Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to engage with patients. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of AI responses to common patient questions regarding vascular surgery disease processes. METHODS:OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard were queried with 24 mock patient questions spanning seven vascular surgery disease domains. Six experienced vascular surgery faculty at a tertiary academic center independently graded AI responses on their accuracy (rated 1-4 from completely inaccurate to completely accurate), completeness (rated 1-4 from totally incomplete to totally complete), and appropriateness (binary). Responses were also evaluated with three readability scales. RESULTS:> .05 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS:AI offers a novel means of educating patients that avoids the inundation of information from "Dr Google" and the time barriers of physician-patient encounters. ChatGPT provides largely valid, though imperfect, responses to myriad patient questions at the expense of readability. While Bard responses are more readable and concise, their quality is poorer. Further research is warranted to better understand failure points for large language models in vascular surgery patient education.

OBJECTIVE:Investigations into imaging modalities in the diagnosis of extracranial carotid artery occlusion (CAO) have raised questions about the inter-modality comparability of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and cross-sectional imaging (CSI). This study examines the relationship between DUS and CSI diagnoses of extracranial CAO. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective analysis studied patients with CAO diagnosed by DUS from 2010 to 2021. Patients were identified in our office-based accredited vascular laboratory database. Imaging and clinical data was obtained via our institutional electronic medical record. Primary outcome was discrepancy between DUS and CSI modalities. Secondary outcomes included incidence of stroke and intervention subsequent to CAO diagnosis. RESULTS:Of our 140-patient cohort, 95 patients (67.9%) had DUS follow-up (mean, 42.7 ± 31.3 months). At index duplex, 68.0% of individuals (n = 51) were asymptomatic. Seventy-five patients (53.6%) had CSI of the carotids after DUS CAO diagnosis; 18 (24%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and 57 (76%) underwent computed tomography. Indications for CSI included follow-up of DUS findings of carotid stenosis/occlusion (44%), stroke/transient ischemic attack (16%), other symptoms (12%), preoperative evaluation (2.7%), unrelated pathology follow-up (9.3%), and outside institution imaging with unavailable indications (16%). When comparing patients with CSI and those without, there were no differences with regard to symptoms at diagnosis, prior neck interventions, or hypertension. There was a significant difference between cross-sectionally imaged and non-imaged patients in anti-hypertensive medications (72% vs 53.8%; P = .04). Despite initial DUS diagnoses of carotid occlusion, 10 patients (13.3%) ultimately had CSI indicating patent carotids. Four of these 10 patients had stenoses of ∼99% (with 1 string sign), four of 70% to 99%, one of 50% to 69%, and one of less than 50% on CSI. The majority of patients (70%) had CSI within 1 month of the index ultrasound. There were no significant relationships between imaging discrepancies and body mass index, heart failure, upper body edema, carotid artery calcification, and neck hardware. Eight individuals (10.7%) underwent ipsilateral revascularization; 62.5% (n = 5) were carotid endarterectomy procedures, and the remaining three procedures were a transcervical carotid revascularization, subclavian to internal carotid artery bypass, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Eight patients (10.7%) underwent contralateral revascularization, with the same distribution of procedures as those ipsilateral to occlusions. Two of the 10 patients with discrepancies underwent carotid endarterectomy, and one underwent carotid stenting. CONCLUSIONS:In our experience, duplex diagnosis of CAO is associated with a greater than 10% discordance when compared with CSI. These patients may benefit from closer surveillance as well as confirmatory computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography. Further work is needed to determine the optimal diagnostic modality for CAO.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND:Mannitol is often administered during open juxtarenal or suprarenal aortic surgery to prevent ischemic injury to the kidneys. Prior evidence evaluating the benefits of intraoperative mannitol in reducing ischemia/reperfusion injury is conflicting and largely based on small, retrospective series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of mannitol in preventing postoperative hemodialysis in patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair where proximal control involved temporary renal ischemia. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing elective open AAA repair between 2003 and 2020. Patients were included in the current analysis if the proximal aortic clamp was placed above at least one renal artery. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as Cr > 1.8 mg/dL. Primary end points were 30-day major morbidity (myocardial infarction, respiratory complications, lower extremity or intestinal ischemia, and the need for temporary or permanent hemodialysis) and mortality. Comparisons were made between the mannitol and nonmannitol cohorts and stratified by the presence of preexisting CKD. RESULTS:During the study period, 4,156 patients underwent elective open AAA repair requiring clamp placement more than one (32.7%) or both (67.3%) renal arteries; 182 patients (4.4%) had preexisting CKD. Overall, 69.8% of patients received mannitol during their surgery. Mannitol was more frequently used in cases involving clamp placement above both renal arteries (70.3%) than one renal artery (61.5%). While prolonged ischemia time (more than 40 min) was associated with a higher risk of postoperative dialysis in patients without CKD, it was not significant in patients with baseline CKD. On a univariate analysis, mannitol use in patients with CKD was associated with a lower risk of postoperative dialysis (P = 0.005). This remained significant on a multivariate analysis (P = 0.008). Mannitol use did not appear to confer renal protective effects in patients without baseline CKD. CONCLUSIONS:Mannitol use was associated with a decreased risk of need for postoperative hemodialysis in patients with CKD undergoing suprarenal aortic clamping for open aneurysm repair. In appropriately selected patients, particularly those with underlying renal insufficiency, mannitol may confer a renal protective effect in open repair of pararenal AAA requiring suprarenal clamping.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in the modern era. While numerous devices exist for standard infrarenal AAA repair, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open repair in patients with short infrarenal necks. Over time, aortic neck dilation can occur leading to loss of proximal seal, endoleaks, and AAA sac growth. This study analyzes aortic remodeling following EVAR versus fEVAR and further evaluates whether fEVAR confers a benefit in terms of sac shrinkage. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 120 patients undergoing EVAR was performed: 30 patients were treated with fEVAR (Cook Zenith© Fenestrated) and 90 patients were treated with EVAR devices (30 with each Medtronic Endurant ©, Gore Excluder ©, and Cook Zenith ©). Demographic data were recorded, and anatomic measurements were taken for each patient pre-operatively, 30 days post-operatively, and at the longest point of follow-up using three-dimensional reconstruction software. RESULTS:There were no significant differences in demographics data between the 4 groups. fEVAR was used more often in aortas with large necks and irregular morphology (p= 0.004). At the time of longest follow up, the suprarenal aorta encompassing 5, 10, and 15mm above the lowest renal artery (ALRA) dilated the most for fEVAR versus all EVAR groups. Despite this, the infrarenal segment tended to increase by the least, or even regress, for fEVAR compared to all EVAR groups, and was associated with the overall greatest proportion of sac shrinkage for the fEVAR group compared to Medtronic, Gore, and Cook devices, respectively (-13.90% vs. -5.75% vs. -2.31% vs. -4.68%, p=0.025). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to EVAR, patients treated with fEVAR had greater suprarenal dilation over time, consistent with an overall greater burden of disease in the proximal native aorta. However, the infrarenal segment dilated significantly less over time in the fEVAR group compared to all EVAR groups, suggesting that fEVAR may stabilize the infrarenal neck, promoting positive sac remodeling, as evidenced by the greatest degree of decrease in largest AAA diameter in the fEVAR group.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In patients deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) who are indicated for treatment of carotid artery stenosis (CAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective alternative to trans-femoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Compared to CEA, where approx. 12% of patients undergoing awake intervention do not tolerate internal carotid artery (ICA) clamping, only 1-2% of patients were observed to have intolerance to flow reversal during TCAR based on data from the ROADSTER1/2 trials. This study reviewed awake interventions from those trials to assess factors associated with intolerance to flow reversal and review how those cases were managed. METHODS:This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) multicenter trial along with the subsequent post-approval (ROADSTER-2) trial. The subset of patients from both trials undergoing awake TCAR was analyzed to compare demographics, procedural details, and anatomic factors between patients who did and did not experience intolerance to reversal of flow to assess for predisposing factors. Patients were deemed intolerant to flow reversal at the discretion of the operator, often related to changes in completion of neurologic tasks, hemodynamic stability, or patient reported symptoms. RESULTS:103 patients from ROADSTER and 194 patients from ROADSTER-2 underwent TCAR under local/regional anesthesia. Of these, 8 patients had intolerance to flow reversal, though all cases were successfully completed. While intra-operative hemodynamic data was only available for 5 of the 8 intolerant patients, none experienced hypotension. 4 cases were completed under low flow reversal, 3 cases were successfully weaned from low to high flow over several minutes, and 1 case required general anesthesia. No significant association was found between intolerance to flow reversal and comorbidities including diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), congestive heart failure (CHF), prior MI or angina, pre-op CAS-related symptoms, prior stroke, prior CAS or CEA, prior neck radiation, tandem stenosis, high cervical stenosis, or hostile neck (tables 1, 2). A trend towards significance was seen with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and contralateral carotid artery occlusion (p= 0.086 and 0.139, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Despite intolerance to flow reversal, TCAR cases were successfully completed by adjusting reversal-of-flow rate and do not typically require conversion to GETA. While factors contributing to intolerance of flow reversal during TCAR remain poorly understood, this study identified a trend towards significance with an association of pre-existing COPD and contralateral carotid artery occlusion. Given the low number of patients who experienced this issue, a larger sample size is required to better elucidate these trends.

OBJECTIVE:Contemporary commercially available endovascular devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) include standard endovascular aortic repair (sEVAR) or fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) endografts. However, aortic neck dilatation (AND) can occur in nearly 25% of patients following EVAR, resulting in loss of proximal seal with risk of aortic rupture. AND has not been well characterized in fEVAR, and direct comparisons studying AND between fEVAR and sEVAR have not been performed. This study aims to analyze AND in the infrarenal and suprarenal aortic segments, including seal zone, and quantify sac regression following fEVAR implantation compared to sEVAR. METHOD/METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 20 consecutive fEVAR patients (Cook Zenith® Fenestrated) and 20 sEVAR (Cook Zenith®) patients was performed. Demographic data, anatomic characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcome were analyzed. Pre-operative, post-operative (1 month), and longest follow-up CT scan at an average of 29.3 months for fEVAR and 29.8 months for sEVAR were analyzed using a dedicated 3D workstation (iNtuition, TeraRecon Inc, Foster City, California). Abdominal aortic aneurysm neck diameter was measured in 5 mm increments, ranging from 20 mm above to 20 mm below the lowest renal artery. Sub-analysis comparing the fEVAR to the sEVAR group at 12 months and at greater than 30 months was performed. Standard statistical analysis was done. RESULTS:Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. The fEVAR group had a larger mean aortic diameter at the lowest renal artery, shorter infrarenal aortic neck length, increased prevalence of nonparallel neck shape, and longer AAA length. On follow-up imaging, the suprarenal aortic segment dilated significantly more at all locations in the fEVAR cohort, whereas the infrarenal aortic neck segment dilated significantly less compared to the sEVAR group. Compared to the sEVAR cohort, the fEVAR patients demonstrated significantly greater positive sac remodeling as evident by more sac diameter regression, and elongation of distance measured from the celiac axis to the most cephalad margin of the sac. Device migration, endoleak occurrence, re-intervention rate, and mortalities were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared to sEVAR, patients undergoing fEVAR had greater extent of suprarenal AND, consistent with a more diseased native proximal aorta. However, the infrarenal neck, which is shorter and also more diseased in fEVAR patients, appears more stable in the post-operative period as compared to sEVAR. Moreover, the fEVAR cohort had significantly greater sac shrinkage and improved aortic remodeling. The suprarenal seal zone in fEVAR may result in a previously undescribed increased level of protection against infrarenal neck dilatation. We hypothesize that the resultant decreased endotension conferred by better seal zone may be responsible for a more dramatic sac shrinkage in fEVAR.

OBJECTIVE:Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) seems to be a safe and effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). The TCAR system represents a paradigm shift in the management of carotid artery stenosis with potential for a significant decrease in periprocedural morbidity. However, as with CEA or TF-CAS, TCAR is associated with infrequent complications related to user technical error, most of which are preventable. Our goal is to describe these low-frequency events, and to provide guidelines for avoiding them. METHODS:The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that all medical device manufacturers create a system for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints (Code 21 of Federal Regulations 820.198). Silk Road Medical, Inc (Sunnyvale, Calif), has established a process by which all feedback, including complaints that may not meet FDA criteria, is captured and stored in a database for detailed analysis. More than 13,300 cases have been performed; submitted complaints were reviewed for incidents of serious injury and periprocedural complications, above and beyond the device-related events that must be reported to the FDA. RESULTS:A total of 13,334 patients have undergone TCAR worldwide between early 2011 and December 2019 using the SilkRoad device. Reported complications included 173 dissections (1.4% overall rate) of the common carotid artery at the access point, of which 22.5% were managed without intervention or with medical therapy alone and 24.3% were converted to CEA (considered failing safely). Errors in the location of stent deployment occurred in 16 cases (0.13%), with the most common site being the external carotid artery (75%). One wrong side carotid artery stent was placed in a patient with a high midline pattern of the bovine arch. Cranial nerve injury was reported in 11 cases (0.08%), only one of which persisted beyond 3 months. There have been three reported pneumothoraces and one reported chylothorax. Many of these errors can be recognized and prevented with careful attention to detail. CONCLUSIONS:In high-risk patients requiring treatment for carotid artery stenosis, TCAR has been proven as an alternative to TF-CAS with an excellent safety profile. As with CEA or TF-CAS, this procedure has the potential for infrequent complications, often as a result of user technical error. Although significant, these events can be avoided through a review of the collective experience to date and recognition of potential pitfalls, as we have described.

Objective: Aortic neck dilation (AND) can occur in nearly 25% of patients after EVAR, resulting in loss of proximal seal and aortic rupture. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) affords increased treatment options for patients with shorter infrarenal aortic necks; however, AND has not been well characterized in these patients. This study sought to compare AND in patients undergoing FEVAR vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
Method(s): Retrospective review was conducted of prospectively collected data of 20 consecutive FEVAR patients (Cook Zenith fenestrated; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) and 20 EVAR patients (Cook Zenith). Demographic and anatomic characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcome were analyzed. Preoperative, 1-month postoperative, and longest follow-up computed tomography scans were analyzed using a dedicated three-dimensional workstation. Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) neck diameter was measured in 5-mm increments from the lowest renal artery. Standard statistical analysis was performed.
Result(s): Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. The FEVAR group had larger mean aortic diameter at the lowest renal artery, shorter infrarenal aortic neck length, increased prevalence of nonparallel neck shape, and longer AAA length (Table). On follow-up imaging, the suprarenal aortic segment dilated significantly more at all suprarenal locations in the FEVAR cohort, whereas the infrarenal aortic neck segment dilated significantly less compared with the EVAR group (Table). The FEVAR group demonstrated significantly greater sac regression vs the EVAR group. Positive aortic remodeling, as evidenced by increased distance from the celiac axis to the most cephalad margin of the AAA, occurred to a more significant degree in the FEVAR cohort. Device migration, endoleak occurrence, and need for reintervention were similar in both groups.
Conclusion(s): Compared with EVAR, patients undergoing FEVAR had greater extent of suprarenal AND, consistent with a more diseased native proximal aorta. However, the infrarenal neck, which is shorter and also more diseased in FEVAR patients, appears more stable in the postoperative period compared with EVAR cases. Moreover, the FEVAR cohort had significantly greater sac shrinkage and improved aortic remodeling. The suprarenal seal zone in FEVAR may confer a previously undescribed increased level of protection against infrarenal neck dilation and lessen endotension, resulting in more rapid and dramatic sac shrinkage and contributing to a more durable aortic repair. [Formula presented]
Copyright