Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Despite the expanded application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with significant cardiac comorbidities, the effect of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on outcomes remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with normal and abnormal EFs undergoing TEVAR for type-B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed from 2012 to 2020. Patients were categorized into severely reduced (EF ≤ 30%), reduced (EF 30-50%) and normal EF (EF>50%). Baseline characteristics, procedural details and 18-month outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and aortic-related reintervention. RESULTS:Of 1,993 patients, 38 (2%) and 208 (10%) patients had severely reduced ejection fraction (SREF) and reduced ejection fraction (REF). Patients with abnormal EF were more likely to have cardiac comorbidities and be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and anticoagulants. Perioperatively, patients with SREF were more likely to experience mortality (13.2% vs. 6.7% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.018), MACE (26.3% vs. 11.5% vs. 8%, P < 0.001), hemodialysis (13.5% vs. 5% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.001) and aortic related reintervention (21.1% vs. 13% vs. 10%, P = 0.041), compared to REF and normal ejection fraction (NEF) patients. However, these associations were not present on multivariable analysis. At 18 months, mortality was significantly higher in patients with SREF, which was confirmed on multivariable analysis, but depressed EF was not associated with increased aortic reintervention compared to NEF. CONCLUSIONS:SREF was not independently associated with perioperative mortality or MACE compared to NEF. REF had similar risk of morbidity and mortality compared to NEF in both the perioperative and early postoperative periods. TEVAR-related complications were similar among the cohorts. As such, TEVAR may be offered to appropriately selected patients regardless of EF.

OBJECTIVE:Mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a quality measure and early death may represent a technical complication or poor patient selection. Our objective was to analyze patients that died in the hospital within postoperative day (POD) 0-2 after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003-2019 for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Operations were categorized as in-hospital death on POD 0-2 (POD 0-2 Death), in-hospital death beyond POD 2 (POD ≥3 Death), and those alive at discharge. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:There were 7,592 elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs with 61 (.8%) POD 0-2 Death, 156 (2.1%) POD ≥3 Death, and 7,375 (97.1%) alive at discharge. Overall, median age was 70 years and 73.6% were male. Iliac aneurysm repair and surgical approach (anterior/retroperitoneal) were similar amongst groups. POD 0-2 Death, compared to POD ≥3 Death and those alive at discharge, had the longest renal/visceral ischemia time, more commonly had proximal clamp placement above both renal arteries, an aortic distal anastomosis, longest operative time, and largest estimated blood loss (all P<.05). Postoperative vasopressor usage, myocardial infarction, stroke, and return to the operating room were most frequent in POD 0-2 Death and extubation in the operating room was least frequent (all P<.001). Postoperative bowel ischemia and renal failure occurred most commonly amongst POD ≥3 Death (all P<.001).On multivariable analysis, POD 0-2 Death was associated with congestive heart failure, prior peripheral vascular intervention, female sex, preoperative aspirin use, lower center volume quartile, renal/visceral ischemia time, estimated blood loss, and older age (all P<.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:POD 0-2 Death was associated with comorbidities, center volume, renal/visceral ischemia time, and estimated blood loss. Referral to high-volume aortic centers could improve outcomes.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) present increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection. Although the systemic inflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection likely contributes to this increased cardiovascular risk, whether SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and attendant atherosclerotic plaques remains unknown. Here we report that SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA is detectable and replicates in coronary lesions taken at autopsy from severe COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 targeted plaque macrophages and exhibited a stronger tropism for arterial lesions than adjacent perivascular fat, correlating with macrophage infiltration levels. SARS-CoV-2 entry was increased in cholesterol-loaded primary macrophages and dependent, in part, on neuropilin-1. SARS-CoV-2 induced a robust inflammatory response in cultured macrophages and human atherosclerotic vascular explants with secretion of cytokines known to trigger cardiovascular events. Our data establish that SARS-CoV-2 infects coronary vessels, inducing plaque inflammation that could trigger acute cardiovascular complications and increase the long-term cardiovascular risk.

