were historically revascularized with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). As transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has progressively replaced TFCAS, evidence pertaining to hostile neck anatomy and TCAR is necessary to establish its safety and feasibility in this subgroup of patients. Therefore, we analyzed the impact of a hostile neck anatomy on outcomes in patients undergoing TCAR and further compared them with those undergoing TFCAS to establish recommendations for standard of care.MethodsAll patients undergoing TCAR and TFCAS from November 2016 to June 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database were included. Patients were characterized into two groups based on the neck anatomy. Hostile neck anatomy was defined as a history of neck radiation or prior neck surgery including prior carotid endarterectomy or radical neck dissection. Primary outcomes included technical failure, access site complications (hematoma, stenosis, infection, pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula), and stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and a composite end point of stroke or TIA. Patients with nonatherosclerotic or multiple lesions were excluded from the analysis. Primary analysis was performed with all patients undergoing TCAR and outcomes between patients with hostile and nonhostile neck anatomy were compared. Further analysis included a comparison of patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR and TFCAS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess impact of hostile neck anatomy on postoperative outcomes. Results were adjusted for relevant potential confounders including age, gender, race, degree of stenosis, symptomatic status, comorbidities, preoperative medications, anesthesia type, and protamine use.ResultsAmong the 19,859 patients who underwent TCAR during the study period, 3636 (18.3%) had a hostile neck anatomy. On univariate analysis, both groups had comparable outcomes except for higher rates of stroke or death in patients with hostile neck anatomy. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no differences in technical failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.21; P = .699), stroke (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.28; P = .464), death (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.71; P = .598), and MI (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = .518). However, patients with hostile neck were at a 30% increased risk of access site complications (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .023). Further adjusted analysis comparing the outcomes in TFCAS and TCAR among patients with hostile neck anatomy showed an almost four-fold increase in risk of death (aOR, 3.77; 95% CI, 1.49-9.53; P = .005) and technical failure (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.82-7.47; P < .001) among patients undergoing treatment with TFCAS.ConclusionsPatients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR experienced an increased risk of access site complications; however, the risk for technical failure and postoperative stroke/death, stroke, TIA, MI, or death was similar among both groups. TFCAS was associated with significant increase in the risk of death and technical failure compared with TCAR in this group of patients. These results confirm that TCAR should be the preferred minimally invasive revascularization procedure for patients with hostile neck anatomy.     

Surgeon specialty significantly affects outcome of asymptomatic patients after carotid endarterectomy

BackgroundThis study evaluates the impact of surgical specialty, specifically vascular surgery (VS) versus non-VS (NVS; namely, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, general surgery, or neurosurgery) on perioperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) outcomes stratified by symptom status on presentation.MethodsThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Vascular Procedure Targeted database was queried for elective asymptomatic or symptomatic CEA (excluding concomitant CEA and cardiac surgery) from 2011 to 2016. Data were stratified by VS versus NVS and symptom presentation. Primary end points were 30-day stroke and stroke/death; secondary end points included perioperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression determined predictors of all assessed primary outcomes and propensity-weight analysis was used to confirm results.ResultsOverall, 21,060 CEA (12,671 [59%] asymptomatic) were identified with 19,687 (93%) done by VS. In the asymptomatic CEA cohort, VS had lower unadjusted stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; P = .021) and stroke/death (1.7% vs 3.2%; P = .006) rates. In addition, VS had fewer deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; P = .033) and pulmonary complications (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .036). After risk adjustment, the NVS asymptomatic cohort predicted stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.1; P = .032), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.2; P = .008). This NVS cohort also predicted stroke/death (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .013), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.7; P = .035). After propensity weighting, these differences persisted (stroke: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3; P = .030; stroke/death: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .011). Among symptomatic CEA, there was no difference between VS and NVS in unadjusted primary end points of stroke (3.1% vs 4.2%; P = .106) or stroke/death (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .275). However, in this cohort, VS had fewer major complications (12.7% vs 15.5%; P = .029).ConclusionsThis study identifies the VS specialty as having significantly better outcomes after CEA in patients presenting with asymptomatic disease than NVS specialty, as evidenced by lower rates of stroke and stroke death, which persisted after risk adjustment and propensity weighting. This difference in stroke and stroke/death was not apparent in the symptomatic cohort; however, NVS did have increased unadjusted rates of major complications. Although this finding may reflect multiple factors, including higher operative volume, training, or technical approach, these differences in 30-day CEA outcomes may be crucial for the proper interpretation of ongoing national outcome trials such as CREST2.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

ObjectiveWomen face distinctive challenges when they receive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) treatment, and according to the previous studies, sex differences in outcomes after EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between women and men after EVAR for infrarenal AAA.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies reporting sex differences after EVAR for infrarenal AAA, which were retrieved from the MEDICINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database. The pooled results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and hazard ratios for time-to-event data using a random effect model.ResultsThirty-six cohorts were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that women were associated with a significantly increased risk of 30-day mortality (crude OR, 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-1.87; P < .001; adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.32-2.26; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.43-2.53; P < .001), limb ischemia (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.73-2.43; P < .001), renal complications (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.12-2.67; P = .028), cardiac complications (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.80; P = .046), and long-term all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.38; P = .001) compared with men; however, no significant sex difference was observed for visceral/mesenteric ischemia (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.91-2.88; P = .098), 30-day reinterventions (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.95-1.98; P = .095), late endoleaks (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.88-1.56; P = .264), and late reinterventions (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78-1.41; P = .741). In the intact AAA subgroup, women had a significantly increased risk of visceral/mesenteric ischemia (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.01-3.39; P = .046) and an equivalent risk of cardiac complications (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.85-3.17; P = .138) compared with men.ConclusionsCompared with male sex, female sex is associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, limb ischemia, renal complications, cardiac complications, and long-term all-cause mortality after EVAR for infrarenal AAA. Women should be enrolled in a strict and regular long-term surveillance after EVAR.     

Impact of plaque dilation before carotid artery stent deployment

ObjectivePlaque stability is of utmost importance for stroke prevention in the perioperative period (within 24 hours) following carotid artery stenting (CAS). Although carotid plaque is entrapped between stent struts after stent deployment, postdilation can cause a scissoring effect on the plaque, increasing the risk of postprocedural embolic events due to plaque prolapse. Maximum carotid plaque dilation before stent deployment may reduce this risk. This study analyzed the effect of maximum dilation of the carotid plaque before stent deployment (max-pre-SD) or after stent deployment (post-SD) on macroscopic plaque debris, hemodynamic depression (HD), and immediate major adverse events.MethodsThis prospective nonrandomized multicenter study analyzed patients treated for carotid artery stenosis with CAS from January 2014 to August 2016. Clinical and morphologic characteristics and operative details were analyzed with logistic regression analysis for macroscopic debris and HD. The number of microembolic signals (MESs) was assessed by transcranial Doppler and analyzed.ResultsA total of 309 patients were enrolled and treated with standard CAS performed using a proximal occlusion cerebral embolic protection device; 149 received max-pre-SD and 160 were treated with post-SD. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. Macroscopic debris and HD were significantly different between the two groups in favor of max-pre-SD (P < .001). A significant difference in intraprocedural MESs between the groups was detected. Compared with post-SD, max-pre-SD significantly reduced mean MES counts (8.1% vs 68.1%; P < .001). Patients treated with post-SD had a significantly increased risk of MESs in the immediate postoperative period compared with patients treated with max-pre-SD (41.9% vs 1.3%; P < .001).This result was mainly due to the small number of events encountered. Patients treated with post-SD had a 12-fold increased risk of macroscopic debris collection (odds ratio [OR], 12.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.68-26.87; P < .001) and an 18 times increase in HD risk (OR, 17.80; 95% CI, 5.27-60.17; P < .001) compared with patients treated with max-pre-SD. The heterogeneous, mainly echolucent plaque type significantly highly increased the risk of macroscopic debris (OR, 78.45; 95% CI, 8.70-707.09; P < .001) while acting as a protective factor against HD (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.006-0.11; P < .001) along with echogenic or echolucent complex plaques with irregular surface plaque types (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.031-0.336; P < .001). No significant differences between groups (max-pre-SD group and post-SD) were detected in immediate major adverse events (minor stroke, 2.0% and 2.5% [P = .461]; major stroke, 0% and 0.6% [P = .334], respectively).ConclusionsMax-pre-SD seems to be a safe and feasible technical modification to the CAS procedure. Macroscopic debris, HD, and MESs are significantly reduced compared with CAS with post-SD. Further research with larger, randomized cohorts of patients is required to establish the superiority of this technical modification.     

Hemodynamic events during carotid stenting are associated with significant periprocedural stroke and adverse events

BackgroundThere are limited data on the impact of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS)-related changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and preprocedural medications on periprocedural stroke in contemporary, real-world practice. This study evaluates the risk attributable to the CAS-related hemodynamic events and the impact preprocedural medications have on mitigating this risk in a large, population-based cohort.MethodsWe studied all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent CAS between January 2006 and December 2016. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of periprocedural hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia, and medication use on immediate periprocedural stroke (IPPS), 30-day, and 1-year stroke.ResultsOf the 13,698 CAS procedures studied, 1239 (9.1%), 1824 (13.3%), and 1333 (9.7%) patients experienced periprocedural hypertension, hypotension, and bradycardia, respectively. IPPS was 3.2% vs 2.1% vs 0.65% (P < .001), comparing patients with periprocedural hypertension vs hypotension vs normotension and 1.4 vs 1.0% (P = .19) for bradycardic vs nonbradycardic patients. Periprocedural hypertension was associated with a four-fold increase in IPPS (adjusted odd ratio [aOR], 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63-5.99; P < .001). periprocedural hypotension and bradycardia were associated with 5.5-fold (aOR, 5.56; 95% CI, 3.24-9.52; P < .001) and 2.3-fold (aOR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.26-4.25; P = .007) increases in IPPS among patients with carotid symptoms. There was 76% decrease in IPPS for patients who did not experience a periprocedural hemodynamic event (aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; P < .001). Unlike preprocedural beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, prophylactic antibradyarrhythmic agents conferred a 58% reduction in IPPS among patients with carotid symptoms (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.78; P = .006). The periprocedural hemodynamic events were also associated with 7.7-fold increase in myocardial infarction (aOR, 7.70; 95% CI, 4.77-12.45; P < .001), a 2.2-fold increase in 30-day mortality (aOR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.61-3.12; P < .001), and a 16% increase in length of stay (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.04-2.28; P = .042). The occurrence of these hemodynamic events is higher in patients with prior cardiac disease and the difference in periprocedural outcomes extended to 1 year.ConclusionsPeriprocedural hemodynamic events are associated with an increase in periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and length of stay. Periprocedural hypertension in all patients; hypotension and bradycardia in patients with symptomatic carotid disease are associated with significant increase in IPPS. Prophylactic antibradyarrhythmic agents are associated with decrease in bradycardia and IPPS. These results heighten the need to anticipate and promptly address these CAS-related hemodynamic events, especially in susceptible patients.     

Examination of the interaction between method of anesthesia and shunting with carotid endarterectomy

BackgroundAlthough the choice of anesthesia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) does not seem to increase the risk of perioperative stroke, it might affect the outcomes of shunting during CEA. This study aims to evaluate whether the choice of anesthesia modifies the association between shunting and in-hospital stroke/death after CEA.MethodsWe retrospective reviewed all CEA cases performed between 2003 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) no shunting during CEA (n = 29,227 [48.4%]), (2) routine shunting (n = 28,673 [47.5%]), and (3) selective shunting based on an intraoperative indication (n = 2499 [4.1%]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to study the interaction between anesthesia (local anesthesia [LA]/regional anesthesia [RA] vs general anesthesia [GA]) and intraoperative shunting (no shunting vs routine and selective shunting) during CEA in predicting the risk of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA.ResultsThe final cohort included 60,399 patients. The majority of CEA cases (90.2%) were performed under GA. Of the study cohort, 29,227 (48.4%) underwent CEA without shunting, 28,673 patients (47.5%) had routine shunting, and the remaining (n = 2499 [4.1%]) were selectively shunted. The interaction between intraoperative shunting and anesthesia in predicting in-hospital stroke/death was statistically significant (P < .05). When CEA is performed under LA/GA, routine shunting was associated with 3.5 times the adjusted odds of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.8; P < .001) compared with no shunting, whereas selective shunting was associated with 7.1 the odds (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 3.5-14.7; P < .001). In contrast, under GA, there was no significant association between routine shunting and in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P = .12), whereas selective shunting was associated with 1.7 times the odds (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P < .01) compared with not performing shunting during CEA.ConclusionsThe use of LA/RA is associated with increased odds of stroke/death compared with GA when intraoperative shunting is performed. The effect of anesthesia is more pronounced in patients who develop clamp-related ischemia and undergo selective shunting. More controlled studies are needed to explain these findings and validate them.     

