Vascular Quality Initiative Data Research Articles

Large language models can accurately populate Vascular Quality Initiative procedural databases using narrative operative reports.

Participation in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) provides important resources to surgeons, but the ability to do so is often limited by time and data entry personnel. Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) are examples of generative artificial intelligence (AI) products that may help bridge this gap. Trained on large volumes of data, the models are used for natural language processing (NLP) and text generation. We evaluated the ability of LLMs to accurately populate VQI procedural databases using operative reports. A single-center retrospective study was performed using institutional VQI data from 2021-2023. The most recent procedures for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB) were analyzed using Versa, a HIPAA-compliant institutional version of ChatGPT. We created an automated function to analyze operative reports and generate a shareable VQI file using two models: gpt-35-turbo and gpt-4. Application of the LLMs was accomplished with a cloud-based programming interface. The outputs of this model were compared to VQI data for accuracy. We defined a metric as "unavailable" to the LLM if it was discussed by surgeons in <20% of operative reports. unavailable. 150 operative notes were analyzed, including 50 CEA, 50 EVAR, and 50 LEB. These procedural VQI databases included 25, 179, and 51 metrics, respectively. For all fields, gpt-35-turbo had a median accuracy of 84.0% for CEA (IQR 80.0-88.0%), 92.2% for EVAR (IQR 87.2-94.0%), and 84.3% for LEB (IQR 80.2-88.1%). There were 3 of 25, 6 of 179, and 7 of 51 VQI variables were unavailable in the operative reports, respectively. Excluding metric information routinely unavailable in operative reports, the median accuracy rate was 95.5% for each CEA procedure (IQR 90.9-100.0%), 94.8% (IQR 92.2-98.5) for EVAR, and 93.2% for LEB (IQR 90.2-96.4%). Across procedures, gpt-4 did not meaningfully improve performance compared to gpt-35 (p=0.97, 0.85, 0.95 for CEA, EVAR, LEB overall performance). The cost for 150 operative reports analyzed with gpt-35-turbo and gpt-4 were $0.12 and $3.39, respectively. LLMs can accurately populate VQI procedural databases with both structured and unstructured data, while incurring only minor processing costs. Increased workflow efficiency may improve center ability to successfully participate in the VQI. Further work examining other VQI databases and methods to increase accuracy are needed.

Analysis of Surgeon and Center Case Volume and Stroke or Death after Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

It has been suggested that the annual hospital volume of cases may affect the number of adverse events after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aim to study the associations between hospital as well as surgeon volume and the risk of stroke or death after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative data of patients undergoing TCAR from 2016 to 2021. Surgeon and center volume were calculated based on the mean number of cases (MNC) performed yearly by each surgeon and center. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke or death. A total of 22,624 cases were included. Surgeon volume was divided into 3 quantiles: low (MNC = 4), medium (MNC = 10), and high (MNC = 26). Center volume was also divided into low (MNC = 14), medium (MNC = 32), and high (MNC = 64). After adjusting for potential confounders, and when compared with high-volume centers, low and medium center volumes were not associated with any increased odds of in-hospital stroke and death, stroke, death, or stroke with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Compared with high-volume surgeons, low surgeons' volume was associated with a higher odd of stroke (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.04, p = 0.008), and stroke and TIA (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9, p = 0.002). However, medium surgeon volume was not associated with higher odds of stroke and death, stroke, and stroke with TIA. Neither low nor medium surgeon volume was associated with a difference in mortality compared with high surgeon volume. In this retrospective study, center volume was not associated with any differences in outcomes among patients undergoing TCAR. On the other hand, surgeons with low volume were associated with a higher risk of stroke, death, or MI and stroke or TIA when compared with high surgeon volume. There was no difference in outcomes between medium and high surgeon volume.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveThe outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) remain understudied. Prior research has not reported the outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in patients with previous CAS. In this study, we compared the peri-operative outcomes of TCAR, transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS using the Vascular Quality Iniatitive. MethodsUsing Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2016 to 2023, we identified patients who underwent TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA after prior ipsilateral CAS. We included covariates such as age, race, sex, body mass index, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary artery disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia), symptom status, urgency, ipsilateral stenosis, and contralateral occlusion into a regression model to compute propensity scores for treatment assignment. We then used the propensity scores for inverse probability weighting and weighted logistic regression to compare in-hospital stroke, in-hospital death, stroke/death, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and cranial nerve injury (CNI) after TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA. We also analyzed trends in the proportions of patients undergoing the three revascularization procedures over time using Cochrane-Armitage trend testing. ResultsWe identified 2137 patients undergoing revascularization after prior ipsilateral carotid stenting: 668 TCAR patients (31%), 1128 tfCAS patients (53%), and 341 CEA patients (16%). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a lower yet not statistically significant in-hospital stroke/death than tfCAS (TCAR vs tfCAS: 0.7% vs 2.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.05; P = .06), and similar odds of stroke/death with CEA (TCAR vs CEA: 0.7% vs 0.9%; aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.16-3.98; P = .8). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with lower odds of postoperative MI (0.1% vs 14%; aOR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.10; P < .001), stroke/death/MI (0.8% vs 15%; aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001), and CNI (0.1% vs 3.8%; aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.30; P = .002) in this patient population. In symptomatic patients, TCAR had an unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rate of 5.1%, with lower rates of CNI than CEA. We also found an increasing trend in the proportion of patients undergoing TCAR following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting (2016 to 2023: 14% to 41%), with a relative decrease in proportions of tfCAS (61% to 45%) and CEA (25% to 14%) (P < .001). ConclusionsIn asymptomatic patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with tfCAS, with comparable stroke/death but lower postoperative MI and CNI rates compared with CEA. In symptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with unacceptably higher in-hospital stroke/death rates. In line with the postprocedure outcomes, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of patients with prior ipsilateral stenting undergoing TCAR over time.

