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:inhibitors for CAS. METHODS:inhibitors as well as symptomatic status. Primary endpoints were perioperative neurologic events (strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs)). Secondary endpoints were mortality and myocardial infarction. RESULTS:inhibitors used revealed that all appeared to be equally effective in reducing the periprocedural neurological event rate. CONCLUSIONS:inhibitors in the periprocedural period, leaving room for significant improvement.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Clopidogrel is effective at decreasing cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD); however, its effect on limb outcomes are less known. This study investigated the variability in response to clopidogrel and its relationship with clinical limb outcomes. METHODS: RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization on clopidogrel, higher baseline percent aggregation is associated with increased risk for major adverse limb events.

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:Over the past two decades, the treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has undergone a transformation. While open surgical repair (OR) remains the gold standard for treatment, endovascular repair (ER) has become an attractive alternative in select patient populations. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of open versus endovascular repair of PAAs at a single institution. METHODS:We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients between 1998 and 2017 who underwent repair for PAA. Patient baseline, anatomic, and operative characteristics as well as outcomes were compared between the open and endovascular cohorts. The intervention and treatment were at the discretion of the surgeon. RESULTS:Between 1998 and 2017, a total of 64 patients underwent repair of 73 PAAs at our tertiary care center. Twenty-nine patients with 33 PAAs underwent OR, and 35 patients with 40 PAAs underwent ER. When comparing the 2 cohorts, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or number of run-off vessels. There were significantly more patients in the ER group (21/53%) than the OR group (7/21%) with hyperlipidemia (p=.008) and a prior carotid intervention (6% vs. 0%, p=.029). Overall, the presence of symptoms was similar amongst the two groups; however, patients in the OR group had a significantly higher number of patients presenting with acute ischemia (p=.01). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the ER cohort (mean 1.8 days [1-11]) compared to the OR group (5.4 days [2-13]) (p<.0001). There was no significant difference in primary or secondary patency rates between the two groups. In the ER group, good runoff (≥2 vessels) was a positive predictor for primary patency at 1 year (3.36 [1.0-11.25]), however, it was not in the OR group. Post-operative single and/or dual anti-platelet therapy did not affect primary patency in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS:The results of our study demonstrate that ER of PAAs is a safe and durable option with comparable patency rates to OR and a decreased LOS, with good run-off being a positive predictor for primary patency in the ER cohort.

OBJECTIVE:Although inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis is infrequently encountered, it carries a significant risk of post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolus. Recent studies show no difference in the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome in patients with iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) treated with pharmacothrombolysis vs anticoagulation alone; however, there is an associated increased risk of bleeding. The treatment of IVC thrombosis is less well-studied and the hemodynamic changes may be more significant with pharmacothrombolysis, although the bleeding risk remains. The ClotTriever and FlowTriever systems remove thrombus from veins without the use of thrombolytics. Our study evaluates outcomes of patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of IVC thrombosis using the ClotTriever and FlowTriever devices. METHODS:A retrospective chart review was performed to identify consecutive patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of IVC thrombosis using the ClotTriever and/or FlowTriever systems from November 2018 to January 2020 at four data-sharing institutions. The decision of which device(s) to use was at the discretion of the surgeon. Patient demographics, symptomatology, and imaging characteristics were captured at presentation and follow-up. RESULTS:A total of 15 patients met the inclusion criteria; 10 were male, and the average age was 59 years. The majority of patients were symptomatic at presentation (n = 14), had a prior history of DVT (n = 13), and had a preexisting IVC filter (n = 8). Eleven patients presented with acute onset (<1 week) of symptoms, whereas three patients had subacute (1-4 weeks) symptoms. Most patients had an associated iliofemoral DVT (n = 13) and were treated with both ClotTriever and FlowTriever (n = 8); others were treated with either ClotTriever or FlowTriever alone (n = 5 and n = 2, respectively). Technical success was achieved in all but two patients, one who had a nonocclusive thrombus densely adherent to a preexisting IVC filter and another who had a chronic rubbery clot in the IVC that could not be cleared. No patient required concomitant lytic therapy or a postoperative stay in the intensive care unit. Furthermore, there were no postoperative bleeding events, myocardial infarctions, pulmonary emboli, renal impairments, or deaths. The median length of stay was 3 days (range, 1-37 days). Patients underwent postoperative follow-up (n = 7) as well as extended follow-up (>6 months; n = 8). All patients who achieved technical success were asymptomatic without evidence of reocclusion of the IVC on follow-up imaging. CONCLUSIONS:In our multicenter series of 15 patients, The ClotTriever and FlowTriever showed promise in the treatment of IVC thrombosis without the use of fibrinolytic drugs, with no bleeding events and no requirement for intensive care unit stay.

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: Whereas clopidogrel is effective at decreasing cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease, a substantial number of events continue to occur. This study investigated the variability in response to clopidogrel and its relationship with clinical outcomes.
Method(s): There were 300 patients enrolled in the Platelet Activity in Vascular Surgery and Cardiovascular Events (PACE) study before lower extremity revascularization, of whom 119 were receiving clopidogrel. Platelet aggregation was measured in response to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) 2M immediately before revascularization. Patients were observed longitudinally for a median follow-up of 18 months. The primary end point was major adverse limb events (MALEs), defined by major amputation or reoperation of the affected limb. Patients were stratified into groups according to the percentage ADP-induced aggregation at 300 seconds (<50% aggregation, normal responder; >=50% aggregation, poor responder).
Result(s): Overall, the median age was 70 years (62-76 years), and 39.5% were female. Thirty-six (30.3%) patients had a MALE event (15 major amputation and 25 major reoperation); 60 patients underwent open or hybrid operations, and 50 patients underwent endovascular procedures. The remaining nine patients had no interventions. Of the group of 119 patients, 97 patients were taking aspirin. Overall, median aggregation to ADP 2M was 22.5% (Q1-Q3, 10%-50%), and 27 patients (26%) were clopidogrel nonresponders. Baseline aggregation was higher in patients who went on to develop a MALE than in those without a MALE (43% vs 20%; P =.018). Patients with aggregation > median (22.5%) were more likely to experience a MALE than were patients with aggregation < median (69% vs 31%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-5.98; P =.013). After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and aspirin, aggregation > median was associated with MALEs (adjusted HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.18-6.01; P =.018). When stratified by established cutoffs for responsiveness to clopidogrel (50% aggregation), 27 (26%) patients were poor responders. Poor responders were more likely to experience MALEs than normal responders (59% vs 41%; HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.11-4.89; P =.026). After multivariable adjustment, poor responder status trended toward an increased risk of MALE compared with a normal responder (adjusted HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.00-4.78; P =.051).
Conclusion(s): Among patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization, poor response to clopidogrel is associated with increased risk for major adverse limb events. Preoperative screening to ensure therapeutic clopidogrel response should be considered in these patients.
Copyright

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 to be a safe and effective alternative to transfemoral CAS. Compared with CEA, in which approximately 12% of patients undergoing awake intervention do not tolerate internal carotid artery clamping, only 1% to 2% of patients were observed to have intolerance to flow reversal during TCAR based on data from the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) 1 and 2 trials. This study reviewed awake interventions from those trials to assess factors associated with intolerance to flow reversal and to review how those cases were managed.
Method(s): This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER multicenter trial along with the subsequent postapproval (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.
Result(s): There were 103 patients from ROADSTER and 194 patients from ROADSTER 2 who underwent TCAR under local/regional anesthesia. Of these, eight patients had intolerance to flow reversal, although all cases were successfully completed. Four cases were completed under low-flow reversal, three cases were successfully weaned from low to high flow during several minutes, and one case required general anesthesia. No significant association was found between intolerance to flow reversal and comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, congestive heart failure, prior myocardial infarction or angina, preoperative CAS-related symptoms, prior stroke, prior CAS or CEA, prior neck irradiation, tandem stenosis, high cervical stenosis, or hostile neck (Tables I and II). A trend toward significance was seen with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P =.086) and contralateral carotid artery occlusion (P =.139).
Conclusion(s): Despite intolerance to flow reversal, most cases were successfully completed by adjusting reversal of flow rate and did not require conversion to general endotracheal anesthesia. Whereas factors contributing to intolerance of flow reversal during TCAR remain poorly understood, this study identified a trend toward significance with an association of pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 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. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright