Center volume is associated with diminished failure to rescue and improved outcomes following elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Objective: Conflicting annual procedure volumes have been endorsed among different watchdog groups and professional societies, obscuring credentialing paradigms. There has been ample focus on surgeon volume to date but less attention on the effect of center volume. Specifically, whether center volume might be a better proxy for high-quality care. In the present study, we aimed to measure the association of center volume on open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OAR) outcomes and failure to rescue (FTR). Methods: All elective OARs (2003-2020) in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative were reviewed (n = 9791). FTR was defined as in-hospital death after the occurrence of a complication (ie, cardiac, stroke, pulmonary, renal, colonic ischemia, return to the operating room for bleeding). The annual center volume for 218 hospitals was calculated, and the volume quartiles (quartile 1 [Q1], <= 3 procedures/y; quartile 2 [Q2], 4-6 procedures/y; quartile 3 [Q3], 7-10 procedures/y; quartile 4 [Q4], >10 procedures/y) were derived for comparison. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of center volume and determine the predictors of FTR. Results: The center volume quartiles and incidence of FTR varied significantly (Q4, 2.5% vs Q1 and Q2, 4.9%; P < .0001; overall FTR, 3.1% [n = 302]). The patients were demographically similar among the quartiles. High-volume centers had used epidural anesthesia more often (Q4, 53%; vs Q1, 31%; P < .0001) but were less likely to use thrombectomy (Q4, 5%; vs Q1, 10%; P < .0001) or any concomitant procedure (Q4, 19%; vs Q1, 22%; P = .05). High-volume centers had had lower rates of pulmonary, renal, and overall complications (pulmonary: Q4, 7%; vs Q1-Q2, 8%-11%; renal: Q4, 16%; vs Q1-2, 19%-21%; P < .0001; overall mean number of complications: Q4, 0.46; vs Q1, 0.52; P = .0008). The crude 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were reduced at the higher volume centers (30 days: Q4, 3%; vs Q1-Q2, 6%; P < .0001; 1 year: Q4, 7%; vs Q1-Q2, 10%11%; P < .0001). A strong inverse relationship between center volume and FTR was identified (P < .0001). In the adjusted analysis, OARs performed in high-volume centers (Q4 vs Q1) had a 50% risk reduction in FTR (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.8; P = .004). Among the complications, a return to the operating room for bleeding was most likely to result in FTR (OR, 11.8; 95% CI, 4.3-33; P < .0001). A 24-fold increased risk of FTR was found for patients experiencing three or more complications vs one complication (OR, 24; 95% CI, 17-35; P < .0001). Conclusions: A greater center volume was strongly associated with significantly diminished FTR, reduced complications, and need for surgical adjuncts during OAR. These findings highlight the utility of center volume as an effective proxy to ensure high-quality aneurysm care.

Automated summary

This study aimed to investigate the impact of center volume on outcomes and failure to rescue (FTR) in open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OAR). The results revealed that a higher center volume was strongly associated with reduced FTR risk, decreased complications, and less need for surgical adjuncts during OAR.