Safety of Shunting Strategies During Carotid Endarterectomy: A Vascular Quality Initiative Data Analysis

This study aimed to evaluate in hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) according to shunt usage, particularly in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) or recent stroke. Data from CEAs registered in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2012 and 2020 were analysed, excluding surgeons with < 10 CEAs registered in the database, concomitant procedures, re-interventions, and incomplete data. Based on their rate of shunt use, participating surgeons were divided in three groups: non-shunters (< 5%), selective shunters (5 - 95%), and routine shunters (> 95%). Primary outcomes of in hospital stroke, death, and stroke and death rate (SDR) were analysed in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. A total of 113 202 patients met the study criteria, of whom 31 147 were symptomatic and 82 055 were asymptomatic. Of the 1 645 surgeons included, 12.1% were non-shunters, 63.6% were selective shunters, and 24.3% were routine shunters, with 10 557, 71 160, and 31 579 procedures in each group, respectively. In the univariable analysis, in hospital stroke (2.0% vs. 1.9% vs. 1.6%; p = .17), death (0.5% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.4%; p = .71), and SDR (2.2% vs. 2.1% vs. 1.8%; p = .23) were not statistically significantly different among the three groups in the symptomatic cohort. The asymptomatic cohort also did not show a statistically significant difference for in hospital stroke (0.9% vs. 1.0% vs. 0.9%; p = .55), death (0.2% vs. 0.2% vs. 0.2%; p = .64), and SDR (1.0% vs. 1.1% vs. 1.0%; p = .43). The multivariate model did not show a statistically significant difference for the primary outcomes between the three shunting cohorts. On subgroup analysis, the SDRs were not statistically significantly different for patients with CCO (3.3% vs. 2.5% vs. 2.4%; p = .64) and those presenting with a recent stroke (2.9% vs. 3.4% vs. 3.1%; p = .60). No statistically significant differences were found between three shunting strategies for in hospital SDR, including in patients with CCO or recent stroke.

Implementation of a vascular acute care surgery model is associated with improved surgeon efficiency and 2-year mortality after lower extremity intervention

ObjectiveVascular surgeons work long, unpredictable hours with repeated exposure to high-stress situations. Inspired by general surgery acute care surgery models, we sought to organize the care of vascular emergencies with the implementation of a vascular acute care surgery (VACS) model. Within this model, a surgeon is in-house without elective cases and assigned for consultations and urgent operative cases on a weekly basis. This study examined the impact of a VACS model on postoperative mortality and surgeon efficiency. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort analysis of institutional Vascular Quality Initiative data from July 2014 to July 2023. Patients undergoing lower extremity bypass, peripheral vascular intervention, or amputation were included. There was a washout period from January 2020 to January 2022 to account for COVID-19 pandemic practice abnormalities. Patients were separated into pre- or post-VACS groups. The primary clinical outcomes were 30-day and 2-year mortality. Secondary clinical outcomes included 30-day complications and 30-day and 1-year major adverse limb events (MALE). Separate analyses of operating room data from July 2017 to February 2024 and fiscal data from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2024 were conducted. A washout period from January 2020 to January 2022 was applied. Efficiency outcomes included monthly relative value units (RVUs) per clinical fraction full-time equivalent (cFTE) and daytime (0730-1700, Monday-Friday) operating room minutes. Patient factors and operative efficiency were compared using appropriate statistical tests. Regression modeling was performed for the primary outcomes. ResultsThere were 972 and 257 patients in the pre- and post-VACS groups, respectively. Pre-VACS patients were younger (66.8 ± 12.0 vs 68.7 ± 12.7 years; P = .03) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (34.6% vs 14.8%; P < .01), hypertension (88.4% vs 82.2%; P = .01), and tobacco history (84.4% vs 78.2%; P = .02). Thirty-day mortality (2.4% pre-vs 0.8% post-VACS; P = .18) and Kaplan-Meier estimation of 2-year mortality remained stable after VACS (P = .07). VACS implementation was not associated with 30-day mortality but was associated with lower 2-year mortality hazard on multivariable Cox regression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.9; P = .01). Operative efficiency improved post-VACS (median, 850.0; interquartile range [IQR], 765.7-916.3 vs median, 918.0; IQR, 881.0-951.1 RVU/cFTE-month; P = .03). Daytime operating minutes increased (469.1 ± 287.5 vs 908.2 ± 386.2 minutes; P < .01), whereas non-daytime minutes (420.0; IQR, 266.0-654.0 vs 469.5; IQR, 242.0-738.3 minutes; P = .40) and weekend minutes (129.0; IQR, 0.0-298.0 vs 113.5; IQR, 0.0-279.5 minutes; P = .59) remained stable. ConclusionsA VACS model leads to improvement in surgeon operative efficiency while maintaining patient safety. The adoption of a vascular acute care model has a positive impact on the delivery of comprehensive vascular care.

Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings

ObjectiveThe frequency of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial disease has increased substantially over the past several years, specifically in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting, yet the efficacy compared with other interventions and the consequences of distal embolization remain unknown. Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been used at varying rates depending on physician and practice setting. Previous studies have described lesion characteristics to consider when weighing the benefits and drawbacks associated with device use. Our study focuses on the use of atherectomy and EPDs in femoropopliteal arterial disease to better characterize resource use trends and postoperative outcomes in the inpatient and OBL interventional settings. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis on endovascular interventions performed for femoral-popliteal occlusive disease that were entered into the Vascular Quality Initiative data registry between 2017 and 2021. A one:one greedy match, adjusted analysis based on inpatient or OBL location of procedure was used to compare the groups. Hierarchical logistical regression with selective use of principal component analysis was used to further explore the differences in EPD use and immediate postoperative outcomes. A proportional hazard model was used to demonstrate differences in reintervention rates up to 2 years postoperatively between patients who underwent atherectomy in the inpatient vs OBL treatment setting. Results2849 matched pairs were inlcuded in the final analysis. In our cohort, there was 22% EPD use overall, 40% in the hospital setting and 4.4% in the OBL setting (P < .001). Among the patients with available follow-up information, OBL intervention setting increased probability of reintervention by 18% at 2 years postoperatively compared with the inpatient setting; however, there was no difference associated with EPD placement and rate of reintervention. ConclusionsUse of EPDs in the OBL setting compared with the hospital setting is dramatically decreased; however, no increased incidence of postoperative complications was seen compared to procedures performed in the hospital setting when controlling for patient and lesion characteristics. Patients with available follow-up data were more likely to undergo ipsilateral reintervention between 6 months and 2 years postoperatively if atherectomy was done in the OBL setting. Dedicated studies are encouraged to ensure patient safety, effective resource allocation, and long-term efficacy of OBL atherectomy as an ever-growing number of peripheral arterial procedures are transitioned to the OBL setting.

National Vascular Quality Initiative Data Finds Disparities in Aortic Aneurysm Care in Rural Patients

National Vascular Quality Initiative Data Finds Disparities in Aortic Aneurysm Care in Rural Patients

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy

ObjectiveThis study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. MethodsUtilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. ResultsA total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). ConclusionsAlthough tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Preoperative Risk Factors Impacting Length of Stay After Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), using interoperative flow reversal is a unique, hybrid operation utilized in treating critical carotid artery stenosis. Over the past decade, TCAR has been increasingly used to treat asymptomatic carotid artery disease and has a similar risk profile to traditional carotid endarterectomy. Postoperative length of stay (LOS) has a significant impact on cost-effectiveness and quality outcomes in this expanded setting. The objective of this study is to develop a multivariate regression model to identify key preoperative variables and their impact factor on LOS after TCAR for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. We hypothesized that high-risk preoperative patient factors historically identified in carotid endarterectomy would similarly impact LOS after TCAR. A multi-institution, retrospective study of all adult patients undergoing TCAR with flow-reversal for intraoperative neuroprotection was performed using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from January 2016 to August 2021. Patients with prolonged preoperative hospitalization (preoperative LOS ≥1day) were excluded to enhance the capture of carotid artery stenosis as the index admission. Univariate analysis was done on preoperative factors against LOS using nonparametric statistical tests. A multivariate model was then constructed using a negative binomial regression. The study population was split into 80% "training" data for model formulation and 20% "test" data for model validation. Thirteen thousand four hundred eighty-three patients undergoing TCAR for asymptomatic carotid stenosis met the study's inclusion criteria with a median postoperative LOS of 1.82days. Factors in VQI found to have a significant effect on LOS and retained in the multivariate model were lesion type (restenosis versus atherosclerotic), age, gender, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative beta blocker, calcific lesion burden, hypertension status, and race (P<0.05). The model accurately predicted LOS after TCAR within 1day for 86.04% and within 2days for 94.51% of patients in the test population. This large-scale analysis from 2016 to 2021 spans a considerable expansion in the practice of TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease. All preoperative variables shown to significantly increase the postoperative LOS were derived from the VQI data set. As LOS is a measure of health-care efficiency and cost-effectiveness, this model can be used to identify patients at risk for increased postoperative LOS. It has the potential to be incorporated into a patient/physician decision support tool to optimize resource planning and patient selection for elective TCAR.