Effect of frailty syndrome on the outcomes of patients with carotid stenosis

BackgroundFrailty syndrome confers a greater risk of morbidity and mortality after operative interventions. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of frailty on the outcomes after carotid interventions, including both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe performed an 8-year (2005-2012) retrospective analysis of the National Surgery Quality and Improvement Program database, including patients who had undergone CEA or CAS for carotid artery stenosis. A modified frailty index score was calculated. Frail status was defined as a modified frailty index score of ≥0.27. The outcome measures were inpatient complications, mortality, failure to rescue (FTR), hospital length of stay, and 30-day readmissions. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to study the association between frailty and the perioperative outcomes.ResultsThe data from 37,875 patients were included. Of the 37,875 patients, 95.7% had undergone CEA, and 27.3% of the patients were frail (27% of the CEA and 26% of the CAS groups had qualified as frail). Overall, 11.7% of the patients had experienced complications, 2.2% had died, and 6.7% had been readmitted after discharge. On regression analysis, after controlling for age, gender, albumin level, type of surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class, frail status was an independent predictor of complications (23.5% vs 7.2%; P < .001), mortality (5.2% vs 1.1%; P = .02), FTR (12.1% vs 4.7%; P = .02), and 30-day readmissions (14.9% vs 3.7%; P = .03). On subanalysis of the patients who had undergone CAS, no association was found between frail status and the occurrence of complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-3.2), mortality (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.7), FTR (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3), and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-3.1).ConclusionsFrailty syndrome was associated with morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing surgical interventions for carotid stenosis. In the present study, frailty was associated with significant mortality and morbidity for those who had undergone CEA but not for those who had undergone CAS. However, the present study was not designed to determine the optimal treatment of frail patients. Incorporating frailty status into the treatment algorithm (CEA vs CAS) might provide a more accurate risk assessment and improve patient outcomes.     

Insurance status is associated with urgent carotid endarterectomy and worse postoperative outcomes

ObjectiveUnderinsured patients can experience worse preoperative medical optimization. We aimed to determine whether insurance status was associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) urgency and postoperative outcomes.MethodsWe analyzed the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy dataset from January 2012 to January 2021. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to analyze the differences across the insurance types for the primary outcome variable: CEA urgency. The analyses were limited to patients aged <65 years to minimize age confounding across insurers. We also examined differences in preoperative medical optimization and symptomatic disease and postoperative outcomes. A secondary analysis was performed to examine the effect of CEA urgency on the postoperative outcomes.ResultsA total of 27,331 patients had undergone first-time CEA. Of these patients, 4600 (17%) had Medicare, 3440 (13%) had Medicaid, 17,917 (65%) had commercial insurance, and 1374 (5%) were uninsured. The Medicaid and uninsured patients had higher rates of urgent operation compared with Medicare (20.0% and 34.7% vs 14.4%; P < .001), with no differences in the commercial group vs the Medicare group. Additionally, Medicaid and uninsured patients had lower rates of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (93.6% and 93.5% vs 95.8%; P < .001) and higher rates of symptomatic disease (42.1% and 57.6% vs 36.2%; P < .001) compared with Medicare patients. The rate of perioperative stroke/death was higher for the Medicaid and uninsured patients than for the Medicare patients (1.63% and 1.89% vs 1.02%; P = .017 and P = .01, respectively), with no differences in the commercial group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured status were associated with increased odds of an urgent operation (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5; and OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7, respectively), symptomatic disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; and OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5, respectively), and perioperative stroke/death (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4; and OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0, respectively) and a decreased odds of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; and OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99, respectively). Additionally, the rates of perioperative stroke/death were higher for patients who had required urgent surgery compared with elective surgery (2.8% vs 1.0%; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of perioperative stroke/death for patients who had required urgent surgery (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1).ConclusionsMedicaid and uninsured patients were more likely to require urgent CEA, in part because of poor preoperative medical optimization. Additionally, urgent operation was independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes. These results highlight the need for improved preoperative follow-up for underinsured populations.     