Endovascular revascularization with intraluminal stenting is the recommended first-line therapy for chronic mesenteric ischemia. However, early recurrence and in-stent thrombosis remain significant challenges. We present the case of a patient with recurrent chronic mesenteric ischemia secondary to in-stent restenosis that was successfully treated with intravascular lithotripsy, a novel, safe approach to stent salvage.

This case series highlights that extra-adrenal and recurrent pheochromocytomas can require en bloc vascular resection to achieve negative margins. Through this series of cases performed in a multidisciplinary fashion, we aim to highlight the technical aspects of these cases that can add to their complexity. Vascular invasion alone should not preclude an otherwise feasible oncologic resection.

OBJECTIVE:The outcomes of patients with premature cerebrovascular disease (age ≤55 years) who undergo carotid artery stenting are not well-defined. Our study objective was to analyze the outcomes of younger patients undergoing carotid stenting. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified based on age ≤55 or >55 years. Primary endpoints were periprocedural stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite outcomes. Secondary endpoints included procedural failure (defined as ipsilateral restenosis ≥80% or occlusion) and reintervention rates. RESULTS:Of the 35,802 patients who underwent either TF-CAS or TCAR, 2912 (6.1%) were ≤55 years. Younger patients were less likely than older patients to have coronary disease (30.5% vs 50.2%; P < .001), diabetes (31.5% vs 37.9%; P < .001), and hypertension (71.8% vs 89.8%; P < .001), but were more likely to be female (45% vs 35.4%; P < .001) and active smokers (50.9% vs 24.0%; P < .001) Younger patients were also more likely to have had a prior transient ischemic attack or stroke than older patients (70.7% vs 56.9%; P < .001). TF-CAS was more frequently performed in younger patients (79.7% vs 55.4%; P < .001). In the periprocedural period, younger patients were less likely to have a MI than older patients (0.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001), but there was no significant difference in the rates of periprocedural stroke (1.5% vs 2.0%; P = .173) and composite outcomes of stroke/death (2.6% vs 2.7%; P = .686) and stroke/death/MI (2.9% vs 3.2%; P = .353) between our two cohorts. The mean follow-up was 12 months regardless of age. During follow-up, younger patients were significantly more likely to experience significant (≥80%) restenosis or occlusion (4.7% vs 2.3%; P = .001) and to undergo reintervention (3.3% vs 1.7%; P < .001). However, there was no statistical difference in the frequency of late strokes between younger and older patients (3.8% vs 3.2%; P = .129). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with premature cerebrovascular disease undergoing carotid artery stenting are more likely to be African American, female, and active smokers than their older counterparts. Young patients are also more likely to present symptomatically. Although periprocedural outcomes are similar, younger patients have higher rates of procedural failure (significant restenosis or occlusion) and reintervention at 1-year follow-up. However, the clinical implication of late procedural failure is unknown, given that we found no significant difference in the rate of stroke at follow-up. Until further longitudinal studies are completed, clinicians should carefully consider the indications for carotid stenting in patients with premature cerebrovascular disease, and those who do undergo stenting may require close follow-up.

