Objectives Women have been shown to have up to a four-fold higher risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture at any given aneurysm diameter compared to men, leading to recommendations to offer repair to women at lower diameter thresholds. Although this higher risk of rupture may simply reflect greater relative aortic dilatation in women who have smaller aortas to begin with, this has never been quantified. Our objective was therefore to quantify the relationship between rupture and aneurysm diameter relative to body size and to determine whether a differential association between aneurysm diameter, body size, and rupture risk exists for men and women. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database who underwent endovascular or open AAA repair. Using each patient’s height and weight, body mass index (BMI) and body surface area (BSA) were calculated. Next, indices of each measure of body size (height, weight, BMI, BSA) relative to aneurysm diameter were calculated for each patient. To generate these indices, we divided aneurysm diameter (in cm) by the measure of body size [e.g. aortic size index (ASI) = aneurysm diameter (cm) / BSA (m2)]. Along with other relevant clinical variables, we used these indices to construct different age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models to determine predictors of ruptured repair vs. elective repair. Models for men and women were developed separately and different models were compared using the area under the curve (AUC). Results We identified 4045 patients who underwent AAA repair (78% male, 53% EVAR). Women had significantly smaller diameter aneurysms, lower BSA, and higher BSA indices than men (Table 1). For men, the variable that increased the odds of rupture the most was aneurysm diameter (AUC = 0.82). Men exhibited an increased rupture risk with increasing aneurysm diameter (<5.5cm: OR 1.0; 5.5–6.4cm: OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5–1.7, P=.771; 6.5–7.4cm: OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.9–1.0, P<.001; 7.5+ cm: OR 11.3, 95% CI 4.9–25.8, P<.001). In contrast, the variable most predictive of rupture in women was ASI (AUC = 0.81), with higher odds of rupture at higher ASI(ASI >3.5–3.9: OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.7–24.1, P=.006; ASI 4.0+: OR 9.5, 95% CI 2.3–39.4, P=.002). For women, aneurysm diameter was not a significant predictor of rupture after adjusting for ASI. Conclusion Aneurysm diameter indexed to body size is the most important determinant of rupture for women whereas aneurysm diameter alone is most predictive of rupture for men. Women with the largest diameter aneurysms and the smallest body sizes are at the greatest risk of rupture.

BACKGROUND Postoperative readmission, recently identified as a marker of hospital quality in the Affordable Care Act, is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs, yet data on readmission following lower extremity amputation is limited. We evaluated risk factors for readmission and post-discharge adverse events following lower extremity amputation in the ACS-NSQIP. STUDY DESIGN All patients undergoing transmetatarsal (TMA), below-knee (BKA) or above-knee amputation (AKA) in the 2011 – 2012 NSQIP were identified. Independent pre-discharge predictors of 30-day readmission were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Readmission indication and re-interventions, available in the 2012 NSQIP only, were also evaluated. RESULTS We identified 5,732 patients undergoing amputation (TMA: 12%; BKA: 51%; AKA: 37%). Readmission rate was 18%. Post-discharge mortality rate was 5% (TMA: 2%; BKA: 3%; AKA: 8%; p<.001). Overall complication rate was 43% (In-hospital: 32%; Post-discharge: 11%). Reoperation was for wound related complication or additional amputation in 79% of cases. Independent predictors of readmission included chronic nursing home residence (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7), non-elective surgery (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1–1.7), prior revascularization/amputation (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1–1.7), preoperative congestive heart failure (OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.2–2.4), and preoperative dialysis (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2–1.9). Guillotine amputation (OR: .6; 95%CI: .4–.9) and non-home discharge (OR: .7; 95%CI: .6–1.0) were protective of readmission. Wound related complications accounted for 49% of readmissions. CONCLUSIONS Post discharge morbidity, mortality and readmission are common following lower extremity amputation. Closer follow up of high risk patients, optimization of medical comorbidities and aggressive management of wound infection may play a role in decreasing readmission and post discharge adverse events.

Objectives Administrative data have been used to compare carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, there are limitations in defining symptom status, CMS high-risk status, as well as complications. Therefore, we did a direct comparison between administrative data and physician chart review as well as between data collected for the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and physician chart review for CEA and CAS. Methods We performed an outcomes analysis on all CEA and CAS procedures from 2005–2011. We obtained ICD-9 diagnosis codes from hospital discharge records regarding symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative stroke. We also obtained data on all CEA patients submitted to NSQIP over the same time period. A physician then performed a chart review of the same patients to determine symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative strokes and the results were compared. Results We identified 1342 patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 2005–2011 and 392 patients who underwent CEA that were submitted to NSQIP. Administrative data identified fewer symptomatic patients (17.0% vs. 34.0%), fewer physiologic high-risk patients (9.3% vs. 23.0%), fewer anatomic high-risk patients (0% vs. 15.2%), and a similar proportion of perioperative strokes (1.9% vs. 2.0%). However, administrative data identified 8 false positive and 9 false negative perioperative strokes. NSQIP data identified more symptomatic patients compared to chart review (44.1% vs. 30.3%), fewer physiologic high-risk patients (13.0% vs. 18.6%), fewer anatomic high-risk patients (0% vs. 6.6%), and a similar proportion of perioperative strokes (1.5% vs. 1.8%, only 1 false negative stroke and no false positives). Conclusions Administrative data are unreliable for determining symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative stroke and should not be used to analyze CEA and CAS. NSQIP data do not adequately identify high-risk patients, but do accurately identify perioperative strokes and to a lesser degree, symptom status.

Background and Purpose-Patients with both carotid stenosis and previously cervical radiation therapy are considered "high risk" for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) seems a reasonable alternative, but neither the operative risk for CEA nor the effectiveness of CAS has been proven. The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative and long-term outcome of both procedures in patients with radiation therapy. Methods-A systematic search strategy with the synonyms "carotid artery stenosis" and "cervical irradiation" was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. To provide and compare estimates of outcomes, pooled and metaregression analyses were performed. Results-Twenty-seven articles comprising 533 patients undergoing radiation therapy (361 CAS and 172 CEA) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed perioperative risk for "any cerebrovascular adverse event" (CVE) of 3.9% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.7%) in CAS studies against 3.5% (95% CI, 1.5%-8.0%) in CEA studies (Pϭ0.77). Risk for cranial nerve injury (CNI) after CEA was 9.2% (95% CI, 3.7%-21.1%) versus none after CAS. Late outcome showed rates of CVE favoring CEA (Pϭ0.014). The rate of restenosis Ͼ50% was significantly higher in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA (PϽ0.003). Conclusions-Both CAS and CEA proved to be feasible revascularization techniques with low risk for CVE. Although patients undergoing CEA had more temporary CNI, higher rates of late CVE and restenosis were identified after CAS.