Comparison of endovascular therapies for chronic limb-threatening ischemia and claudication

ObjectiveAnalysis of regional data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) suggested improved survival for patients undergoing stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty and atherectomy. Using national data from the VQI linked to Medicare claims data through the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network program, this study aimed to compare the rates of mortality, reintervention, and amputation after endovascular interventions (atherectomy, stenting, and balloon angioplasty) for two separate cohorts: patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and patients with claudication. MethodsThis was a secondary data analysis of Society for Vascular Surgery National VQI data linked to Medicare claims, between October 2016 and December 2019. Patients aged ≥65 years with symptoms of claudication or CLTI and a diagnosis of occlusive disease were included. Urgent or emergent interventions or those with concurrent procedures (endarterectomy, bypass, or bilateral intervention) were excluded. Interventions were grouped into (1) balloon angioplasty only; (2) stent (with or without balloon angioplasty); or (3) atherectomy (alone, with or without stent, with or without balloon angioplasty). Propensity score-matched cohorts were constructed to conduct pairwise intervention comparisons of mortality, reintervention, and amputation rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to derive propensity scores for each patient. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) analyses were performed. ResultsA total of 9785 (2665 claudication, 7120 CLTI) eligible patients were identified. After propensity score matching for the CLTI group, 2826, 3608, and 2796 pairs of cases were used to compare balloon angioplasty vs atherectomy, balloon angioplasty vs stent, and stent vs atherectomy, respectively. No statistically significant difference in mortality was observed among all interventions. However, atherectomy was associated with a significant increase in reintervention rate compared with balloon angioplasty (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39; P = .01) and compared with stenting (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10-1.46; P < .01) within the first year after the index procedure. Of note, both atherectomy (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P < .05) and stenting (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P < .01) showed lower rates of major amputation when compared with balloon angioplasty within 1 year after the index procedure. In the claudication group, there were no significant differences observed among interventions for peripheral arterial disease for mortality, reintervention, or amputation rates. ConclusionsFurther studies are needed to identify appropriate indications for atherectomy, because there may be a subset of patients with CLTI who benefit from this therapy with respect to amputation rates. Until then, caution should be exercised when using atherectomy because it is also associated with higher reintervention rates.

Upper Extremity Access Has Worse Outcomes in F/BEVAR Using the VQI Dataset

Physician-modified endografts and custom-manufactured devices use branched and fenestrated techniques (F/BEVAR) to repair complex aneurysms. Traditionally, many of these are deployed through a combination of upper and lower extremity access. However, with newer steerable sheaths, you can now simulate upper extremity (UEM) access from a transfemoral approach. Single-institution studies have demonstrated increased risks of access site complications and stroke when UEM access is used. This study compares outcomes after F/BEVAR in a national database between total transfemoral (TTF) access and mixed UEM access. This study is an analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative for all patients who underwent F/BEVAR from 2014 to 2021. Patients were stratified based on a TTF delivery of all devices versus any UEM access for deployment of target vessel stents. Primary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and perioperative death. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, occlusion or embolization, operative time, fluoroscopy time, and technical success. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. Three thousand one hundred forty six patients underwent an F/BEVAR: 2,309 (73.4%) TTF and 837 (26.6%) UEM. Logistic regression analysis indicated a two-fold increased risk of death and MI and a three-fold increased risk of stroke in the UEM group. Furthermore, there is decreased operative time (221 vs. 297min, P<0.001) and fluoroscopy time (62 vs. 80min, P<0.001) in the TTF group and no difference in technical success between groups (96% vs. 97%, P=0.159). Finally, there was a decrease in access site hematoma 2.54% vs. 4.31% (P=0.013), access site occlusion 0.61% vs. 1.91% (P=0.001), and extremity embolization 2.17% vs. 3.58% (P=0.026) in the TTF versus UEM group. This study using Vascular Quality Initiative data demonstrates that patients who undergo an F/BEVAR using UEM access have an increased risk of perioperative MI, death, and stroke compared to TTF access.

The association of major adverse limb events and combination stent and atherectomy in patients undergoing revascularization for lower extremity peripheral artery disease.

The effectiveness of combined atherectomy and stenting relative to use of each procedure alone for the treatment of lower extremity peripheral artery disease has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term major adverse limb event (MALE) following the receipt of stenting, atherectomy, and the combination of stent and atherectomy. A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing atherectomy, stent, and combination stent atherectomy for lower extremity peripheral artery disease was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data set. The primary outcome was MALE and was assessed in the short-term and long-term. Short-term MALE was assessed immediately following the procedure to discharge and estimated using logistic regression. Long-term MALE was assessed after discharge to end of follow-up and estimated using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model. Among the 46,108 included patients, 6896 (14.95%) underwent atherectomy alone, 35,774 (77.59%) received a stent, and 3438 (7.5%) underwent a combination of stenting and atherectomy. The adjusted model indicated a significantly higher odds of short-term MALE in the atherectomy group (OR = 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.16-1.57), and not significantly different odds (OR = 0.93; 95%CI:0.77-1.13) in the combination stent and atherectomy group when compared to stenting alone. With regard to long-term MALE, the model indicated that the likelihood of experiencing the outcome was slightly lower (HR = 0.90;95%CI:0.82-0.98) in the atherectomy group, and not significantly different (HR = 0.92; 95%CI:0.82-1.04) in the combination stent and atherectomy group when compared to the stent group. Patients in the VQI data set who received combination stenting and atherectomy did not experience significantly different rates of MALE when compared with stenting alone. It is crucial to consider and further evaluate the influence of anatomical characteristics on treatment strategies and potential differential effects of comorbidities and other demographic factors on the short and long-term MALE risks.

Association Between Conduit Type and Outcomes After Open Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms

IntroductionPrior studies have demonstrated acceptable midterm outcomes with prosthetic conduits for above-knee bypass for occlusive disease in patients with inadequate segment great saphenous vein (GSV). In this study we aimed to investigate whether this holds true for open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAA). MethodsWe queried the Vascular Quality Initiative data for patients who underwent open PAA repair (OPAR). We divided the cohort into three groups based on the conduit used: GSV, other autologous veins, or prosthetic graft. Study outcomes included primary patency, freedom from major amputation, amputation-free survival, and overall survival at 1 y. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression were used to compare outcomes between study groups. ResultsA total of 4016 patients underwent bypass for PAA from January 2010 to October 2021. The three cohorts were significantly different in many demographic and clinical characteristics. The adjusted odds of postoperative amputation among symptomatic patients were 3-fold higher for prosthetic conduits compared to the GSV (odds ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.72-5.92; P < 0.001). For the 1-y outcomes, the adjusted risk of major amputation was almost 3-fold higher for patients with symptomatic disease undergoing bypass with prosthetic conduits (hazard ratio [HR], 2.97; 95% CI, 1.35-6.52; P = 0.007). When compared with GSV, prosthetic conduits were associated with 96% increased risk of death when used for repair in symptomatic patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.96; 95% CI, 1.29-2.97; P = 0.002) but no significant association with mortality in asymptomatic patients (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.37-1.87; P = 0.652). When compared with GSV, prosthetic conduits were associated with a 2-fold increased risk of 1-y major amputation or death when used for repair in symptomatic patients (aHR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.40-2.94; P < 0.001) but no significant association with mortality in asymptomatic patients (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.42-1.98; P = 0.816). Comparing bypass with other veins to the GSV among patients with symptomatic disease, there was no statistically significant difference in major amputation risk (HR; 2.44; 95% CI, 0.55-10.82; P = 0.242) and no difference in the adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.26-2.44; P = 0.653). There were no differences in the adjusted risk of loss of primary patency comparing other veins to GSV (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.85-2.76; P = 0.154) and prosthetic conduits to GSV (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.57-1.26; P = 0.422). ConclusionsThis large study shows that among patients undergoing OPAR, 1-y primary patency does not differ between conduit types. However, prosthetic conduits are associated with significantly higher risk of amputation and death compared to GSV among symptomatic patients. Though non-GSV autologous veins are less often used for OPAR, they have comparably acceptable outcomes as GSV.

Black or African American patients undergo great saphenous vein ablation procedures for advanced venous disease and have the least improvement in their symptoms after these procedures

ObjectiveChronic venous insufficiency is an increasingly prevalent problem in the United States, with >25 million individuals currently affected. Previous work has shown that racial minorities and low socioeconomic status are associated with a worse clinical presentation and response to treatment. The present study aimed to determine the relationship between race, patient variables, hospital outcomes, and response to treatment for patients presenting for chronic venous insufficiency intervention. MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent endovenous ablation (radiofrequency or laser) of the great saphenous vein to treat symptomatic, chronic venous insufficiency using Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2014 to 2020. Patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed stratified by patient race. The χ2 test and the Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test were used to measure the study outcomes. The primary outcomes were an improved venous clinical severity score and improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Patient characteristics, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification, prior venous interventions, length of stay, and time to follow-up were compared between races. ResultsThe database consisted of 9009 predominantly female patients (n = 6041; 67.1%), with a mean age distribution of 56 years. Of the 9009 patients, 7892 are White (87.6%), 627 Hispanic (6.9%), and 490 Black or African American (18.3%). The Hispanic cohort was younger than their White and Black/African American counterparts. Black/African American patients presented with more advanced clinical stages than did the White and Hispanic groups. The clinical stage according to race was as follows: C3—Black/African American, 32.9%; Hispanic, 38.9%; White, 46%; C5—Black/African American, 4.7%; Hispanic, 2.1%; White, 2.3%; and C6—Black/African American, 12.7%; Hispanic, 3.2%; White, 6.2%. Black/African American patients were more likely to present as overweight or obese (66%; P < .001) and less likely to be taking anticoagulation medication preoperatively (11%; P < .001). Non-White race was associated with a higher probability of treatment in the hospital setting (Black/African American, 63.6%; Hispanic, 87.5%; P < .001). Black/African American patients (3.25 ± 4.4; P < .001) demonstrated lower mean improvement postoperatively in both the venous clinical severity score and patient-reported outcomes than their White (4.25 ± 4.13, P <.001) and Hispanic (4.42 ± 3.78; P < .001) counterparts. ConclusionsDifferences exist in the clinical severity and symptom presentation based on race. Black/African American patients present with more advanced chronic venous insufficiency than do their White and Hispanic counterparts. Furthermore, the postprocedural analysis showed inferior clinical and self-reported improvement in chronic venous insufficiency for the Black/African American patients. Although the Hispanic population was younger, the White and Hispanic patients experienced similar responses to treatment.