Predictors of midterm high-grade restenosis after carotid revascularization in a multicenter national database

BackgroundRestenosis after carotid revascularization is clinically challenging. Several studies have looked into the management of recurrent restenosis; however, studies looking into factors associated with restenosis are limited. This study evaluated the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using a large national database.MethodsPatients undergoing CEA or CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative data set (2003-2016) were analyzed. Patients with no follow-up (33%) and those who had prior ipsilateral CEA or CAS were excluded. Significant restenosis was defined as ≥70% diameter-reducing stenosis, target artery occlusion or peak systolic velocity ≥300 cm/s, or repeated revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and bootstrapped Cox regression models with stepwise forward and backward selection were used.ResultsA total of 35,720 procedures were included (CEA, 31,329; CAS, 4391). No significant difference in restenosis rates was seen between CEA and CAS at 2 years (7.7% vs 9.4% [P = .09]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.25; P = .97). However, after adjustment for age, sex, and symptomatic status at the time of the index operation, CAS patients who had postoperative restenosis were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .01) and to undergo repeated revascularization at 2 years (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4; P < .001) compared with patients who had restenosis after CEA. Predictors of restenosis after CAS included a common carotid artery lesion (HR, 1.65; 95% CI,1.06-2.57; P = .03), whereas age (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P = .03) and dilation after stent placement (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.72; P < .001) were associated with decreased restenosis at 2 years. Predictors of restenosis after CEA included female sex (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; P < .001), prior neck irradiation (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.66-3.30; P < .001), and prior bypass surgery (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P = .04). On the other hand, factors associated with decreased restenosis after CEA included age (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P < .001), black race (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89; P = .01), patching (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < .001), and completion imaging (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95; P = .02).ConclusionsOur results show no significant difference in restenosis rates at 2 years between CEA and CAS. Restenosis after CAS is more likely to be manifested with symptoms and to undergo repeated revascularization compared with that after CEA. Poststent ballooning after CAS and completion imaging and patching after CEA are associated with decreased hazard of restenosis; however, further research is needed to assess longer term outcomes and to balance the risks vs benefits of certain practices, such as poststent ballooning.     

Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting

Objective

In-stent restenosis is a recognized complication of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), and it is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Few case series have reported outcomes separately following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. In this study, we perform an evaluation of redo-CAS vs CEA in a large contemporary cohort of patients who underwent prior ipsilateral CAS.

Association between the choice of anesthesia and in-hospital outcomes after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveSeveral prior studies have shown lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy. This is likely because the majority of endarterectomies are performed under general anesthesia (GA), whereas CAS is mainly performed under local anesthesia (LA). Performing CAS under GA may reverse its minimally invasive benefits. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile of CAS-GA with that of CAS-LA.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2005 to 2017 was performed. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital death and MI, and postoperative neurologic events. Multivariable logistic models, and coarsened exact matching were used to evaluate the association between the primary outcomes and anesthesia technique.ResultsOf 12,919 CAS cases performed, 2024 (15.7%) were under GA. Comparing CAS-GA with CAS-LA in the overall cohort, CAS-GA had significantly higher crude rates of in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 0.5%), MI (1.3% vs 0.7%), composite MACE (3.1% vs 1.2%), and ipsilateral stroke (2.3% vs 1.6%). Patients undergoing CAS-GA also had higher rates of dysrhythmia (3.0% vs 2.2%), acute congestive heart failure (1.6% vs 0.7%) and perioperative hypertension (13.2% vs 9.4%), and were more likely to have a length of hospital stay of more than 4 days (prolonged length of stay) (17.6% vs 8.5%) compared with those undergoing CAS-LA. On multivariable analysis, CAS-GA had a 2.3 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with CAS-LA (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.03), a 1.9 times the odds of MACE (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.03), and a 2.3 times the odds of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26-4.15; all P < .05). In addition, these patients had a 43% higher odds of developing perioperative hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87; P = .01) and almost 2 times the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; P < .001). The adjusted odds of stroke, dysrhythmia and reperfusion syndrome were not significantly different between the two groups. Additional analysis using coarsened exact matching showed similar results.ConclusionsIn addition to the established increase risk of perioperative stroke/death with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, performing it under GA seems to be associated with increased cardiac complications, length of stay, and consequently hospitalization costs. Pending future data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials to validate our findings, there is evidence to suggest that it may be better to perform CAS under LA, especially in medically high-risk patients.     