OBJECTIVE:The volume-outcomes relationship is cross-cutting among open abdominal aortic operations, where higher-volume surgeons have better perioperative outcomes. However, there has been minimal focus on low-volume surgeons and how to improve their outcomes. This study sought to identify if there are any differences in outcomes among low-volume surgeons for open abdominal aortic surgeries by different hospital settings. METHODS:We used the 2012-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative registry to identify all patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery for aneurysmal or aorto-iliac occlusive disease by a low-volume surgeon (<7 operations annually). We categorized high-volume hospitals using three distinct definitions: those that performed ≥10 operations annually, those with at least one high-volume surgeon, and by the number of surgeons (1-2 surgeons, 3-4 surgeons, 5-7 surgeons, and 8+ surgeons). Outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue. We compared outcomes among low-volume surgeons using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions across each of these three hospital categorizations. RESULTS:Among 14,110 patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery, 10,252 (7 3%) were performed by 1155 low-volume surgeons. Two-thirds of these patients (66%) underwent their surgery at a high-volume hospital, fewer than one-third (30%) at a hospital that had at least one high-volume surgeon, and one-half (49%) at hospitals with at least five surgeons. Among all patients operated on by low-volume surgeons, rates of 30-day mortality were 3.8%, perioperative complications were 35.3%, and failure-to-rescue were 9.9%. Low-volume surgeons operating at high-volume hospitals for aneurysmal disease had lower rates of perioperative death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.90) and failure-to-rescue (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98), but similar rates of complications (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.27). Similarly, patients undergoing their operation at hospitals that had at least one high-volume surgeon had lower rates of death (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99) for aneurysmal disease. Patient outcomes among low-volume surgeons for aorto-iliac occlusive disease did not vary by hospital setting. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients undergoing open abdominal aortic surgery have a low-volume surgeon, where outcomes are slightly better for those taking place at a high-volume hospital. Focused and incentivized interventions may be needed to improve outcomes among low-volume surgeons across all practice settings.

BACKGROUND:Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch. METHODS:Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions. RESULTS:288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.

OBJECTIVE:Interventions for carotid occlusions are infrequently undertaken and the outcomes are poorly defined. We sought to study patients undergoing urgent carotid revascularization for symptomatic occlusions. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried from 2003 to 2020 to identify patients with carotid occlusions undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Only symptomatic patients undergoing urgent interventions within 24 hours of presentation were included. Patients were identified based on CT and MRI imaging. This cohort was compared to symptomatic patients undergoing urgent intervention for severe stenosis (≥80%). Primary endpoints were perioperative stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI) and composite outcomes as defined by the SVS reporting guidelines. Patient characteristics were analyzed to determine predictors of perioperative mortality and neurological events. RESULTS:inhibitor (32.0%), aspirin (77.9%) and renin-angiotensin inhibitor (43.7%) preoperatively. When compared to patients undergoing urgent endarterectomy for severe stenosis (≥80%), those with symptomatic occlusion were well matched with regards to risk factors, but the severe stenosis cohort appeared better medically managed and less likely to present with cortical stroke symptoms. Perioperative outcomes were significantly worse for the carotid occlusion cohort, primarily driven by higher perioperative mortality (2.8% vs 0.9%, P<.001). The composite endpoint of stroke/death/MI was also significantly worse in the occlusion cohort (7.7% vs 4.9%, P=.014). On multivariate analysis, carotid occlusion was associated with increased mortality (OR, 3.028; 95% CI, 1.362-6.730; P=.007) and composite outcome of stroke, death, or MI (OR, 1.790; 95% CI, 1.135-2.822, P=.012). CONCLUSIONS:Revascularization for symptomatic carotid occlusion constitutes approximately 2% of carotid interventions captured in the VQI, affirming the rarity of this undertaking. These patients have acceptable rates of perioperative neurologic events but are at an elevated risk of overall perioperative adverse events, primarily driven by higher mortality, compared to those with severe stenosis. Carotid occlusion appears to be the most significant risk factor for the composite endpoint of perioperative stroke, death, or MI. While intervention for a symptomatic carotid occlusion may be performed with acceptable rate of perioperative complications, judicious patient selection is warranted in this high-risk cohort.

Stroke is a persistent leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and carotid artery atherosclerosis remains a treatable cause of future stroke. Although most patients with asymptomatic carotid artery disease may be at a relatively low risk for future stroke, most completed strokes are unheralded; thus, the identification and appropriate treatment of patients with asymptomatic carotid artery disease remains a critical part of overall stroke prevention. Select patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis with an increased risk of future stroke based on the degree of stenosis and other imaging or patient-related characteristics are appropriate to consider for carotid artery intervention.