Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Duplex-derived velocity measurements are often used to determine the need for carotid revascularization. There is evidence that severe ipsilateral carotid stenosis can cause artificially elevated velocities in the contralateral carotid artery, which may decrease following ipsilateral revascularization. The objective of this study was to determine if contralateral carotid artery duplex velocities decrease following ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy or stenting procedures. METHODS:This is a single institutional retrospective study of prospectively collected data on all patients who underwent carotid revascularization from 2013 to 2021. Patients with immediate preoperative and first postoperative Duplex scan within 4 months of carotid revascularization at our vascular laboratory were included for analysis. Patients with contralateral occlusion were excluded. Duplex criteria used to define moderate (50-69%) and severe (>70%) stenosis were systolic velocity ≥125 cm/sec and ≥230 cm/sec, respectively. RESULTS:Between 2013 and 2021, 129 patients with bilateral carotid stenosis underwent either carotid endarterectomy (98) or a stenting procedure (31). The majority of patients (90%) underwent intervention for severe stenosis. Preoperatively, the contralateral artery was categorized as severe in 30.4% patients. After ipsilateral carotid revascularization, 86 patients (67.2%) saw a decrease in the contralateral artery peak systolic velocity (PSV), while the remaining remained stable or increased. Fifty-four patients had a change in designated stenosis severity in the contralateral artery. Between the carotid endarterectomy and stenting cohorts, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients whose contralateral velocity decreased (69.4% vs. 61.3%, P = 0.402). Patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes were significantly less likely to experience a decrease in the contralateral artery PSV after ipsilateral intervention (P = 0.018 and P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with bilateral carotid disease, ipsilateral revascularization can change the contralateral artery velocity and perceived disease severity. Most patients were noted to have a decrease in the contralateral artery PSV, although almost one-third either stayed stable or increased. On multivariable analysis, patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes were less likely to see a decrease in the contralateral artery PSV after intervention. Patients who are at risk for artificial elevation of the contralateral artery may warrant a re-evaluation of the contralateral artery after ipsilateral intervention. These patients are potentially better assessed with axial imaging, although further research is needed.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the natural history of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis progression. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective cohort study analyzed patients diagnosed with ICA stenosis of 50% or greater on duplex ultrasound from 2015 to 2022. Subjects were drawn from our institutional Intersocietal Accreditation Commission-accredited noninterventional vascular laboratory database. Primary outcomes were incidences of disease progression, and stroke or revascularization after index study. Progression was defined as an increase in stenosis classification category. Imaging, demographic, and clinical data was obtained from our institutional electronic medical record via a database mining query. Cases were analyzed at the patient and artery levels, with severity corresponding to the greatest degree of ICA stenosis on index and follow-up studies. RESULTS:Of 577 arteries in 467 patients, mean cohort age was 73.5 ± 8.9 years at the time of the index study, and 45.0% (n = 210) were female. Patients were followed with duplex ultrasound for a mean of 42.2 ± 22.7 months. Of 577 arteries, 65.5% (n = 378) at the index imaging study had moderate (50%-69%) stenosis, 23.7% (n = 137) had severe (70%-99%) stenosis, and 10.7% (n = 62) were occluded. These three groups had significant differences in age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia prevalence, and proportion on best medical therapy. Of the 467-patient cohort, 56.5% (n = 264) were on best medical therapy, defined as smoking cessation, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, statin, and antihypertensive and glycemic agents as indicated. Mean time to progression for affected arteries was 28.0 ± 20.5 months. Of those arteries with nonocclusive disease at diagnosis, 21.3% (n = 123) progressed in their level of stenosis. Older age, diabetes, and a history of vasculitis were associated with stenosis progression, whereas antiplatelet agent use trended towards decreased progression rates. Of the 467 patients, 5.6% (n = 26) developed symptoms; of those, 38.5% (n = 10) had ischemic strokes, 26.9% (n = 7) had hemispheric transient ischemic attacks, 11.5% (n = 3) had amaurosis fugax, and 23.1% (n = 6) had other symptoms. A history of head and neck cancer was positively associated with symptom development. Of 577 affected arteries, 16.6% (n = 96) underwent intervention; 81% (n = 78) of interventions were for asymptomatic disease and 19% (n = 18) were for symptomatic disease. No patient-level factors were associated with risk of intervention. CONCLUSIONS:A significant number of carotid stenosis patients experience progression of disease. Physicians should consider long-term surveillance on all patients with carotid disease, with increased attention paid to those with risk factors for progression, particularly those with diabetes and a history of vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE:Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era. METHODS:Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates. RESULTS:A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR. CONCLUSIONS:Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

A type A aortic dissection is a challenging condition for both cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons. Although open surgery remains the gold standard, there is considerable interest in the use of endovascular techniques for patients who present with malperfusion. We present the case of an unstable 55-year-old man with visceral malperfusion from a type A dissection who was stabilized using an endovascular technique as a bridge to open surgery. A bare metal thoracic endograft was used in the ascending aorta to rapidly restore perfusion. This hybrid approach to the problem of malperfusion in type A dissection could be useful for these patients with complicated cases.

