Introduction Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) became the standard of care for treating type B aortic dissections and descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. We aimed to describe the racial/ethnic differences in TEVAR utilization and outcomes. Methods The National Inpatient Sample was reviewed for all TEVARs performed between 2010 and 2017 for Type B aortic dissection and descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA). We compared groups stratifying by their racial/ethnicity background in whites, black, Hispanic, and others. A mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race/ethnicity and the primary outcome, in-hospital mortality. Results A total of 25,260 admissions for TEVAR during 2010–2017 were identified. Of those, 52.74% (n= 13,322) were performed for aneurysm and 47.2% (n= 11,938) were performed for type B dissection. 68.1% were white, 19.6% were black, 5.7% Hispanic, and 6.5% were classified as others. White patients were the oldest (median age 71 years; <0.001), with TEVAR being performed electively more often for aortic aneurysm (58.8% vs. 34% vs. 48.3% vs. 48.2%; p<0.001). In contrast, TEVAR was more likely urgent or emergent for type B dissection in black patients (65.6% vs 41.1% vs 51.6% vs 51.7%; p<0.001). Finally, the black population showed a relative increase in the incidence rate of TEVAR over time. The adjusted multivariable model showed that race/ethnicity was not associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion Although there is a differential distribution of thoracic indication and comorbidities between race/ethnicity in TEVAR, racial disparities do not appear to be associated with in-hospital mortality after adjusting for covariates.

Background: Institutional factors have been shown to impact outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). This study evaluated center variability in the utilization of induction therapy for OHT and its implications on clinical outcomes. Methods: Adult OHT patients between 2010 and 2018 were identified from the UNOS registry. Transplant centers were stratified based on their rates of induction therapy utilization. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were created with drug-treated rejection within 1-year as primary endpoint and individual centers as random parameter. Risk-adjusted Cox regression was used to evaluate patient-level mortality outcomes. Results: In 17,524 OHTs performed at 100 centers, induction therapy was utilized in 48.6% (n=8411) with substantial variability between centers (IQR 21.4 – 79.1%).There were 36, 30, and 34 centers in the low (<29%), intermediate (29-66%), and high (>67%) induction utilization terciles groups, respectively. Induction therapy did not account for the observed variability in the treated rejection rate at 1-year among centers after adjusting for donor and recipient factors (p=0.20). No differences were observed in postoperative outcomes among induction utilization centers groups (all, p>0.05). Furthermore, there was a weak correlation between the percentage of induction therapy utilization at the center-level and recipients found to have moderate (r=0.03) or high (r=0.04) baseline risks for acute rejection at 1-year. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates there is substantial variability in the use of induction therapy among OHT centers. In addition, there was a minimal correlation with baseline recipient risk or 1-year rejection rates, suggesting a need for better-standardized practices for induction therapy use in OHT.