BACKGROUND Over the past thirty years in the United States, hospitals have increasingly become incorporated into hospital systems, leading to organized care with more complex cases being managed at large urban-teaching hospitals. Over a similar period, changes in intervention guidelines for Aortic Dissection have occurred, with continually growing options for endovascular, minimally-invasive treatment. Given these dynamic changes, we examined trends in Aortic Dissection hospitalizations, intervention approaches, and hospital characteristics over past twenty-years to elucidate the effect of centralized care on outcomes.

METHODS We identified all patients presenting with aortic dissection, both ascending and descending, (ICD-9-CM: 441.0; ICD-10-CM: I71.0) in the NIS between 2000-2021. We then examined the utilization of open repair, endovascular and complex-endovascular repair, as well as nonoperative/medical management. Stratified by hospital setting (urban-teaching, urban-nonteaching, and rural), we analyzed trends of interventions and in-hospital mortality over time. If an operation was performed, we were able to discern between ascending/arch or descending aorta after the 2017 ICD revision.

RESULTS 553,030 patients with aortic dissection were identified. The number of inpatients in the US with aortic dissections has increased, with an incidence of 26.7 cases/100k in 2000 to 47.2 cases/100k in 2020 (p<0.01). Overall, including all hospital settings, aortic dissections were less frequently managed nonoperatively (2000-2021: 83%-71%) and more frequently managed endovascularly (Figure), with 85% of all descending and 16% of all ascending/arch aortic dissections undergoing TEVAR in 2021. Over time, aortic dissections have increasingly been managed at urban-teaching hospitals (2000-2021: 72%-92%;p<0.01). Since 2016, urban-teaching hospitals more frequently intervened on aortic dissections compared to their rural counterparts (21% vs. 6%;p<0.01), despite having similar rates of failed medical management (9.8% vs. 8.2%;p=0.30). Finally, comparing the last 5-years, urban-teaching hospitals have lower mortality rates when managing aortic dissection versus their rural counterparts (10.9% vs 11.7%, OR=1.10;p=0.02) and if managed operatively, there was a lower associated risk of mortality at urban-teaching hospitals compared to urban-nonteaching hospitals (12.5% vs. 17.3%, OR=1.46;p<0.01).

CONCLUSION Both aortic dissection hospitalizations and interventions have significantly increased over the past two decades in the US. The growth of large hospital systems and their absorption of smaller hospitals into integrated primary through quaternary care centers has resulted in an increase in “regionalization” of care, in which complex cases are transferred to larger urban teaching centers. Our analysis suggests there is a mortality benefit from the centralization of aortic care to tertiary/urban-teaching centers, though further research into this question is required.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

No external funding was recieved.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Our institutional IRB approved this study, given it is a de-identified database.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database is national data supplied for a fee from the HCUP.