Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Presence of an endoleak can compromise aneurysm exclusion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair(EVAR). Type II endoleaks(T2Es) are most common and may cause sac expansion. We report outcomes of translumbar embolization(TLE) of T2Es following EVAR. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with T2E after EVAR treated with TLE from 2011-2018 at a single academic institution. Treatment indications were the presence of persistent T2E and aneurysm growth ≥5mm. Sac stabilization was defined as growth ≤5mm throughout the follow-up period. RESULTS:Thirty consecutive patients were identified. The majority were men (n=24) with a mean age of 74.3 years (70.9-77.6, 95% CI). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (83.3%) and coronary artery disease (54.0%). The mean maximal sac diameter at T2E discovery was 5.8 cm (5.4-6.2, 95% CI). The mean time to intervention from endoleak discovery was 33.7±28 months with a mean growth of 0.84 cm (0.48-1.2, 95% CI) during that time period. The mean follow-up time after TLE was 19.1 months (11.1-27.2, 95% CI). Twenty-eight patients were treated with cyanoacrylate glue(CyG) alone, and 2 were treated with CyG plus coil embolization(CE). There was immediate complete endoleak resolution as assessed intraoperatively, and sac stabilization in 15 cases (50.0%). Eleven (36.7%) patients had evidence of persistent T2E on initial imaging after the embolization procedure; additional follow-up revealed eventual sac stabilization at a mean of 21.3±7.2 months and therefore these patients did not require further intervention. In the remaining four cases (13.3%) there was persistent T2E after the initial TLE requiring a second intervention. Repeat TLE stabilized growth in three of these four patients after a mean of 17.6±12.9 months. One patient required open sacotomy and ligation of lumbar vessels due to continued persistence of the T2E and continued aneurysm growth. There were no ischemic complications related to the embolization procedures. Factors associated with persistent endoleak after initial embolization were: larger aneurysm diameter at the time of initial endoleak identification (p<0.001), and the use of antiplatelet agents (p<0.02). The use of anticoagulation was not a significant risk factor for endoleak recurrence or aneurysm growth after TLE. CONCLUSIONS:TLE of T2E is a safe and effective treatment option for T2E with aneurysm growth following EVAR. Patients taking antiplatelet medication and those with larger aneurysms at the time of endoleak identification appear to be at increased risk for persistent endoleak and need for subsequent procedures following initial TLE. These patients may require more intensive monitoring and follow-up.

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.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Acute thromboembolic disease of the innominate artery (IA) poses a unique set of therapeutic challenges, owing to its contribution to both the cerebral and upper extremity circulation, and risks of distal embolization via the carotid and subclavian arteries, respectively. Herein, we present a 74-year-old female who presents with acute IA thrombus treated successfully with right axillary and common carotid exposure and aspiration catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy (CDT). Furthermore, an emerging use of CDT and its application in acute thromboembolism are outlined. CASE REPORT/UNASSIGNED:A 74-year-old female with history of right lung transplant for pulmonary fibrosis with severe pulmonary hypertension, and stage IIIA left lung adenocarcinoma status post left lower lobectomy undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy presented with acute IA thrombus and right-sided stroke. She was treated successfully with right axillary and common carotid exposure and aspiration CDT. Computed tomography angiography performed 1 month postoperatively confirmed patent IA with no evidence of residual or recurrent thrombus. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:There are currently no standard guidelines on the management of acute IA thromboembolism, with mostly individual cases reported in the literature describing this rare entity. Nevertheless, this unique clinical entity mandates expeditious diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in order to avoid permanent neurologic deficits from distal embolization. Our case demonstrates that aspiration CDT may be an effective treatment modality for patients with acute IA thrombus.

