Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:There is a lack of evidence regarding the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications on aortic remodeling for aortic dissection after endovascular repair. We investigated whether anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications affect aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS:Records of the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR registry (2012-2020) were reviewed. Procedures performed for TBAD were included. Aortic reintervention, false lumen thrombosis of the treated aorta and all-cause mortality at follow-up were compared between patients treated with and without anticoagulation medications. A secondary analysis was performed to assess the effect of antiplatelet therapy in patients not on anticoagulation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies on outcomes. RESULTS:1,210 patients (mean age, 60.7±12.2 years; 825 (68%) males) were identified with a mean follow-up of 21.2±15.7 months (range 1-94 months). 166 (14%) patients were on anticoagulation medications at discharge and at follow-up. Patients on anticoagulation were more likely to be older (mean age, 65.5 vs 60 years; P<.001) and Caucasian (69% vs 55%; P=.003), with higher proportions of coronary artery disease (10% vs 3%; P<.001), congestive heart failure (10% vs 2%; P<.001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15% vs 9%; P=.017). There were no differences in the mean preoperative thoracic aortic diameter or the number of endografts used. At 18-month, the rates of aortic reinterventions (8% vs 9% log-rank P=.873), complete false lumen thrombosis (52% vs 45%; P=.175) and mortality (2.5% vs 2.7%; P=.209) were similar in patients with and without anticoagulation, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the Cox regression method, anticoagulation use was not independently associated with a decreased rates of complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-1.1; P=.132), increased need for aortic reinterventions (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.62-1.68; P=.934), and mortality (HR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.47; P=.514). On a secondary analysis, antiplatelet medications did not affect the rates of aortic reintervention, complete false lumen thrombosis and mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not appear to negatively influence the midterm endpoints of aortic reintervention or death in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. Moreover, it did not impair complete false lumen thrombosis. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not adversely affect aortic remodeling and survival in this population at midterm.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Venous thromboembolism, including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a major source of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Given the prevalence of venous thromboembolism and its associated mortality, our study sought to identify factors associated with loss to follow-up in venous thromboembolism patients. METHODS:-value of <0.05 set for significance. RESULTS: = 0.03) as opposed to home. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that over one-third of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism at our institution are lost to venous thromboembolism-specific follow-up, particularly those discharged to a facility. Our work suggests that significant improvement could be achieved by establishing a pathway for the targeted transition of care to a venous thromboembolism-specific follow-up clinic.

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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND:Autologous vein is considered the preferred conduit for lower extremity bypass. There is, however, limited literature regarding conduit choice for open popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair. We sought to compare outcomes of PAA repair using vein versus prosthetic conduits. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2019) was queried for patients with PAAs undergoing elective conventional revascularization originating from the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. Conduits were categorized as vein or prosthetic. Primary outcomes were primary graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb event (MALE) and MALE-free survival at 2-years. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for estimation and comparison of patency. RESULTS:A total of 1,146 limbs in 1,065 patients underwent elective open revascularization for popliteal artery aneurysm. Vein was used in 921 limbs (80%), and prosthetic in 225 (20%). Patients in the prosthetic cohort had a shorter procedure time, were older, and had a higher prevalence of COPD. Postoperatively, prosthetic patients were more likely to be started and maintained on anticoagulation without increased incidence of hematoma. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (2% vs. 2%; P = .946). There was an increased tendency toward more symptomatic patients in the vein cohort although not statistically significant (49% vein vs. 41% prosthetic; P = .096). On a mean follow-up of 13 ± 5 months, the incidence of MALE and MALE-free survival were comparable between the two groups. The 2-year primary and secondary patency rates were similar, 87% and 96% in the vein, and 91% and 95% in the prosthetic groups, respectively. At multivariable analysis, outflow bypass targets to the infrapopliteal arteries (HR 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-3.65; P = .014) and symptomatic aneurysm (HR 1.81; 95% CI, 1.04-3.15; P = .037) were independently associated with loss of primary patency. Conduit type did not make a difference in MALE-free survival, or primary graft patency at 2-years. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that conventional open PAA repair with prosthetic conduit yields results comparable to those with vein conduit with regard to primary and secondary patency and major adverse limb events at 2-years for targets to the popliteal artery. However, when the distal target was infrapopliteal, worse outcomes were observed with prosthetic conduit. Our results suggest that vein conduit should be preferentially used for infrapopliteal targets, while prosthetic conduit confers comparable outcomes in a subset of patients who do not have suitable autologous vein conduits.

Introduction and Objectives: 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, evidence is limited and the potential benefit of FLE remains unproven.
Method(s): Patients 18+ who underwent TEVAR for chronic aortic dissection with known FLE status in the SVS VQI database 1/2010-2/2020 were included. Ruptured patients and emergent procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes were in-hospital post-operative complications and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included follow-up maximum aortic diameter change, re-intervention rates, and mortality.
Result(s): 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, maximum pre-operative aortic diameter, 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), but 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), all-cause mortality trended lower, but was not significant (2.2% vs. 7.8%); Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in overall survival between groups (p=0.23). 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.
Conclusion(s): Adjunctive FLE can be performed safely in chronic thoracic aortic dissections without significantly higher perioperative morbidity or mortality. However, given lack of reduction in re-intervention rates, induction of significant favorable aortic remodeling, or definitive survival benefit compared to TEVAR alone, FLE utility remains unclear.
Copyright

Background: To date, few studies adequately evaluate the impact of anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications on aortic remodeling for type B thoracic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). As such, we assessed the relationship between chronic anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications and aortic remodeling of patients with TBAD after TEVAR.
Method(s): Records of the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR registry (2011-2019) were reviewed. Procedures performed for dissection-related pathology were included. Primary outcomes included complete false lumen thrombosis, reintervention-free survival and endoleak at 18 months. Primary outcomes were compared between patients with and without chronic anticoagulants (AC and non-AC). A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect of antiplatelet medications (none, single antiplatelet, and dual antiplatelets) in the non-AC group. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of different antithrombotic therapies on primary outcomes.
Result(s): We identified 1507 patients (mean age, 60.7 +/- 12.2 years; 68.3% male) with a mean follow-up of 18.9 +/- 13.7 months. Two hundred one (14%) patients were on anticoagulation therapy at follow-up. There were no differences in the mean preoperative thoracic aortic diameter or the number of endografts used. The status of false lumen thrombosis and endoleaks were available in 648 (43%) and 1023 patients (68%), respectively. At 18 months, the rates of complete false lumen thrombosis (51.3% vs 47.5%; P =.182), reinterventions (9% vs 10.6%; P =.175), all-cause mortality (97.6% vs 96.9%; P =.561), and endoleaks (18.8% vs 22%; P =.397) were similar in the AC and non-AC groups, respectively (Fig). Controlling for covariates with the Cox regression method, AC use was not independently associated with a decreased risk of complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.16; P =.235) or increased risks of reintervention (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.9-1.24; P =.484) and endoleak (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.14; P =.725). Within the non-AC group, antiplatelet medications did not affect the rates of complete false lumen thrombosis, reintervention, or endoleak.
Conclusion(s): The use of chronic anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications did not adversely affect the rate of complete false lumen thrombosis and positive aortic remodeling in patients who underwent TEVAR for TBAD. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications may be safely used in patients who undergo TEVAR for TBAD. [Formula presented]
Copyright

OBJECTIVE:<0.05, |log2foldchange| >0.5) and analyzed using weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis revealed blood modules enriched for immune activation, secretory granules, and coagulation in patients with PAD. Of these 127 differentially expressed transcripts, 40 were significantly associated with MACLE (log-rank false discovery rate <0.1). MicroRNA-4477b was significantly increased in patients with PAD with subsequent MACLE and in a mouse hindlimb ischemia model. CONCLUSIONS:A whole blood transcript signature identified patients with symptomatic PAD and PAD patients at increased risk of MACLE. A previously uncharacterized transcript microRNA-4477b was overexpressed in prevalent PAD, incident MACLE, and in a mouse hindlimb ischemia model. Our novel transcriptomic signature provides insight into potential mechanisms of patients with severe symptomatic PAD.

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.