Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has shown favorable outcomes for repair of complex aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Physician-modified endografting (PMEG) and the Gore thoracoabdominal multibranch endoprosthesis (TAMBE) provide custom and off-the-shelf devices for FB-EVAR, respectively. This study compares the outcomes of TAMBE and PMEG at a single institution. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent TAMBE as part of the multicenter pivotal trial or PMEG as part of a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption at a single institution between 2020 and 2022 were completed. Patient demographics, characteristics, and perioperative and midterm outcomes were compared. RESULTS:A total of 68 patients were included, with 12 in the TAMBE group and 56 in the PMEG group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Aneurysm type was most often thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in both groups (58% TAMBE and 52% PMEG). TAMBE had a higher rate of upper extremity access (100% vs 63%; P = .013) and longer mean procedure time (247 ± 36 minutes vs 189 ± 49 minutes; P < .001). Other intraoperative metrics were similar between groups. Technical success was 100% in TAMBE and 95% in PMEG (P = .412). There was no 30-day mortality in either group. No major adverse events occurred with TAMBE, whereas in PMEG cases, 2% had respiratory failure, 2% required dialysis, and 4% experienced spinal cord ischemia. Although the overall endoleak rates were similar (50% of TAMBE vs 41% of PMEG; P = .57), type II endoleaks accounted for all of the endoleaks in the TAMBE group, whereas type I or III endoleaks were seen in 11% of PMEG patients. At a median follow-up of 26.7 months for the TAMBE group and 21.2 months for the PMEG group, target vessel instability was seen in 10.4% of TAMBE, and 6.9% of PMEG targeted branches (P = .401). Reintervention was required in 33% of TAMBE patients and 27% of PMEG patients (P = .646). Estimated freedom from reintervention rates at 3 years were similar (56% TAMBE vs 62% PMEG, log-rank P = .910). Freedom from visceral renal target vessel instability at 3 years was 89% for both groups (log-rank P = .459). The Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimated survival was 100% for patients in the TAMBE group and 77% for patients in the PMEG group (log-rank P = .157). CONCLUSIONS:At experienced centers, FB-EVAR can be completed with PMEG or TAMBE with comparable, excellent perioperative and midterm outcomes. Reinterventions are frequently needed for both TAMBE and PMEG.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Despite advances in complex endovascular aortic repair techniques, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a devastating complication following endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic repairs. Novel strategies to preserve key intercostal/lumbar arteries have been described. We report our early results of patients who underwent direct intercostal/lumbar artery revascularization using endovascular incorporation of fenestrations/branches or extra-anatomic approaches for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FBEVARs). MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent FBEVAR with intercostal/lumbar artery revascularization from 2018 to 2022 was performed. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and outcomes including SCI and branch occlusions were evaluated. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 317 patients who underwent FBEVAR during the study period, 12 patients were included. Aortic pathologies consisted of degenerative aneurysms (33%), postdissection aneurysms (33%), extensive penetrating aortic ulcers with intramural hematoma (25%), and visceral patch pseudoaneurysm (8%). Full thoracoabdominal coverage was required in 8 patients and supraceliac coverage >10 cm was required in 4. Nine patients received endovascular incorporation, including directional branches (5/9), unstented fenestrations (2/9), and stented fenestration (2/9). Three patients received extra-anatomic subcutaneous femoral-to-radicular artery bypass using a composite graft of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and venous conduit. Our institutional SCI prevention protocol, consisting of prophylactic cerebral spinal fluid drain (CSFD) for high-risk patients, hemodynamic augmentation, and oxygen supplementation, was followed. Prophylactic CSFD was placed in 9 patients. One patient had unsuccessful drain placement attempts. The other 2 patients had previous unsuccessful attempts at CSFD placement. Median number of target vessels for FBEVAR was 4 with fluoroscopy time 66±31 minutes, contrast usage 109±51 ml. There were no in-hospital mortalities. Tarlov grade II SCI (ASIA grade D) were seen in 2 patients (1 endovascular and 1 extra-anatomic bypass), which resolved before discharge. At mean follow-up of 472±447 days, 3 patients had thrombosed intercostal/lumbar branches (1 extra-anatomic bypass and 2 endovascular branches) with no new SCI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In patients at high risk for SCI undergoing FBEVAR, direct revascularization of an intercostal or lumbar artery is feasible using endovascular or extra-anatomic bypass approach. Further studies are planned to identify key contributing segmental arteries and optimization of revascularization strategies. CLINICAL IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the feasibility of Endovascular and extra-anatomic bypass to preserve segmental artery flow, aimed at reducing the risk of spinal cord ischemia during endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic repairs.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68-79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6-50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

BACKGROUND:Disruption score (DS) is a novel bibliometric created to identify research that shifts paradigms, which may be overlooked by citation count (CC). We analyzed the most disruptive, compared to the most cited, literature in vascular surgery, and hypothesized that DS and CC would not correlate. METHODS:A PubMed search identified vascular surgery publications from 1954 to 2014. The publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool and DS algorithm to identify the top 100 studies by CC and DS, respectively. The publications were reviewed for study focus, design, and contribution, and subsequently compared. RESULTS:= .03). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:DS was weakly correlated with CC and captured a unique subset of literature that created paradigm shifts in vascular surgery. DS should be utilized as an adjunct to CC to avoid overlooking impactful research and influential researchers, and to measure true academic productivity.

OBJECTIVE:Penetrating cerebrovascular injuries (PCVI) are associated with a high incidence of mortality and neurological events. The optimal treatment strategy of PCVI, especially when damage control measures are required, remains controversial. The aim of this study was to describe the management of PCVI and patient outcomes at a level 1 trauma center where vascular injuries are managed predominantly by trauma surgeons. METHODS:An institutional trauma registry was queried for patients with PCVI from 2011 to 2021. Patients with common carotid artery (CCA), internal carotid artery (ICA), or vertebral artery injuries were included for analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital stroke or death. A subgroup analysis was completed of arterial repair (primary repair or interposition graft) vs ligation or embolization vs temporary intravascular shunting at the index procedure. RESULTS:We analyzed 54 patients with PCVI. Overall, the in-hospital stroke rate was 17% and in-hospital mortality was 26%. Twenty-one patients (39%) underwent arterial interventions for PCVI. Ten patients underwent arterial repair, six patients underwent ligation or embolization, and five patients underwent intravascular shunting as a damage control strategy with a plan for delayed repair. The rate of in-hospital stroke was 30% after arterial repair, 0% after arterial ligation or embolization, and 80% after temporary intravascular shunting. There was a significant difference in the stroke rate between the three subgroups (P = .015). Of the 32 patients who did not have an intervention to the CCA, ICA, or vertebral artery, 1 patient with ICA occlusion and 1 patient with CCA intimal injury developed in-hospital stroke. The mortality rate was 0% after arterial repair, 50% after ligation or embolization, and 60% after intravascular shunting. The rate of stroke or death was 30% in the arterial repair group, 50% in the ligation or embolization group, and 100% in the temporary intravascular shunting group. CONCLUSIONS:High rates of stroke and mortality were seen in patients requiring damage control after PCVI. In particular, temporary intravascular shunting was associated with a high incidence of in-hospital stroke and a 100% rate of stroke or death. Further investigation is needed into the factors related to these finding and whether the use of temporary intravascular shunting in PCVI is an advisable strategy.

OBJECTIVE:The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is an International prospective multicenter registry collecting real-world data on performance of Gore aortic endografts. The purpose was to analyze the long-term outcomes and patient survival rates, as well as device performance in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic and complicated or uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS:From August 2010 to October 2016, 5014 patients were enrolled in the GREAT registry. The study population were patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair for TBAD through 5-year follow-up (days 0-2006). The primary outcomes for this analysis were all-cause and aortic-related mortality, stroke, aortic rupture, endoleaks, migration, fracture, compression, and any reintervention through 5 years. RESULTS:We identified 265 patients. The mean age was 60.9 ± 11.9 years (range, 19-84 years; 211 males [79.6%]). Devices used were the Gore TAG and Conformable Gore TAG Thoracic Endoprosthesis. There were 228 patients (86.0%) who underwent primary endovascular treatment (144 off-label [54.3%]); 22 (8.3%) underwent reintervention after prior endovascular procedure and 15 (5.7%) underwent reintervention after prior open procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71.1%. Freedom from aortic-related mortality through 5 years was 95.8%. There was no significant difference in freedom from all-cause mortality during the follow-up period in complicated or uncomplicated disease. At 30 days and through 5 years, respectively, for all the following outcomes, the aortic rupture rate was 1.1% (n = 3) and 1.9% (n = 5). The stroke rate was 1.1% (n = 3) and 4.2% (n = 11). The spinal cord ischemic event rate was 1.5% (n = 4) and 2.6% (n = 7). Reinterventions were required in 6.4% (n = 17) and 21.1% (n = 56) of patients. The need for conversion to open repair was 0.4% (n = 1) and 2.6% (n = 7). Additional graft placement was required in 3 patients (1.1%) and 16 patients (6.0%). The endoleak rate at 30 days was 3.4% (n = 9); type IA (n = 1 [0.4%]), type IB (n = 4 [1.5%]), type II (n = 1 [0.4%]), type III (n = 1 [0.4%]), and unspecified (n = 4 [1.6%]). Through 5 years, the endoleak rate was 12.1% (n = 32); type IA (n = 7 [2.6%]), type IB (n = 10 [3.8%]), type II (n = 9 [3.4%]), type III (n = 2 [0.8%]), and unspecified (n = 12 [4.5%]). There were no cases of stent migration, compression or fracture through 5 years. CONCLUSIONS:Results at the 5-year follow-up demonstrate that the use of the Gore TAG and Conformable Gore TAG Thoracic Endoprosthesis can be supported in treatment of TBAD (acute, chronic, complicated, and uncomplicated). These data demonstrate strong device durability, beneficial patient outcomes, and support for the treatment of thoracic aortic dissection with an endovascular approach. Complete 10-year follow-up in GREAT as planned will be advantageous.

OBJECTIVE:The technical aspects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), specifically the location of proximal seal zone (PSZ) (need to cover the left subclavian artery [LSA]), distal seal zone (DSZ) (length of aortic coverage), benefit of LSA revascularization, and prophylactic lumbar drainage are still debated. Each of these issues has potential benefits but also has known risks. This study aims to identify factors associated with reintervention and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following TEVAR for acute TBAD with a zone 3 entry tear. METHODS:analysis, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate association with outcomes. RESULTS:Of 583 patients who met inclusion criteria, 266 had PSZ 2 and 317 had PSZ 3. On univariate analysis, PSZ 2 was associated with a higher rate of reintervention, but PSZ2 was not significant on multivariable analysis after accounting for age, sex, race, smoking, PSZ, DSZ, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA patency. PSZ 2 was not associated with SCI, arm ischemia, or RTAD. PSZ 2 was associated with a trend towards a higher rate of stroke. DSZ 4 and DSZ 5 were performed in 161 and 422 TEVARs, respectively, and DSZ 5 was associated with a higher rate of SCI on univariate (3 [1.9%] vs 39 [9.2%]; P = .01) and multivariable (odds ratio, 7.384; 95% confidence interval, 2.193-24.867; P = .001) analyses. Prophylactic lumbar drain placement was not statistically significantly associated with SCI, but lack of postoperative LSA patency was associated with SCI (odds ratio, 2.966; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-8.656; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS:This study found that PSZ 2 was not associated with lower reinterventions or higher rates of SCI but trended towards a higher rate of stroke than PSZ 3. Additionally, DSZ 5 was strongly associated with SCI when compared with DSZ 4, highlighting the importance of limiting aortic coverage to coverage of the proximal entry tear when possible.

OBJECTIVE:Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) offers a safe alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), but severe calcification is currently considered a contraindication in carotid artery stenting. This study aims to describe the safety and effectiveness of TCAR with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in patients with traditionally prohibitive calcific disease. METHODS:All consecutive patients who underwent TCAR+IVL from 2018-2022 at nine institutions were identified. IVL was combined with pre-dilatation angioplasty to treat calcified vessels before stent deployment. The primary outcome was a new ipsilateral stroke within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included any new ipsilateral neurologic event (stroke/transient ischemic attack [TIA]) at 30 days, technical success, and <30% residual stenosis. RESULTS:Fifty-eight patients (62% male; mean age, 78 ± 6.6 years) underwent TCAR+IVL, with 22 (38%) for symptomatic disease. Fifty-seven patients (98%) met high-risk anatomical or physiologic criteria for CEA. Forty-seven patients had severely calcific lesions. Fourteen patients (30%) had isolated eccentric plaque, 20 patients (43%) had isolated circumferential plaque, and 13 (27%) had eccentric and circumferential calcification. Mean procedure and flow reversal times were 87 ± 27 minutes and 25 ± 14 minutes. The median number of lithotripsy pulses per case was 90 (range, 30-330), and mean contrast usage was 29 mL. No patients had electroencephalogram changes or new deficits observed intraoperatively. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases, with 98% having <30% residual stenosis on completion angiography. One patient had an in-hospital post-procedural stroke (1.72%). Four patients total had any new ipsilateral neurologic event (stroke/TIA) within 30 days for an overall rate of 6.8%. One TIA and one stroke occurred during the index hospitalization, and two TIAs occurred after discharge. Preoperative mean stenosis in patients with any postoperative neurologic event was 93% (vs 86% in non-stroke/TIA patients; P = .32), and chronic renal insufficiency was higher in patients who had a new neurologic event (75% vs 17%; P = .005). No differences were observed in calcium, procedural, or patient characteristics between the two groups. The mean follow-up was 132 days (range, 19-520 days). Three stents developed recurrent stenosis (5%) on follow-up duplex; the remainder were patent without issue. There were no reported interventions for recurrent stenosis during the study period. CONCLUSIONS:IVL sufficiently remodels calcified carotid arteries to facilitate TCAR effectively in patients with traditionally prohibitive calcific disease. One patient (1.7%) suffered a stroke within 30 days, although four patients (6.8%) sustained any new neurological event (stroke/TIA). These results raise concerns about the risks of TCAR+IVL and whether it is an appropriate strategy for patients who could potentially undergo CEA.