Machine Learning Model Predicts Open Bypass Outcomes in VQI Claudicants

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) studies have largely focused on patients with acute or critical limb ischemia, although one in five patients with PAD are claudicants. New endovascular technology has fallen into favor for use in patients with claudication. However, there is debate surrounding the longevity of these interventions that may ultimately still result in a patient requiring an open bypass that could possible last a patient's lifetime. The aim of this prospective study was to leverage existing data in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database and preoperatively risk stratify patients with lifestyle-limiting claudication who may be eligible for an open bypass. The VQI was queried for all patients who underwent infrainguinal lower extremity bypass between December 2004 and December 2017. Of the 71,561 procedures, 15,633 of these procedures were initial open procedures performed for patients with lifestyle-limiting claudication. Our outcomes of interest included 30-day survival, major adverse limb events (MALE), and major cardiac events (MCE). The machine learning algorithm Random Forrest was used to identify univariate significant predictors after multiple testing correction. Generalized liner models with all significant predictors were then trained on 80% of the existing data set and tested on 20% of the dataset for accuracy of predicting outcomes. Eleven percent of patients survived after 30 days, 3.2% had an MALE, and 14% had an MCE. The best performing prediction model created was for 30-day survival, where we included the following predictors identified on univariate analysis in addition to age, race, and gender: utilizing a conduit other than great saphenous vein (GSV) (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.88; P corrected = .05), uncontrolled hypertension (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; P corrected = 8.96 × 10−11), preoperative ambulation with assistance (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.53-2.01; P corrected = 8.39 × 10−12), quitting smoking before the surgery (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; P corrected = .05), and having a preoperative computed tomography angiography available (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.43; P corrected = .02). Model characteristics for each of the three outcome are listed in Table I. The model for 30-day readmission had an area under the curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82) (Fig). We developed a model to predict 30-day survival in claudicants undergoing infrainguenal bypass using clinical characteristics commonly available to physicians. This computational machine learning model was developed using real world VQI data and can possibly be used in a general clinic setting for preoperative risk stratification.TableModel characteristics used to predict 30-day survival, major adverse limb event (MALE) created from a composite of any limb amputation and any return to the operating room for revision, and major cardiac event (MCE) created from a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death30-day survivalMALEMCEAUC (95% CI)0.79 (0.74-0.82)0.68 (0.57-0.72)0.71 (0.69-0.74)TPR (IQR)0.79 (0.66-0.91)0.55 (0.27-0.83)0.76 (0.50-0.90)FPR (IQR)0.46 (0.20-0.73)0.39 (0.10-0.69)0.47 (0.22-0.73)Cutoff0.10.030.1Sensitivity0.810.680.65Specificity0.640.510.65AUC, Area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; FPR, false positive rate; IQR, interquartile range; TPR, true positive rate. Open table in a new tab

Protamine Sulfate Following Carotid Artery Stenting: Does the Patient’s Gender Matter?

Protamine sulfate can be administrated to decrease the risk of bleeding after the carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure. Although a few studies reported data regarding the efficacy and safety of protamine, the existing literature assessing its impact under more personalized patient circumstances is limited. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to identify the potential factors where the patients are more likely to benefit from protamine sulfate after CAS procedures. A retrospective review of Vascular Quality Initiative data between 2016 and 2022 to identify all patients who underwent CAS procedures was performed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach: transfemoral CAS (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). A multivariate model was conducted to identify the perioperative predictors of bleeding complications in each cohort. In addition, a propensity score matching was performed to compare the rates of thrombotic events between protamine vs no protamine groups in both cohorts. A total of 61,686 patients were identified; 36.6% were female. Approximately 53% of the patients underwent TCAR (protamine: 85.6%; no protamine: 14.4%), whereas TF-CAS was performed in 46.8% (protamine: 18.9%; no protamine: 81.1%). Protamine use was associated with a decreased risk of bleeding complications after TCAR (0.26 [0.2-0.3]; P < .001) but not TF-CAS (1.06 [0.8-1.3]; P = .6164). However, the protamine beneficial impact is more apparent among the female patients regardless of the surgical approach (Table). In addition, no significant increase was noted in the thrombotic complications in both TF-CAS (protamine vs no protamine: death, 7.9% vs 11.5%; myocardial infarction, 0.5% vs 0.9%; stroke/transient ischemic attack, 2.8% vs 2.9%; P > .05 for all, except death P < .001) and TCAR (protamine vs no protamine: death, 7.7% vs 7.3%; myocardial infarction, 0.4% vs 0.3%; stroke/transient ischemic attack, 2.4% vs 2.9%; P > .05 for all) groups. Protamine sulfate appears to be effective in reducing the bleeding complications in patients who undergo TCAR but not TF-CAS, without an increase in the thrombotic complications. However, this beneficial impact is more significant among female patients regardless of the CAS approach.TablePerioperative predictors of bleeding complications after TCAR and TF-CASaCovariatebNo protamineProtamineAdjusted odds ratio (95% CI)P valueAdjusted odds ratio (95% CI)P value(A) TCAR Sex (female)1.45 (1.2-1.9).00501.08 (0.9-1.3).4639 Race (Asian) (Ref: White)4.29 (1.4-13.1).01041.31 (0.6-3.0).5139 Symptomatic CHF1.67 (1.1-2.6).02451.21 (0.8-1.7).3206(B) TF-CAS Sex (female)1.76 (1.4 – 2.2)<.0011.14 (0.8 – 1.7).5277ACEI, Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CHF, congestive heart failure; CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; TCAR, transcarotid artery revascularization; TF-CAS, transfemoral carotid artery stenting.aOnly the perioperative predictors that were statistically significant on the univariate and multivariate analysis are shown in this table.bOther covariates: age ≥65, Hispanic ethnicity, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, dialysis status, smoking, and COPD), perioperative medications (aspirin, antiplatelet, statin, β-blockers, ACEIs/ARBs), and type of anesthesia. Open table in a new tab

Doctors, not facilities, perform procedures

Chow et al 1 Chow C.Y. Mathlouthi A. Zarrintan S. Swafford E. Siracuse J.J. Malas M.B. Outcomes of elective peripheral endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease performed in hospital outpatient departments versus ambulatory surgical centers versus office-based labs. J Vasc Surg. 2023; 77: 1732-1740 Google Scholar have provided us with an interesting paper that details differences in equipment utilization, risk factors, complications, and technical outcomes in outpatient facilities where patients with peripheral arterial disease are treated. Typical of a paper from a Vascular Quality Initiative data review, we are overwhelmed with facts and figures. However, in this forest of data, there is one tree that stands out. Patients’ demographics, comorbidities, indications, and treatment will differ depending on whether they are treated in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD), ambulatory surgical center (ASC), or outpatient-based lab (OBL). Outcomes of elective peripheral endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease performed in hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgical centers and office-based labsJournal of Vascular SurgeryVol. 77Issue 6PreviewA recent shift in the location where peripheral endovascular interventions (PVI) are performed has occurred, from traditional settings such as hospital outpatient departments (HOPD), to ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) and outpatient-based laboratories (OBL). Different settings may influence the safety and efficacy of the PVI, as well as how it is done. This study aims to compare the postprocedural outcomes and intraprocedural details between the three settings. Full-Text PDF

Open Versus Endovascular Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization Outcomes in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A National Study

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization is recommended in patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with LSA coverage. However, the outcomes of open vs endovascular techniques for LSA revascularization remain poorly studied due to lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this study is to use a large national database to compare the effects of open vs endovascular LSA revascularization for LSA coverage during TEVAR on the perioperative outcomes of stroke, arm ischemia (AI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), 30-day mortality, and reintervention. Patients who had undergone LSA revascularization for LSA coverage in the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR database between 2011 and 2022 were identified. Patients with no coverage of the LSA, no LSA revascularization after LSA coverage, conversion to open repair, proximal disease > zone 5, distal zone disease < zone 3, and genetic history of connective tissue disease were excluded. We divided our cohort into two groups: open and endovascular revascularization of LSA. Open LSA revascularization was defined as treatment with surgical bypass. Endovascular LSA revascularization was defined as treatment with stent, stent graft, chimney, scallop, stented scallop, fenestration, stented fenestration, fenestrated branch, side-arm branch, and iliac device. Outcomes were perioperative stroke, AI, SCI, 30-day mortality, and reintervention. A total of 3052 patients met our inclusion criteria. There were 2396 (78.5%) patients in the open LSA revascularization group and 656 (21.5%) patients in the endovascular LSA revascularization group. The results are summarized in the Table. When compared with open LSA revascularization, endovascular LSA revascularization showed no significant difference in the risk of stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.5; P = .498), AI (aOR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.7-3.1; P = .273), SCI (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5; P = .337), and 30-day mortality (aOR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.0; P = .254). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the risk of reintervention (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4-1.2; P = .166). In this analysis of Vascular Quality Initiative data, both open and endovascular LSA revascularization for LSA coverage during TEVAR were equally effective and durable with no significant difference in outcomes of stroke, AI, SCI, 30-day mortality, and reintervention. Thus, endovascular LSA revascularization is a viable alternative to open LSA revascularization that could reduce the need for staged carotid-subclavian bypass or transposition procedures. Further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcomes of open vs endovascular LSA revascularization, in addition to comparing the outcomes of specific endovascular techniques to each other.TableMultivariate logistic regression of stroke, arm ischemia (AI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), 30-day mortality, and reintervention outcomesOutcomeEndovascular LSA revascularization vs open LSA revascularizationaOR (95% CI) (reference = open LSA revascularization)P valueStroke1.1 (0.8-1.5).498AI1.5 (0.7-3.1).273SCI0.7 (0.3-1.5).33730-day mortality1.3 (0.8-2.0).254Reintervention0.7 (0.4-1.2).166aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; LSA, left subclavian artery. Open table in a new tab