OBJECTIVE:Revascularization for intermittent claudication (IC) due to infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is dependent on durability and expected benefit. We aimed to assess outcomes for IC interventions in octogenarians and nonagenarians (age ≥80 years) and those younger than 80 years (age <80 years). METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried (2010-2020) for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) and infrainguinal bypasses (IIBs) performed to treat IC. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes were analyzed (comparing age ≥80 years and age <80 years). RESULTS:There were 84,210 PVIs (12.1% age ≥80 years and 87.9% age <80 years) and 10,980 IIBs (7.4% age ≥80 years and 92.6% age <80 years) for IC. For PVI, patients aged ≥80 years more often underwent femoropopliteal (70.7% vs 58.1%) and infrapopliteal (19% vs 9.3%) interventions, and less often iliac interventions (32.1% vs 48%) (P < .001 for all). Patients aged ≥80 years had more perioperative hematomas (3.5% vs 2.4%) and 30-day mortality (0.9% vs 0.4%) (P < .001). At 1-year post-intervention, the age ≥80 years cohort had fewer independently ambulatory patients (80% vs 91.5%; P < .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed patients aged ≥80 years had lower reintervention/amputation-free survival (81.4% vs 86.8%), amputation-free survival (87.1% vs 94.1%), and survival (92.3% vs 96.8%) (P < .001) at 1-year after PVI. Risk adjusted analysis showed that age ≥80 years was associated with higher reintervention/amputation/death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.35), amputation/death (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.13), and mortality (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.66-2.23) (P < .001 for all) for PVI. For IIB, patients aged ≥80 years more often had an infrapopliteal target (28.4% vs 19.4%) and had higher 30-day mortality (1.3% vs 0.5%), renal failure (4.1% vs 2.2%), and cardiac complications (5.4% vs 3.1%) (P < .001). At 1 year, the age ≥80 years group had fewer independently ambulatory patients (81.7% vs 88.8%; P = .02). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the age ≥80 years cohort had lower reintervention/amputation-free survival (75.7% vs 81.5%), amputation-free survival (86.9% vs 93.9%), and survival (90.4% vs 96.5%) (P < .001 for all). Risk-adjusted analysis showed age ≥80 years was associated with higher amputation/death (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.1-2.54; P = .015) and mortality (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.16-2.93; P = .009), but not reintervention/amputation/death (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.85-1.44; P = .47) after IIB. CONCLUSIONS:Octogenarians and nonagenarians have greater perioperative morbidity and long-term ambulatory impairment, limb loss, and mortality after PVI and IIB for claudication. Risks of intervention on elderly patients with claudication should be carefully weighed against the perceived benefits of revascularization. Medical and exercise therapy efforts should be maximized in this population.

This systematic review aimed to identify sex-specific outcomes in men and women after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), including transfemoral and transcarotid. A search of literature published from January 2000 through December 2022 was conducted using key terms attributed to carotid interventions on PubMed. Studies comparing outcome metrics post intervention (ie, myocardial infarction [MI], cerebral vascular accident [CVA] or stroke, and long-term mortality) among male and female patients were reviewed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Overall, all studies reported low rates of perioperative complications. Among the studies that did not stratify outcomes by the preoperative symptom status, there were no significant sex differences in rates of perioperative strokes or MIs. Two studies, however, noted a higher rate of 30-day mortality in male patients undergoing CEA than in female patients. Analysis of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA revealed no difference in perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 1.8% v male: 0.4% to 4.3%), similar rates of CVAs (female: 0.8% to 5% v male: 0.8% to 4.9%), and no significant differences in the long-term mortality outcomes. Alternatively, symptomatic patients undergoing CEA reported a higher rate of CVAs in female patients vs. male patients (7.7% v 6.2%) and showed a higher rate of death in female patients (1% v 0.7%). Among studies that did not stratify outcome by symptomatology, there was no difference in the 30-day outcomes between sexes for patients undergoing CAS. Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS demonstrated similar incident rates across perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 5.9% v male: 0.28% to 3.3%), CVAs (female: 0.5% to 4.1% v male: 0.4% to 6.2%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0% to 1.75% v male: 0.2% to 1.5%). Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS similarly reported higher incidences of perioperative MIs (female: 0.3% to 7.1% v male: 0% to 5.5%), CVAs (female: 0% to 9.9% v male: 0% to 7.6%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0.6% to 7.1% v male: 0.5% to 8.2%). Sex-specific differences in outcomes after major vascular procedures are well recognized. Our review suggests that symptomatic female patients have a higher incidence of neurologic and cardiac events after carotid interventions, but that asymptomatic patients do not.

OBJECTIVE:Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux. METHODS:This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately. RESULTS:. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux. CONCLUSIONS:Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

BACKGROUND:While prior studies have confirmed the protective effect of diabetes on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) development, much less is known about the effect of diabetes, and in particular insulin dependence, on outcomes following AAA repair. In this study, we aim to evaluate the role of insulin-dependent diabetes on short-term and long-term outcomes following open and endovascular AAA repair. METHODS:The Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION), a registry linking the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data with Medicare claims, was queried for patients who underwent open or endovascular AAA repair from 2011 to the present. Exclusion criteria were unknown diabetes status, prior aortic intervention, maximum aneurysm diameter <45 mm at presentation, and Medicare Advantage coverage due to inconsistent follow-up. Patients were stratified based on diabetes status (no diabetes versus diabetes) and insulin dependence (no diabetes or non-insulin-dependent diabetes versus insulin-dependent diabetes). RESULTS:Of the 38,437 cases in the VISION endovascular aortic aneurysm (EVAR) and open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) databases, 21,943 met inclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes after OAR were comparable between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. However, diabetic patients undergoing EVAR were significantly more likely to have a postoperative myocardial infarction (1.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.04) and have a 30-day readmission (10.9% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001). Insulin-dependent diabetic patients were more likely to require a 30-day readmission after OAR (24.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.02) and EVAR (15.1% vs 9.0%, P < 0.001); however, only insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) patients undergoing EVAR experienced higher rates of postoperative myocardial infarction (1.9% vs 0.7%, P < 0.01). After propensity score matching, patients with IDDM undergoing EVAR were additionally at increased risk of mortality at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year follow-up with the highest risk occurring at the 1-year mark (hazard ratio 1.79, P < 0.0001), while IDDM patients undergoing OAR were only at a significantly increased risk of mortality at 5-year follow-up (hazard ratio 1.90, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with insulin-dependent diabetes have greater than 14% one-year mortality following open or endovascular aneurysm repair, compared to 8% for all others. Our findings raise questions about whether insulin-dependent diabetics should have a higher size threshold for prophylactic repair, although further studies are needed to address this question and consider the influence of glycemic control on these outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Intraoperative dextran infusion has been associated with reduction of an embolic risk in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Nonetheless, dextran has been associated with adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, hemorrhage, cardiac, and renal complications. Herein, we aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of CEA stratified by the use of intraoperative dextran infusion using a large multiinstitutional dataset. METHODS:Patients undergoing CEA between 2008 and 2022 from the Vascular Quality Initiative database were reviewed. Patients were categorized by use of intraoperative dextran infusion, and demographics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were compared. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to adjust for differences in patients while assessing the association between postoperative outcomes and intraoperative infusion of dextran. RESULTS:Of 140,893 patients undergoing CEA, 9,935 (7.1%) patients had intraoperative dextran infusion. Patients with intraoperative dextran infusion were older with lower rates of symptomatic stenosis (24.7% vs. 29.3%; P < 0.001) and preoperative use of antiplatelets, anticoagulants and statins. Additionally, they were more likely to have severe carotid stenosis (>80%; 49% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and undergo CEA under general anesthesia (96.4% vs. 92.3%; P < 0.001), with a more frequent use of shunt (64.4% vs. 49.5%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that intraoperative dextran infusion was associated with higher odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including myocardial infarction [MI] (odds ratio [OR], 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.3, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure [CHF] (OR, 2.15, 95% CI: 1.67-2.77, P = 0.001), and hemodynamic instability requiring vasoactive agents (OR, 1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.13, P = 0.001). However, it was not associated with decreased odds of stroke (OR, 0.92, 95% CI: 0.74-1.16, P = 0.489) or death (OR, 0.88, 95% CI: 0.58-1.35, P = 0.554). These trends persisted even when stratified by symptomatic status and degree of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS:Intraoperative infusion of dextran was associated with increased odds of MACE, including MI, CHF, and persistent hemodynamic instability, without decreasing the risk of stroke perioperatively. Given these results, judicious use of dextran in patients undergoing CEA is recommended. Furthermore, careful perioperative cardiac management is warranted in select patients receiving intraoperative dextran during CEA.