Prior Nonarthroplasty Surgery Increases Risk of Complication in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundPrior ipsilateral knee surgery may increase the risk for complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It remains unclear if the extent of previous surgery affects those risks disparately. The purpose of this study is to evaluate prior nonarthroplasty bony procedure (BP) and soft tissue only procedure (STP) as a potential risk factor for complications after TKA and determine the association with charges or reimbursement of the primary TKA.MethodsPatients who underwent primary TKA with previous knee surgery were identified using a national Medicare database and matched 1:5 to controls without prior knee surgery. Rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications were calculated in addition to hospital-associated charges and reimbursements. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding factors.ResultsPatients who underwent BP (n = 835) had increased risk of readmission (58.6% vs 45.3%, odds ratio (OR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-1.85, P < .001) and emergency room visits (14.5% vs 10.4%, OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P = .001). Patients who underwent STP (n = 6766) had increased risk of readmission (58.1% vs 45.2%, OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.64-1.73, P < .001), emergency room visits (12.6% vs 0.7%, OR 1.33, 1.28-1.39, P < .001), revision (1.8% vs 1.4%, OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.47, P = .006), cerebrovascular accident (2.3% vs 1.7%, OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.22-1.46, P = .002), and venous thromboembolism (3.8% vs 3.2%, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.29, P = .009). Prior surgery was associated with increased charges and reimbursements.ConclusionPrior ipsilateral knee surgery is associated with significantly increased risks of postoperative complications after primary TKA. Interestingly, previous STP but not BP increased the risk of short-term revision and venous thromboembolism.     

Predictors of blunt abdominal aortic injury in trauma patients and mortality analysis

ObjectiveBlunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) occurs in less than 0.1% of blunt traumas. A previous multi-institutional study found an associated mortality rate of 39%. We sought to identify risk factors for BAAI and risk factors for mortality in patients with BAAI using a large national database. We hypothesized that an Injury Severity Score of 25 or greater, and thoracic trauma would both increase the risk of mortality in patients with BAAI.MethodsThe Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for individuals with blunt trauma. Patients with and without BAAI were compared. Covariates were included in a multivariable logistic regression model to determine mechanisms of injury, examination findings, and concomitant injuries associated with increased risk for BAAI. An additional multivariable analysis was performed for mortality in patients with BAAI.ResultsFrom 1,056,633 blunt trauma admissions, 1012 (0.1%) had BAAI. The most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle accident (MVA; 57.5%). More than one-half the patients had at least one rib fracture (54.0%), or a spine fracture (53.9%), whereas 20.8% had hypotension on admission and 7.8% had a trunk abrasion. The average length of stay was 13.4 days and 24.6% required laparotomy, with 6.6% receiving an endovascular repair and 2.9% an open repair. The risk of death in those treated with endovascular vs open repair was similar (P = .28). On multivariable analysis, MVA was the mechanism associated with the highest risk of BAAI (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.87-5.65; P < .001) followed by pedestrian struck (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 3.47-5.92; P < .001). Other factors associated with BAAI included hypotension on admission (OR, 3.87; 95% CI, 3.21-4.66; P < .001), hemopneumothorax (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.16-11.58; P < .001), abrasion to the trunk (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.94; P = .003), and rib fracture (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.70; P < .001). The overall mortality rate was 28.0%. Of the variables examined, the strongest risk factor associated with mortality in patients with BAAI was hemopneumothorax (OR, 12.49; 95% CI, 1.25-124.84; P = .03) followed by inferior vena cava (IVC) injury (OR, 12.05; 95% CI, 2.80-51.80; P < .001).ConclusionsIn the largest nationwide series to date, BAAI continues to have a high mortality rate with hemopneumothorax and IVC injury associated with the highest risk for mortality. The mechanism most strongly associated with BAAI is MVA followed by pedestrian struck. Other risk factors for BAAI include rib fracture and trunk abrasion. Providers must maintain a high suspicion of injury for BAAI when these mechanisms of injury, physical examination or imaging findings are encountered.     

The Impact of Pre-Operative Healthcare Utilization on Complications,Readmissions, and Post-Operative Healthcare Utilization Following Total Joint Arthroplasty

BackgroundIdentifying risk factors for adverse outcomes and increased costs following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is needed to ensure quality. The interaction between pre-operative healthcare utilization (pre-HU) and outcomes following TJA has not been fully characterized.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective, primary total hip arthroplasty (THA, N = 1785) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA, N = 2159) between 2015 and 2019 at a single institution. Pre-HU and post-operative healthcare utilization (post-HU) included non-elective healthcare utilization in the 90 days prior to and following TJA, respectively (emergency department, urgent care, observation admission, inpatient admission). Multivariate regression models including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Medicaid status, and body mass index were fit for 30-day readmission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services (CMS)-defined complications, length of stay, and post-HU.ResultsThe 30-day readmission rate was 3.2% and 3.4% and the CMS-defined complication rate was 3.8% and 2.9% for THA and TKA, respectively. Multivariate regression showed that for THA, presence of any pre-HU was associated with increased risk of 30-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] 2.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48-5.50, P = .002), CMS complications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.27-4.59, P = .007), and post-HU (OR 3.65, 95% CI 2.54-5.26, P < .001). For TKA, ≥2 pre-HU events were associated with increased risk of 30-day readmission (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.17-10.61, P = .026) and post-HU (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.29-5.40, P = .008). There were positive correlations for THA (any pre-HU) and TKA (≥2 pre-HU) with length of stay and number of post-HU events.ConclusionPatients who utilize non-elective healthcare in the 90 days prior to TJA are at increased risk of readmission, complications, and unplanned post-HU.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BackgroundMicroembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.MethodsPatients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.ResultsA total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.ConclusionsPatients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.     

Risk Factors Associated With Femorotomy or Fracture During Cementless Stem Removal and Generation of an Individual Predictive Risk Score

BackgroundFemorotomy is a commonly used technique during cementless stem removal but should be preferred in selective revision cases to prevent intraoperative femoral fracture associated with deteriorated clinical outcome. Our aim was to assess the risk factors for fracture or femorotomy and develop a predictive risk stratification score.MethodsA monocentric retrospective cohort including 202 patients was analyzed. Thirty six candidate prognostic factors were assessed.ResultsThe following independent predictors of fracture or femorotomy were identified: presence of a “bracket sign” (Odds Ratio [OR]: 10.857; 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 2.613-45.115; P = .001) defined as a distal spot weld between the surface of the implant and closest endosteum, bone contact in zone 2 (OR: 4.700; 95% CI: 1.827-12.089; P = .001), 6 (OR: 4.966; 95% CI: 1.823-13.530; P = .002), 12 (OR: 9.660; 95% CI: 3.715-25.116; P < .0001), 13 (OR: 2.958; 95% CI: 1.009-8.021; P = .033), and global hypertrophy (OR: 0.170; 95% CI: 0.036-0.806; P = .026). The prognostic score, named Femorotomy INcidence Numeric scoring system, had good performance and discriminability; the area under the curve of the model was 0.924 (95% CI: 0.878-0.969).ConclusionThe only independent risk factors were those assessed on X-ray (eg, bracket sign, bone contact in zones 2, 6, 12, and 13), while global hypertrophy was protective. We noticed the importance of differentiating pedestals and “bracket signs”; the latter is an indicator of fixation of the stem. We developed a risk prediction score (Femorotomy INcidence Numeric score) of fracture or femorotomy that can be used as a companion tool to assess the risk for doing an early osteotomy of the femur.     

The effect of clinical coronary disease severity on outcomes of carotid endarterectomy with and without combined coronary bypass