Vascular Quality Initiative assessment of compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on the management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease

ObjectivesCompliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is associated with improved outcomes for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, but this has not been assessed for carotid artery disease. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry was used to examine compliance with the SVS CPGs for the management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease and its impact on outcomes. MethodsThe 2021 SVS extracranial cerebrovascular disease CPGs were reviewed for evaluation by VQI data. Compliance rates by the center and provider were calculated, and the impact of compliance on outcomes was assessed using logistic regression with inverse probability-weighted risk adjustment for each CPG recommendation, allowing for clustering by the center. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death. As a secondary analysis, compliance with the 2021 SVS carotid implementation document recommendations and associated outcomes were also assessed. ResultsOf the 11 carotid CPG recommendations, 4 (36%) could be evaluated using VQI registry data. Median center-specific CPG compliance ranged from 38% to 95%, and median provider-specific compliance ranged from 36% to 100%. After adjustment, compliance with 2 of the recommendations was associated with lower rates of in-hospital stroke/death: first, the use of best medical therapy (antiplatelet and statin therapy) in low/standard surgical risk patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for >70% asymptomatic stenosis (event rate in compliant vs noncompliant cases 0.59% vs 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.66); and second, carotid endarterectomy over transfemoral carotid artery stenting in low/standard surgical risk patients with >50% symptomatic stenosis (1.9% vs 3.4%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.71). Of the 132 implementation document recommendations, only 10 (7.6%) could be assessed using VQI data, with median center- and provider-specific compliance rates ranging from 67% to 100%. The impact of compliance on outcomes could only be assessed for 6 (4.5%) of these recommendations, and compliance with all 6 recommendations was associated with lower stroke/death. ConclusionsFew SVS recommendations could be assessed in the VQI because of incongruity between the recommendations and the VQI data variables collected. Although guideline compliance was extremely variable among VQI centers and providers, compliance with most of these recommendations was associated with improved outcomes after carotid revascularization. This finding confirms the value of guideline compliance, which should be encouraged for centers and providers. Optimization of VQI data to promote evaluation of guideline compliance and distribution of these findings to VQI centers and providers will help facilitate quality improvement efforts in the care of vascular patients.

Trends and outcomes associated with intravascular ultrasound use during femoropopliteal revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in lower extremity interventions is growing in popularity owing to its imaging in the axial plane, superior detail in imaging lesion characteristics, and its enhanced ability to delineate lesion severity and extent compared with catheter angiograms. However, there are conflicting data regarding whether IVUS affects outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect associated with IVUS implementation in femoropopliteal interventions. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used Vascular Quality Initiative data. Patients undergoing an index endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization from 2016 to 2021 were included. Patients were differentiated by whether or not IVUS was used to assess the femoropopliteal segment during intervention (no IVUS, IVUS). Propensity score matching, based on preoperative demographics and measures of disease severity was used. Primary outcomes were major amputation-free survival (AFS), femoropopliteal reintervention-free survival (RFS), and primarily patent survival (PPS) at 12 months. ResultsIVUS use grew steadily throughout the study period, comprising 0.6% of interventions in 2016 and increasing to 8.2% of interventions by 2021; growth was most dramatic in ambulatory surgical center or office-based laboratory settings where IVUS use grew from 4.4% to 43% to 47% of interventions. In unmatched cohorts, patients receiving interventions using IVUS tended to have lower prevalence of multiple cardiovascular comorbidities (eg, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and dialysis dependence) and presented more often with claudication and less often with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Intraoperatively, IVUS was used more often in complex femoropopliteal lesions (Transatlantic Intersociety grade D vs A), and more often in conjunction with stenting and/or atherectomy. IVUS use was associated with improved AFS, but similar RFS and PPS at 12 months. However, in multivariable analysis IVUS was not associated with any of the primary outcomes independently; rather, all outcomes were influenced primarily by CLTI, dialysis dependence, and prior major amputation status; technical outcomes (ie, RFS and PPS loss) were further driven by complexity of lesion (worse in Transatlantic Intersociety grade D vs A lesions) and treatment setting (ie, ambulatory surgical center or office-based laboratory setting associated with increased hazard for RFS and PPS loss). ConclusionsIVUS implementation in femoropopliteal interventions is growing, with rapid adoption among interventions in ambulatory surgical centers and office-based laboratories. IVUS was not associated with an effect on technical outcomes at 12 months; improvement in major AFS was observed; however, multivariable analysis suggests this finding may be an effect of confounding by multiple factors highly associated with IVUS use, namely, in patients with lower prevalence of CLTI, dialysis dependence, and prior major amputations, thus conveying baseline lower risk for major amputation and death.