Andres Guerra1, Joe M Feinglass2, Matthew C Chia3, Ashley K Vavra3. 1. Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of Vascular Surgery, Surgery Department, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: andres.guerra@northwestern.edu. 2. Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Chicago, IL. 3. Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of Vascular Surgery, Surgery Department, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluate patient outcomes after endovascular aortic interventions performed for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialties. METHODS: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), fenestrated or branched repair (F-BEVAR), and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures were obtained from the Illinois Hospital Association Comparative Health Care and Hospital Data Reporting Services database from 2016 to 2019. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to determine outcomes by patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 4,935 procedures, 3,666 (74.3%) EVAR, 567 (11.5%) F-BEVAR, and 702 (14.2%) TEVAR were performed by vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Vascular surgeons performed interventions equally between hospital types while interventional radiologists primarily performed interventions in teaching hospitals (68.1%) and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons typically performed interventions in community hospitals (91.8% and 82.1%, respectively; P < .001). No differences in inpatient mortality were noted between specialties. Patients treated by interventional radiologists had increased odds of staying in the hospital ≥8 days (odd ration [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.19) and patients treated by interventional cardiologists had lower odds of being admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.95). CONCLUSION: Differences in practice patterns among specialties performing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for nonruptured aneurysms suggest opportunities for collaboration to optimize quality of care.
BACKGROUND: Evaluate patient outcomes after endovascular aortic interventions performed for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialties. METHODS: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), fenestrated or branched repair (F-BEVAR), and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures were obtained from the Illinois Hospital Association Comparative Health Care and Hospital Data Reporting Services database from 2016 to 2019. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to determine outcomes by patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 4,935 procedures, 3,666 (74.3%) EVAR, 567 (11.5%) F-BEVAR, and 702 (14.2%) TEVAR were performed by vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Vascular surgeons performed interventions equally between hospital types while interventional radiologists primarily performed interventions in teaching hospitals (68.1%) and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons typically performed interventions in community hospitals (91.8% and 82.1%, respectively; P < .001). No differences in inpatient mortality were noted between specialties. Patients treated by interventional radiologists had increased odds of staying in the hospital ≥8 days (odd ration [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.19) and patients treated by interventional cardiologists had lower odds of being admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.95). CONCLUSION: Differences in practice patterns among specialties performing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for nonruptured aneurysms suggest opportunities for collaboration to optimize quality of care.
Authors: Brandon A McCutcheon; Mark A Talamini; David C Chang; John A Rose; Dennis F Bandyk; Samuel E Wilson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Giovanni Tinelli; Maria Antonietta Crea; Chiara de Waure; Gian Luca Di Tanna; Jean-Pierre Becquemin; Jonathan Sobocinski; Francesco Snider; Stéphan Haulon Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Ali F AbuRahma; John E Campbell; Nizar Hariri; Joseph AbuRahma; L Scott Dean; Mark C Bates; Aravinda Nanjundappa; Patrick A Stone; Ace O'vil Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Virendra I Patel; Shankha Mukhopadhyay; Emel Ergul; Nathan Aranson; Mark F Conrad; Glenn M Lamuraglia; Christopher J Kwolek; Richard P Cambria Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Sarah E Deery; Katie E Shean; Grace J Wang; James H Black; Gilbert R Upchurch; Kristina A Giles; Virendra I Patel; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Andres Schanzer; Jessica P Simons; Julie Flahive; Jonathan Durgin; Francesco A Aiello; Danielle Doucet; Robert Steppacher; Louis M Messina Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Ruby C Lo; Rodney P Bensley; Allen D Hamdan; Mark Wyers; Julie E Adams; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Rossella Fattori; Daniel Montgomery; Luigi Lovato; Stephan Kische; Marco Di Eusanio; Hüseyin Ince; Kim A Eagle; Eric M Isselbacher; Christoph A Nienaber Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Caitlin W Hicks; Husain N Alshaikh; Devin Zarkowsky; Ian C Bostock; Besma Nejim; Mahmoud B Malas Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Mark D Morasch; Melina R Kibbe; Mary E Evans; Wendy S Meadows; Mark K Eskandari; Jon S Matsumura; William H Pearce Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.268