OBJECTIVE:Adjunctive false lumen embolization (FLE) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with chronic aortic dissection is thought to induce FL thrombosis and favorable aortic remodeling. However, these data are derived from small single-institution experiences and the potential benefit of FLE remains unproven. In this study, we examined perioperative and midterm outcomes of patients with aortic dissection undergoing concomitant TEVAR and FLE.* METHODS: Patients 18 or older who underwent TEVAR for chronic aortic dissection with known FLE status in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database between January 2010 and February 2020 were included. Ruptured patients and emergent procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, operative details and outcomes were analyzed by group: TEVAR with or without FLE. Primary outcomes were in-hospital post-operative complications and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included follow-up mean maximum aortic diameter change, rates of false lumen thrombosis, re-intervention rates, and mortality. RESULTS:884 patients were included: 46 had TEVAR/FLE and 838 had TEVAR alone. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, prior aortic interventions, mean maximum pre-operative aortic diameter (5.1cm vs. 5.0cm, P=0.43), presentation symptomatology, or intervention indication. FLE was associated with significantly longer procedural times (178min vs. 146min, P=0.0002), increased contrast use (134mL vs. 113mL, P=0.02), and prolonged fluoroscopy time (34min vs. 21min, P<0.0001). However, FLE was not associated with a significant difference in post-operative complications (17.4% vs. 13.8%, P=0.51), length of stay (6.5 vs. 5.7 days, P=0.18), or in-hospital all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1.3%, P=1). In mid-term follow-up (median 15.5months, IQR 2.2-36.2 months), all-cause mortality trended lower, but was not significant (2.2% vs. 7.8%); and Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in overall survival between groups (P=0.23). By Cox regression analysis, post-operative complications had the strongest independent association with all-cause mortality (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56-4.5, P<0.001). In patients with available follow-up imaging and re-intervention status, mean aortic diameter change (n=337, -0.71cm vs. -0.69cm, P=0.64) and re-intervention rates (n=487, 10% vs. 11.4%, P=1) were similar. CONCLUSIONS:Adjunctive FLE, despite increased procedural times, can be performed safely for patients with chronic dissection without significantly higher overall perioperative morbidity or mortality. TEVAR/FLE demonstrates trends for improved survival and increased rates of FL thrombosis in the treated thoracic segment; however, given the lack of evidence to suggest a significant reduction in re-intervention rates or induction of more favorable aortic remodeling compared to TEVAR alone, the overall utility of this technique in practice remains unclear. Further investigation is needed to determine the most appropriate role for FLE in managing chronic aortic dissections.

BACKGROUND:With the exponential increase in the use of endovascular techniques in the treatment of peripheral artery disease, our understanding of factors that affect intervention failures continues to grow. We sought to assess the outcomes of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for isolated de novo superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease based on balloon diameter. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing percutaneous balloon angioplasty for isolated de novo atherosclerotic SFA disease. Based on the diameter of the angioplasty balloon as a surrogate measure of arterial diameter, patients were stratified into two groups: group 1, balloon diameter < 5 mm (354 patients) and group 2, balloon diameter ≥ 5 mm (1,550 patients). The primary patency and major adverse limb event (MALE) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test, based on vessel diameter. multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with the primary patency. RESULTS:From January 2010 through December 2018, a total of 1,904 patients met criteria for analysis, with a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 4.5 months. The mean balloon diameters were 3.92 ± 0.26 mm and 5.47 ± 0.55 mm in group 1 and 2, respectively (P<.001). The mean length of treatment and distribution of TASC lesions were not statistically different between the groups. Primary patency at 18 months was significantly lower in group 1, compared with group 2 (55% vs 67%; log-rank P<.001). The MALE rate was higher in group 1 than group 2 (33% vs 26%; log-rank P<.001). Among patients with claudication, there was no significant difference in the primary patency (61% vs 68%; log-rank P=.073) and MALE (27% vs 22%; log-rank P=.176) at 18 months between groups 1 and 2, respectively. However, in patients with CLTI, group 1 had significantly lower 18-month primary patency (47% vs 64%; log-rank P<.014) and higher MALE rates (41% vs 35%; log-rank P=.012) than group 2. Cox proportional hazard analysis confirmed that balloon diameter < 5 mm was independently associated with increased risks of primary patency loss (HR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72; P=.021) and MALE (HR 1.29; 95% CI, 1-1.67; P=.048) at 18-months. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing isolated SFA balloon angioplasty for CLTI, smaller SFA (< 5mm) was associated with worse primary patency and MALE. Using balloon size as a surrogate, our findings suggest that patients with a smaller SFA diameter appear to be at increased risk for treatment failure and warrant closer surveillance. Furthermore, these patients may also be considered for alternative approaches, including open revascularization.

Objective: Autogenous great saphenous vein (GSV) is considered the conduit of choice for lower extremity bypass (LEB). However, the optimal configuration has remained a source of debate. We compared the outcomes of patients who had undergone LEB using in situ and reversed configuration.
Method(s): The Vascular Quality Initiative database (January 2003 to February 2021) was queried for patients undergoing LEB with in situ and reversed GSV. Patient demographics, procedural detail, and in-hospital and follow-up outcomes were collected. The primary endpoint was primary patency. The second endpoints included freedom from major adverse limb events (MALE; defined as major lower extremity amputation and reintervention), limb salvage, and freedom from reintervention at 1 year. Multivariable models were created to determine the association between bypass configuration and outcomes of interest.
