Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Patients who present acutely with a femoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by ultrasound are often treated with anticoagulation and instructed to follow-up electively. This study sought to assess whether obtaining axial imaging of the central venous system results in the identification of additional iliocaval pathology warranting treatment. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained registry from November 2014 through April 2017 with follow-up through March 2020. Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of femoral DVT diagnosed by ultrasound were evaluated; those who underwent axial imaging of the iliocaval system (Group A) were compared to those who did not undergo imaging of the central veins (Group B). The primary outcome was the performance of any percutaneous central venous intervention. Secondary outcomes included the extent of DVT identified on duplex and after axial imaging, follow-up duplex patency and persistence of severe symptoms. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Eighty patients presented with an ultrasound diagnosis of a femoral vein DVT. Mean follow-up was 551 ± 502 days. Group A comprised 24 patients (30%) and Group B comprised 56 patients (70%). Baseline demographics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. After duplex imaging, Group A exhibited an increased prevalence of DVT in the common femoral vein. After central imaging, Group A exhibited an increased prevalence of DVT in the iliocaval veins. The number of patients who underwent invasive treatment differed significantly between the 2 groups, Group A 16/24 (67%) vs. Group B 9/56 (16%), P < 0.0001. The number of patients that demonstrated duplex patency and had persistent symptoms on follow-up did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of femoral DVT may have additional iliocaval pathology warranting intervention. Well-selected imaging of the central veins may reveal a more complete picture, potentially altering management.

The novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in January 2020 and has since evolved into a pandemic affecting >200 countries. The severity of presentation is variable and carries a mortality between 1% and 3%. We continue to learn about the virus and the resulting acute respiratory illness and hypercoagulability; however, much remains unknown. In our early experience in a high-volume center, we report a series of four cases of acute peripheral artery ischemia in patients with COVID-19 in the setting of elevated D-dimer levels.

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

OBJECTIVE:Active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with considerable risk for thromboembolism; however, arterial thromboembolism is rare and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Their management requires careful coordination between multiple providers, and as a consequence, much of the published literature is limited to case reports published across specialties. METHODS:We examined our recent institutional experience with aortoiliac, mesenteric and peripheral arterial thromboembolisms in patients with either Crohn's disease or Ulcerative Colitis. To supplement our experience, a comprehensive literature review was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases from 1966 to 2019. Patient demographics, flare/thromboembolism management and outcomes were abstracted from the selected articles and our case series. RESULTS:Fifty-two patients with IBD, who developed an arterial thromboembolism, were identified (49 from published literature, 3 from our institution). Over 82% of patients presented during an active IBD flare. Surgical intervention was attempted in 77% of patients, which included open thromboembolectomy, catheter-directed thrombolysis or bowel resection. Thromboembolism resolution was achieved in 76% of patients with comparable outcomes with either catheter-directed thrombolysis or open thrombectomy (83.3% vs. 68.2%). Nearly one third of patients underwent small bowel resection or colectomy. In two patients, thromboembolism resolution was achieved only after total abdominal colectomy for severe pancolitis. Multiple thromboembolectomies were associated with higher risk for amputation. Overall mortality was 11.5%, but was greatest for occlusive aortoiliac and mesenteric thromboembolism (14.3%, 57%). All survivors of occlusive SMA thromboembolism suffered short-gut syndrome requiring small bowel transplant. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with IBD, who develop an arterial thromboembolism, can expect overall poor outcomes.. Catheter-directed thrombolysis achieved comparable outcomes to open thromboembolectomy without undue bleeding risk. Total abdominal colectomy for moderate-severe pancolitis is an emerging strategy in the management of refractory arterial thromboembolism. Successful surgical management may include open thromboembolectomy, catheter-directed thrombolysis and bowel resection when indicated.

OBJECTIVE:MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients at our tertiary referral center were identified for inclusion based on a search for the term "penetrating ulcer" in abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging reports between January 2014 and December 2017. Patients' electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed to determine baseline medical characteristics, imaging indication, as well as subsequent clinical course, interventions and outcomes. Aortic diameters and ulcer depths were measured by a single observer on initial and follow-up imaging to assess for association with concomitant aortic pathology, evolving aortic disease, and ulcer progression, defined as increase in depth of ≥ 1mm. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 16 (College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC), and a threshold p-value of < 0.05 set for significance. RESULTS:Ninety-two patients with PUAA were identified; 57 (62%) were male. The mean age at diagnosis was 79.3 years, and comorbidities included hypertension (74%), hyperlipidemia (65%) and malignancy (34%). The most common indication for imaging was chest, back, or abdominal pain (19%). On initial imaging, mean ulcer depth was 1cm (range from 0.2cm to 3.4cm). Concomitant abdominal aortic dilation ≥ 3cm was found in 34 (37%) patients. Thirty-six (39%) patients had a vascular surgery consultation immediately following radiographic diagnosis. Follow-up axial imaging was performed on 27 (29%) untreated patients. The overall sample's mean ulcer depth remained essentially unchanged from initial measurement (p = .99); however, 14 (52%) patients with follow-up imaging were found to have increased overall aortic diameter. Of the total 92 patients, nine (10%) underwent an endovascular abdominal aortic intervention during the review period: two for symptomatic PUAA and the remainder for progression of concomitant aneurysmal disease. All cause mortality was 5% during mean follow-up period of 21.9 months (range 0 to 72.5 months). Of the patients lost to follow-up, 61% did not receive vascular referral after initial diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:PUAA are typically incidental findings identified in elderly, comorbid patients undergoing imaging for an unrelated indication. Though isolated findings of an asymptomatic PUAA rarely require surgical intervention, these patients we argue would benefit from vascular surgery referral for long-term follow-up and interval imaging to assess for disease progression as well as concomitant aortic degeneration, which may necessitate repair. In addition, we observed that the majority of those patients lost to follow-up did not receive vascular consultation, suggesting that lack of involvement of vascular specialists at the time of diagnosis is a missed opportunity to secure appropriate follow-up and management.

These Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines describe the care of patients with aneurysms of the visceral arteries. They include evidence-based size thresholds for repair of aneurysms of the renal arteries, splenic artery, celiac artery, and hepatic artery, among others. Specific open surgical and endovascular repair strategies are also discussed. They also describe specific circumstances in which aneurysms may be repaired at smaller sizes than these size thresholds, including in women of childbearing age and false aneurysms. These Guidelines offer important recommendations for the care of patients with aneurysms of the visceral arteries and long-awaited guidance for clinicians who treat these patients.

OBJECTIVE:Ischemic complications (including in the lower extremity, visceral, spinal, and pelvic territories) following standard endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) are well recognized but fortunately uncommon. The incidence of such complications following fenestrated and branched aortic repair (F/BEVAR) has not been well defined in the literature. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of ischemic complications between EVAR and F/BEVAR and to elucidate potential risk factors for these complications. METHODS:We identified all patients who underwent EVAR from 2003 to 2017 or F/BEVAR from 2012 to 2017 in the national Vascular Quality Initiative database. We assessed differences in perioperative ischemic outcomes with methods including logistic regression and inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting, using a composite endpoint of lower extremity ischemia, intestinal ischemia, stroke, or new dialysis as the primary endpoint. RESULTS:The data comprised 35,379 EVAR patients and 3374 F/BEVAR patients. F/BEVAR patients were more likely to be female, have had previous aneurysm repairs, and be deemed unfit for open aneurysm repair; they were less likely to have ruptured aneurysms; and they had higher estimated blood losses, contrast volumes, and fluoroscopy and procedure times. The incidence of any ischemic event (7.7% vs 2.2%) as well as the incidences of the component endpoints of lower extremity ischemia (2.3% vs 1.0%), intestinal ischemia (2.7% vs 0.7%), stroke (1.5% vs 0.3%), and new hemodialysis (3.1% vs 0.4%) were all significantly increased (all P < .001) in F/BEVAR compared with standard EVAR. After propensity adjustment, F/BEVAR conferred increased odds of any ischemic complication (1.8), intestinal ischemia (2.0), lower extremity ischemia (1.3), new hemodialysis (10.2), and stroke (2.3). CONCLUSIONS:Rates of lower extremity ischemia, intestinal ischemia, new dialysis, and stroke each range from 0% to 1% for standard EVAR and 1% to 3% for F/BEVAR. The incidence of perioperative ischemic complications following F/BEVAR is significantly increased compared to EVAR. The real-world data in this study should help guide decision-making for surgeons and patients as well as serve as one metric for progress in device and technique development. Improvements in ischemic complications may come from continued technology development such as smaller sheaths, improved imaging to decrease procedure time and contrast volume, embolic protection, and increased operator skill with wire and catheter manipulation.