ObjectiveThe management of patients with carotid stenosis and symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging. This study assessed the impact of clinical coronary disease severity on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with and without combined coronary artery bypass (CCAB).MethodsUsing the Vascular Quality Initiative, patients with symptomatic CAD who underwent CCAB or isolated CEA (ICEA) from 2003 to 2017 were identified. Patients were stratified by CAD severity: stable angina (SA) and recent myocardial infarction/unstable angina (UA). Primary outcomes, including perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke/death/MI (SDM), were assessed between procedures within each CAD cohort.ResultsThere were 9098 patients identified: 887 CCAB patients (215 [24%] SA, 672 [76%] UA) and 8211 ICEA patients (6385 [78%] SA, 1826 [22%] UA). Overall, CCAB patients had higher rates of stroke (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .002) and SDM (7.3% vs 3.5%, P < .001) but similar rates of MI (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = .12) compared with ICEA patients. In SA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.2% vs CCAB 1.9%; P = .36), MI (1.3% vs 1.4%; P = .95), or SDM (2.9% vs 4.7%; P = .13). In UA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.6% vs CCAB 2.8%; P = .06), but ICEA patients had higher rates of MI (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .01) and CCAB patients had higher rates of SDM (8.2% vs 5.5%; P = .01). After logistic regression in the UA cohort, predictors of MI included ICEA (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.0; P = .04) and carotid symptomatic status (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .01); carotid symptomatic status also predicted stroke (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.6; P = .03), but CCAB did not.ConclusionsIn patients with symptomatic CAD, both clinical CAD severity and operative strategy affect outcomes. In SA patients, CCAB does not increase perioperative morbidity. However, CCAB in UA patients prevents MI while not appreciably increasing stroke risk. This suggests that coronary revascularization before or concomitant with CEA should be considered in UA patients but that prioritizing coronary intervention is less important in SA patients.     

New-Onset Depression After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Consideration of the At-Risk Patient

BackgroundPostoperative new-onset depression (NOD) has gained recent attention as a previously unrecognized complication which may put patients at risk for poor outcomes after elective total hip arthroplasty. We aimed to investigate risk factors for the development of NOD after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and assess its association with postoperative complications.MethodsThis is a retrospective, population-level investigation of elective TKA patients. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of depression were excluded from this study. Two groups were compared: patients who were diagnosed with depression within one year after TKA (NOD) and those who did not (control). The association of both preoperative patient factors and postoperative surgical and medical complications with NOD was then determined using multivariate and univariate analyses.ResultsOf 196,728 unique TKA patients in our cohort, 5351 (2.72%) were diagnosed with NOD within one year of TKA. Age <54 year old, female gender, preoperative anxiety disorder, drug, alcohol, and/or tobacco use, multiple comorbidities, and opioid use before TKA were all associated with a diagnosis of NOD postoperatively (all P < .001). Postoperative NOD was associated with periprosthetic fracture (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.29-3.52; P = .033), aseptic failure (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.24-2.07; P = .020), prosthetic joint infection (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.30-1.85; P < .001), stroke (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.09-1.42; P = .006), and venous thromboembolism (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.12-1.37; P < .001).ConclusionPost-TKA NOD is common and is associated with poor outcomes. This may aid surgeons in developing both anticipatory measures and institute preventative measures for patients at risk for developing NOD.     

Predictors of bleeding or anemia requiring transfusion in complex endovascular aortic repair and its impact on outcomes in health insurance claims

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine predictors and outcomes associated with bleeding or anemia requiring transfusion (BAT) after fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR).MethodsHealth insurance claims data of Germany's third largest insurance provider, DAK-Gesundheit, were used to investigate BAT in elective FB-EVAR performed between 2008 and 2017. International Classification of Diseases and German Operations and Procedure Key codes were used.ResultsA total of 959 patients (24.8% with BAT) matching the inclusion criteria were identified during the study period. Compared with patients without BAT, patients with BAT were older (74.4 vs 73.0 years; P = .015) and suffered more frequently from congestive heart failure (18.5% vs 9.4%), cardiac arrhythmias (26.9% vs 14.7%), and hereditary or acquired coagulopathy (31.9% vs 6.2%; all P < .001). Coagulopathy (odds ratio [OR], 3.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29-5.84), female sex (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.78-4.00), and multiple comorbidities (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14) were independent predictors of BAT (all P < .001). BAT was associated with higher in-hospital (11.3% vs 2.6%), 30-day (12.2% vs 3.1%), and 90-day (18.5% vs 4.4%) mortality (all P < .001). Furthermore, myocardial infarction (23.9% vs 2.8%) and paraplegia (9.7% vs 0.7%) were more frequent in the BAT group (all P < .001). In multivariable analyses, BAT was associated with worse short-term (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.63-6.33; P = .001) and long-term survival (hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.24-2.11; P < .001).ConclusionsPatients with hereditary or acquired coagulopathy, patients with multiple comorbidities, and women are at higher risk for development of BAT after FB-EVAR. The occurrence of this event was strongly associated with higher major complication rates and worse short-term and long-term survival. This emphasizes a need to further illuminate the value of patient blood management in FB-EVAR.