Dataset Information

Volume-Outcome Relationships in Surgical and Endovascular Repair of Aortic Dissection.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:As surgical mortality decreases and endovascular utilization increases, it is unknown whether volume-outcome relationships exist in thoracic aortic dissection repair. We characterized volume-outcome relationships for surgical and endovascular management of thoracic aortic dissection. METHODS:Patients aged more than 18 years undergoing repair of thoracic aortic dissection in the United States between 2010 and 2014 were identified in seven all-payer state inpatient administrative databases. Patients were divided into groups based on type of repair: surgical repair of type A dissection (TAAD), surgical repair of type B dissection (TBAD), and endovascular repair (TEVAR). Hierarchical logistic regression models evaluated the association between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS:Overall in-hospital mortality rate was 13.4% (890 of 6650), highest after TAAD (463 of 2918, 15.9%), followed by TBAD (270 of 1934, 14.0%) and TEVAR (157 of 1798, 8.7%). Volume-outcome relationships for adjusted in-hospital mortality were demonstrated for TAAD and TBAD (P-trend < .001), but not TEVAR (P-trend = .11). Adjusted in-hospital mortality differed most for TAAD (fewer than 3 cases per year: 21%, 95% confidence interval, 18% to 24%; vs 11 or more cases per year: 12%, 95% confidence interval, 8% to 16%; P < .001) and TBAD (fewer than 2 cases per year: 18%, 95% confidence interval, 15% to 22%; vs 11 or more cases per year: 9%, 95% confidence interval, 5% to 12%; P < .001), whereas TEVAR did not differ between quartiles. Adjusted mortality was lower at centers with 26 or more overall annual thoracic dissection repairs, compared with any of the three lower-volume quartiles (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated lower mortality at high-volume hospitals for overall repair of aortic dissection, persisting separately for surgical repair of TAAD and TBAD, but not TEVAR. As endovascular technology advances and practice patterns consequently change, analyses should focus on understanding the balance between procedural volume, mortality, and access to care for thoracic aortic dissection.

SUBMITTER: Brescia AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6815257 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Volume-Outcome Relationships in Surgical and Endovascular Repair of Aortic Dissection.

Brescia Alexander A AA Patel Himanshu J HJ Likosky Donald S DS Watt Tessa M F TMF Wu Xiaoting X Strobel Raymond J RJ Kim Karen M KM Fukuhara Shinichi S Yang Bo B Deeb G Michael GM Thompson Michael P MP

The Annals of thoracic surgery 20190807 5

<h4>Background</h4>As surgical mortality decreases and endovascular utilization increases, it is unknown whether volume-outcome relationships exist in thoracic aortic dissection repair. We characterized volume-outcome relationships for surgical and endovascular management of thoracic aortic dissection.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients aged more than 18 years undergoing repair of thoracic aortic dissection in the United States between 2010 and 2014 were identified in seven all-payer state inpatient admini ...[more]

PMID: 31400334

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRetrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) is a rare but life-threatening complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). A graft inversion technique was applied to distal anastomosis in total arch replacement for this complicated dissection. We reviewed our results of the processing for this serious complication. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of this technology.MethodsFrom January 2013 to December 2017, 20 patients (80% male, mean age 50.9 ± 9.5 years) with retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection were scheduled for surgical treatment at our center. All patients underwent an ascending aorta and total aortic arch replacement procedure. The 20 patients were divided into two groups, 1 group involved 9 patients underwent surgery using stepwise technique; the graft inversion technique was performed in the other group containing the remaining 11 patients. The postoperative variables, including cardiopulmonary bypass time, the circulatory arrest time, the aortic cross clamp time, were analyzed. Meanwhile we also analyzed the postoperative mortality and complications to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of surgical treatment for RTAD after TEVAR.ResultsIn-hospital mortality was 10% (2 of 20 patients). No patient developed postoperative paraplegia, renal failure, stroke, or distal anastomotic bleeding. Two patients developed renal insufficiency, one developed neurologic insufficiency, and one developed pulmonary infection, all of which were managed accordingly. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and circulatory arrest time were significantly shorter in the graft inversion group than in the stepwise group (165.8 ± 37.9 min versus 206.1 ± 46.8 min, p<0.05; 34.5 ± 5.6 min versus 42.4 ± 9.5 min, p<0.05, respectively). The 18 survivors had a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 18.2 months, and all patients remained alive and well.ConclusionGraft inversion can enable a secure distal anastomosis under good surgical exposure, resulting in reduced durations of CPB, and circulatory arrest for RTAD after TEVAR. Surgical treatment could be a safe alternative for treatment of this patients.