Result(s): Of the 8234 patients who had undergone LEB, in situ and reversed GSV was used in 3546 and 4688 patients, respectively. Patients with in situ bypass were older with higher rates of cardiopulmonary and renal comorbidities. The patients who had undergone reversed bypass were more likely to have undergone previous LEBs and endovascular interventions. The indication for LEB was similar between the in situ and reversed bypass cohorts. In situ bypass had been performed more frequently from the common femoral artery and to more distal targets (tibial or peroneal). Reversed bypass was associated with higher intraoperative blood loss and a longer operative time. Perioperatively, in situ bypass had resulted in greater rates of reintervention (13.2% vs 11.1%; P =.004) and surgical site infection (4.2% vs 3%; P =.003) and lower primary patency (93.5% vs 95%; P =.004). At 1 year, in situ bypass had a lower rate of MALE (22.6% vs 25.6), mainly driven by a lower rate of reintervention (19.4% vs 21.6%). The primary patency and limb salvage rates were not different. On multivariable analysis, in situ bypass was associated with lower primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR], 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.98), reintervention (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.8-0.97), and MALE (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97) but did not affect the rate of limb salvage compared with reversed bypass.
Conclusion(s): Compared with those with reversed GSV, LEBs with in situ GSV confer improved primary patency and MALE at midterm. Our results have demonstrated that an in situ configuration might be a favorable option for appropriately selected patients with suitable anatomy.
Copyright

BACKGROUND:A nationwide variation in mortality stratified by hospital volume exists after open repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). In the present study, we assessed whether the rates of postoperative complications or failure-to-rescue (defined as death after a major postoperative complication) would better explain the lower mortality rates among higher volume hospitals. METHODS:Using the 2004 to 2018 Vascular Quality Initiative database, we identified all patients who had undergone open repair of elective or symptomatic AAAs, in which the proximal clamp sites were at least above one renal artery. We divided the patients into hospital quintiles according to the annual hospital volume and compared the risk-adjusted outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, operative factors, and hospital volume, was used to evaluate three outcomes: 30-day mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue. RESULTS:We identified 3566 patients who had undergone open repair of elective or symptomatic complex AAAs (median age, 71 years; 29% women; 4.1% black; 48% Medicare insurance). The unadjusted rates of 30-day postoperative mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue were 5.0%, 44%, and 10%, respectively. Common complications included renal dysfunction (25%), cardiac dysrhythmia (14%), and pneumonia (14%), with the specific failure-to-rescue rate ranging from 12% to 22%. On adjusted analysis, the risk-adjusted mortality rate was 2.5 times greater for the lower volume hospitals relative to the higher volume hospitals (7.4% vs 3.0%; P < .01). Although the risk-adjusted complication rates were similar between these hospital groups (30% vs 27%; P = .06), the failure-to-rescue rate was 2.3 times greater for the lower volume hospitals relative to the higher volume hospitals (6.3% vs 2.7%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:Higher volume hospitals had lower mortality rates after open repair of complex AAAs because they were better at the "rescue" of patients after the occurrence of postoperative complications. Both an understanding of the clinical mechanisms underlying this association and the regionalization of open repair might improve patient outcomes.

Objective: Type II endoleaks (T2E), commonly identified after EVAR, are associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. Quantity and size of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels (AASOV), namely the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries, have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2E. Given technical difficulties associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic coil embolization of AASOV-related T2E has been advocated to prevent retrograde T2E; however, current evidence is limited. We sought to examine the effect of concomitant prophylactic AASOV coil embolization in patients undergoing EVAR.
Method(s): Patients 18 and older in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included. Patients with a history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR with or without prophylactic AASOV embolization (emboEVAR). Primary outcomes of interest were rates of in-hospital postoperative complications, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (>=5 mm), and rates of reintervention in follow-up.
Result(s): A total of 15,060 patients were included: 272 had emboEVAR and 14,788 had EVAR alone. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics including mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs 5.6 cm, P =.48) (Table I). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs 124 minutes, P <.0001), prolonged fluoroscopy (32 vs 23 minutes, P <.0001), increased contrast use (105 vs 91 mL, P <.0001), without significant reduction in T2E at completion (17.7% vs 16.3%, P =.54). Incidences of postoperative complications (3.7% vs 4.6%, P =.56), index hospitalization reintervention rates (0.7% vs 1.3%, P =.59), length of stay (1.8 vs 2 days, P =.75), and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0%, P = 1) were similar between groups. In mid-term follow-up (14.6 +/- 6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significant mean reduction in maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs 0.54 cm, P =.006) with a higher proportion experiencing sac regression >=5 mm (53.5% vs 48.7%) and reintervention rates were similar between groups. On multivariate analysis, prophylactic AASOV (odds ratio: 1.34, confidence interval: 1.04-1.74, P =.024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression (Table II).
Conclusion(s): Prophylactic AASOV embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR is associated with significant sac regression compared with EVAR alone in mid-term follow-up. This technique shows promise and future efforts should focus on elucidating the role of concomitant selective vs complete prophylactic AASOV embolization in patients undergoing EVAR. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: Although beta-blocker (BB) use is routine for type B aortic dissections (TBADs), its effect in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is unclear. Furthermore, the effect of BB use on the perioperative outcomes after TEVAR has not been evaluated. We evaluated the effect of BB use on the perioperative outcomes in patients with TBAD undergoing TEVAR.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD between September 2012 and February 2020. BB use was defined as the use of such medications for >=30 days preoperatively. Patients were dichotomized according to preoperative BB use (no-BB and BB cohorts). The patient characteristics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were compared. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall postoperative complications, including myocardial infarction, new dysrhythmia, congestive heart failure, access site complications, respiratory, cerebrovascular symptoms, and arm, leg, renal, spinal cord, and gastrointestinal ischemia requiring surgical intervention.
Result(s): Of 2283 patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD, 1130 (49%) were receiving a BB preoperatively. The BB cohort was older with greater proportions of hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease (Table I). Additionally, the BB cohort were more likely to be taking aspirin, a P2Y12 antagonist, a statin, or an ACE inhibitor, and/or receiving anticoagulation therapy preoperatively. The non-BB cohort had more nonelective, symptomatic, and acute dissections. The procedural details, including rates of open conversion and general anesthesia, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, and operative times were comparable. On univariate analysis, the BB cohort had a lower risk of overall postoperative complications (22% vs 33%; P <.001) and mortality (4.7% vs 7.7%; P =.003) compared with the non-BB cohort. On multivariable analysis, BB use was associated with a 22% reduction in the odds of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.99; P =.044) but did not influence mortality (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.71; P =.562; Table II).
Conclusion(s): BB use was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative complications for patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. Therefore, BB use should be strongly encouraged for appropriately selected patients undergoing TEVAR. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: There is a paucity of data evaluating outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) using suprainguinal inflow for infrainguinal vessels. The purpose of this study is to report outcomes after LEB originating from aortoiliac arteries to infrafemoral targets.
Method(s): The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2020) was queried for patients undergoing LEB originating from the aortoiliac arteries and to the popliteal and tibial arteries. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on outflow targets (above-knee popliteal, below-knee popliteal and tibial arteries). Perioperative and 1-year outcomes including primary patency, amputation-free survival, and major adverse limb events (MALEs) were compared, and the Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the independent prognostic factors of outcomes.
Result(s): Of 403 LEBs, 389 (96.5%) originated from the external iliac artery, whereas the remaining from the aorta and common iliac artery. A total of 116 (28.8%), 151 (27.5%), and 136 (43.7%) were to the above-knee popliteal, below-knee popliteal, and tibial arteries, respectively (Table). In total, 194 (48%) and 186 (46%) patients had prior ipsilateral LEB and percutaneous vascular interventions, respectively. Below-knee popliteal and tibial bypasses were performed more frequently in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (70% and 70% vs 48%; P <.001). Vein conduit was more often used for tibial bypass than for above- and below-knee popliteal bypasses (46% vs 22% and 17%; P <.001). In the perioperative period, below-knee popliteal and tibial bypass patients had higher reoperation rates (17% and 14% vs 5%; P =.015) and lower primary patency (91% and 90% vs 96%; P =.044) than above-knee bypass patients. Perioperative pulmonary complication and mortality rates were similar among the cohorts. At 1 year, compared with above-knee popliteal bypasses, below-knee and tibial bypasses demonstrated lower primary patency (60.9% and 62.3% vs 83.3%; P <.001; Fig) and amputation-free survival (69.1% and 66.4% vs 79.4%; P =.0223), but freedom from MALEs were similar (87.2% and 82.8% vs 90.9%; P =.0585). On multivariable analysis, compared with above-knee popliteal bypasses, tibial bypasses were independently associated with increased loss of primary patency (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.51; P =.039), but with similar major ipsilateral amputation/death and MALEs.
Conclusion(s): Compared with those using historic infrainguinal inflow, LEBs with suprainguinal inflow appear to have accepTable rates of 1-year patency and limb salvage in patients at high risk of bypass failure. Tibial outflow target was independently associated with worse primary patency. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright