Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: It has been well established that inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement at the time of open gastric bypass (OGB) surgery in patients with a body mass index of more than 55 kg/m(2) reduces both the pulmonary embolism rate and the perioperative mortality. However, little is known about the long-term effects of IVC filter placement in this particular group of patients. METHODS: Over an 8-year period, a total of 571 morbid obese patients underwent OGB procedures, and 58 (10%) of them required placement of an IVC filter before their procedure. All IVC filters were placed percutaneously through a femoral vein approach using a portable OEC fluoroscope. Types of IVC filters used in our study included the TrapEase (n = 35), Simon-Nitinol (n = 9), Greenfield (n = 2), and Bard Recovery (n = 12). RESULTS: Of the 58 patients who required an IVC placement, 56 remained free of any thromboembolic phenomena over the 8-year period (range, 1-8 years). The remaining two patients developed deep venous thrombosis. One patient was successfully treated with intravenous heparin and a 6-month course of Coumadin. She had complete resolution of her deep venous thrombosis and was incidentally noted to have a prothrombin 20210 gene mutation. The other patient, who had multiple gastric bypass complications, could not be successfully treated with intravenous heparin and thus progressed on to complete IVC thrombosis. She developed phlegmasia cerulea dolens and required bilateral above-the-knee amputations. She subsequently died 3 months after her procedures. CONCLUSION: It appears that IVC filter placement at the time of OGB surgery is a relatively benign intervention with a maximal benefit. A note of caution should be exerted for those obese patients who have a hypercoagulable disorder and for those who have complications related to the gastric bypass. An aggressive posture, which may consist of immediate anticoagulation after their procedures (only when it is deemed safe), should be advocated in this small sub-group of morbid obese patients

The value of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the setting of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm remains controversial owing to differing results. However, interpretation of published results remains difficult as there is a lack of generally accepted protocols or standard operating procedures. Furthermore, such protocols and standard operating procedures often are reported incompletely or not at all, thereby making interpretation of results difficult. We herein report our integrated logistic system for the endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Important components of this system are prehospital logistics, in-hospital treatment logistics, and aftercare. Further studies should include details about all of these components, and a description of these logistic components must be included in all future studies of emergency EVAR for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Mortality rates following repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms have remained depressingly high over the last number of decades despite advances in anesthesia and perioperative care. Prior to the introduction of endovascular repair, refinements in surgical technique had been few and far between. It was not until fairly recently that we finally observed a reduction in mortality coinciding with the wider adoption of endovascular repair. So, the case is closed, right? Endovascular repair should be widely adopted in all suitable patients? Well, not exactly. The following debate centers around what level of evidence is required to answer this question. Frank Veith argues that we're already there. He was an early adopter and innovator of endovascular techniques and feels that we have enough information to widely adopt endovascular repair of ruptured aneurysms. Janet Powell and Robert Hinchliffe, innovators in their own right, feel that the generalizability and applicability of endovascular repair require further evaluation with a randomized trial. Both offer clear and reasoned arguments

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms may be compromised or even impossible due to short proximal and/or distal necks or landing zones, respectively. Supra-aortic branches may limit the proximal anchorage and visceral or renal arteries the distal anchorage of endografts. While solutions have been proposed to overcome the problem of a short proximal neck, no technique has been described that solves the problem of a short distal neck. We present the 'periscope technique,' which allows extension of the distal landing zone and complete endovascular treatment of ruptured thoracoabdominal aneurysms with short distal necks using devices already stocked in most centers performing EVAR procedures

PURPOSE: To present a technique for renal and visceral revascularization allowing complete endovascular treatment of a ruptured type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm using devices already stocked in most centers performing endovascular aneurysm repair. TECHNIQUE: Open arterial access is obtained to both common femoral arteries and the left subclavian artery (LSA). Access to the visceral and renal arteries is obtained through separate 8-F sheaths for each visceral and renal branch. Both visceral arteries (celiac trunk and superior mesenteric artery) are accessed through 2 separate sheaths placed into the LSA, and both renal arteries are accessed through 2 separate sheaths placed into the left common femoral artery. Corresponding covered stents are introduced and positioned in the celiac trunk, superior mesenteric artery, and both renal arteries but not deployed. The aortic stent-graft is then introduced and deployed through the right common femoral artery. Once the aneurysm exclusion is completed, the stent-grafts to the branches are deployed so that they are positioned between the aortic wall and the aortic stent-graft. Finally, the branch stent-grafts as well as the aortic stent-graft are fully expanded with balloon catheters inflated simultaneously as in the kissing balloon technique. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, no one has reported using this technique to successfully treat a ruptured thoracoabdominal aneurysm and revascularize all 4 major renovisceral arteries. A main advantage of this technique over use of branched stent-grafts is that it can be performed even in the emergency setting with devices that are in stock in most institutions performing endovascular aneurysm exclusion

BACKGROUND: Composite sequential femoro-popliteal-distal bypass is a valuable option for treatment of critical limb ischemia when autogenous vein is limited and an isolated popliteal or distal arterial segment exists. We report a modified technique for composite sequential bypass and the results with its use over a 14-year period. METHODS: Twenty-five modified composite sequential bypass procedures were performed on 24 patients to treat gangrene, ischemic ulceration, and severe rest pain. Vein grafts were anastomosed from blind popliteal or blind distal arterial segments above-knee (7) or below-knee (18) to a distal outflow vessel including the below-knee popliteal (1), posterior tibial (5), anterior tibial (7), or peroneal (12) artery. Polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafts were then placed from a suitable inflow artery to the proximal hood of the vein graft. RESULTS: Cumulative primary patency rates were 80% at 3 years, and 65% at 5 years. The limb-salvage rate was 85% at 4 years. Occlusion of the prosthetic segment with a patent distal vein segment was recognized in two patients who presented with less severe recurrent ischemia. Limb-salvage in these patients was achieved by a secondary prosthetic graft to the patent vein graft. CONCLUSION: Our modified configuration of the prosthetic-vein anastomosis for composite sequential bypass is an alternative to the conventional procedure and may help preserve vein graft patency should the polytetrafluoroethylene graft thrombose

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of atherectomy versus subintimal angioplasty (SIA) in patients with lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. METHODS: From September 2005 through July 2006, 27 patients (17 women; mean age 65 years, range 37-85) underwent atherectomy of 46 lesions (11 TASC C/D occlusions) with the SilverHawk device. Results were compared to 67 patients (34 men; mean age 69 years, range 46-92) undergoing SIA for 67 lower extremity arterial occlusions from July 1999 through June 2004. RESULTS: Technical success in the atherectomy cohort was 100%. In the 11 patients with occlusions, symptoms improved in 10 and worsened in 1, but 9 (82.0%) of the 11 patients required reintervention, and 8 (72.7%) patients with occlusive lesions re-occluded. Endovascular reintervention was required to maintain primary patency in only 2 (12.5%) of 16 patients treated for stenotic lesions. At 1 year, the assisted primary patency was 37.7% in the atherectomy group. In the 11 patients with occlusive lesions, the patency rates were 36.8% and 12.3% at 6 and 9 months, respectively, versus 100% and 83.3% at the same time intervals in patients with stenotic lesions. SIA was technically successful in 56 (83.6%) of 67 occlusions. The assisted primary patency and limb salvage rates of the entire group (intention-to-treat) at 12 and 24 months were 59.2% and 45.0%, respectively, while the assisted primary patency of the 56 technically successful SIAs at 12 and 24 months were 70.7% and 53.8%, respectively. Limb salvage for the entire group (intention-to-treat) was 90.6% and 87.9% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Atherectomy may yield acceptable primary patency and limb salvage in patients with stenotic lesions. Many of the patients treated for occlusive lesions require reintervention. Based on patency and limb salvage, SIA appears superior to atherectomy for the treatment of lower extremity occlusive disease

Most symptomatic patients should not be candidates for carotid artery stenting (CAS); at least not at present. In these patients, CAS is associated with higher stroke, as well as recurrent stenosis rates compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Furthermore, CAS is considerably more expensive than CEA. These facts raise the question, why perform CAS in symptomatic patients when you have CEA, which is associated with lower stroke and recurrent stenosis rates, and is also a more cost-effective option. This article supports the theory that currently most symptomatic patients are not appropriate candidates for CAS