Project description:Background The treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection by thoracic endovascular aortic repair has some challenges, and its long-term outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze the 5-year clinical outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair of chronic type B aortic dissection, compare the differences between patients with and without adverse aortic events (AAEs), and identify risk factors for AAEs. Methods and Results Patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair of chronic type B aortic dissection from January 2009 to June 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. The primary end points were AAEs, including aorta-related death, procedural complications, and disease progression requiring reintervention. Clinical outcomes were described at the 5-year follow-up visit. The secondary end point was the comparison of the results between patients with and without AAEs. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were used to identify potential risk factors for AAEs. A total of 214 patients were enrolled. AAEs occurred in 46 (21.5%) patients. Compared with patients without AAEs, those with AAEs had higher rates of residual type A aortic dissection (26.1% versus 4.2%, P<0.001) and aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm (69.6% versus 11.3%, P<0.001), and a lower rate of complete false lumen thrombosis (23.9% versus 89.9%, P<0.001). Meanwhile, the median interval from symptom onset to intervention was longer in patients with AAEs (26 months versus 12 months, P=0.004). Partial or no false lumen thrombosis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 14.71 [95% CI, 5.67-38.14; P<0.001]) and aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm (AOR, 10.16 [95% CI, 3.86-26.73; P<0.001]) were identified as independent risk factors for AAEs. Conclusions While thoracic endovascular aortic repair of chronic type B aortic dissection might be challenging in some cases, its long-term outcomes appeared promising as this treatment was effective in preventing catastrophic aortic events. Patients with AAEs showed higher rates of residual type A aortic dissection and aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm, a lower rate of complete false lumen thrombosis, and a longer median interval from symptom onset to intervention. Failure of complete false lumen thrombosis and an aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm were predictors of AAEs.

Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Project description:ObjectiveWe examined readmissions and resource use during the first postoperative year in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair or open surgical repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection.MethodsThe Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018) was queried for patients with type B aortic dissection who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair or open surgical repair. The primary outcome was readmission during the first postoperative year. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day readmission rates, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine risk factors for readmission.ResultsDuring the study period, type B aortic dissection repair was performed in 6456 patients, of whom 3517 (54.5%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair and 2939 (45.5%) underwent open surgical repair. Patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair were older (63 vs 59 years; P < .001) with fewer comorbidities (Elixhauser score of 11 vs 17; P < .001) than patients undergoing open surgical repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair was performed electively more often than open surgical repair (29% vs 20%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 9% overall and lower in the thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohort than in the open surgical repair cohort (5% vs 13%; P < .001). However, the 90-day readmission rate was comparable between the thoracic endovascular aortic repair and open surgical repair cohorts (28% vs 27%; P = .7). Freedom from readmission for up to 1 year was also similar between cohorts (P = .6). Independent predictors of 1-year readmission included length of stay more than 10 days (P = .005) and Elixhauser comorbidity risk index greater than 4 (P = .033).ConclusionsApproximately one-third of all patients with type B aortic dissection were readmitted within 90 days after aortic intervention. Surprisingly, readmission during the first postoperative year was similar in the open surgical repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohorts, despite marked differences in preoperative patient characteristics and interventions.

Project description:Background For complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the recommended treatment; however, the type of renal artery that should be repaired remains controversial. The study aimed to investigate the changes in the renal artery and renal volume in complicated TBAD after TEVAR and the predictors of renal atrophy. Methods The cohort study retrospectively enrolled patients with acute and subacute complicated TBAD who underwent aortic computed tomography angiography (CTA) 1 month before as well as 1 week and half a year after TEVAR from January 2010 to May 2017. According to the source of blood supply shown in preoperative CT, the renal artery was classified in 3 ways: type 1, supplied by the aortic true lumen; type 2, supplied by the aortic false lumen; or type 3, supplied by both the true and false lumen. Results A total of 91 patients (81 men and 10 women) with an average age of 48.12±10.35 years were enrolled. Renal arteries were classified as type 1 (n=91), type 2 (n=35), and type 3 (n=56). There was no difference in the distribution of the 3 types on the left and right sides (type 1 vs. type 2 vs. type 3: 52:39 vs. 15:20 vs. 24:32; P=0.152). After TEVAR, type 3 was more likely to have spontaneous healing than type 2 (16.1% vs. 2.9%; P=0.049). There was no significant difference in the preoperative volume of kidneys of the 3 types (type 1 vs. type 2 vs. type 3: 198.23±38.68 vs. 197.37±41.77 vs. 195.10±36.11 mL; P=0.893). The postoperative volume of types 2 and 3 was smaller than that of type 1 (type 1 vs. type 2 vs. type 3: 190.09±43.25 vs. 165.15±52.63 vs. 170.70±45.28 mL; P=0.006). The renal volume was reduced in all 3 types of renal artery, especially in type 2 (the change of renal volume for type 1 vs. type 2 vs. type 3: −8.14±29.31 vs. −32.22±41.59 vs. −24.41±38.44 mL; P=0.001). The relative change of renal volume for type 1 vs. type 2 vs. type 3: (−3.64±15.69)% vs. (−16.00±21.29)% vs. (−11.97±18.22)%; P=0.001). During the median follow-up of 668 days, 7 patients (7.7%) belonging to types 2 and 3 developed renal atrophy. False lumen thrombosis in the abdominal aorta and/or the renal artery was the predictor of renal atrophy [hazard ratio (HR) =17.757; P=0.008]. Conclusions Patients with type 2 or 3 renal artery and false lumen thrombosis in the abdominal aorta and/or renal artery should be monitored closely and actively intervened to prevent renal atrophy.

Dataset Information

Volume-Outcome Relationships in Surgical and Endovascular Repair of Aortic Dissection.

Publications

Volume-Outcome Relationships in Surgical and Endovascular Repair of Aortic Dissection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets