Faculty Bibliography

Ischemic complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) are well-recognized and have been reported to be as high as 9%. The goal of our study was to examine the incidence, management, and outcome of ischemic complications at our institution after EVAR and to compare complications according to graft type and time period. This is a retrospective review of all EVARs performed at our institution from 1993 through 2005 (n = 430). EVAR was performed in asymptomatic patients in most cases. Follow-up consisted of a computed tomography scan and office visit at 1, 6, and 12 months and yearly thereafter. Ischemic complications after EVAR have decreased significantly with the advent of lower-profile devices with easier delivery systems and supported limbs. Simultaneous coil embolization of internal iliac artery at the time of EVAR implant does not appear to increase the risk of pelvic or lower-extremity ischemia, can be done safely, and does not need to be staged

A variety of intraoperative imaging and assessment techniques can be used during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to evaluate the technical results of the arterial repair. However, the necessity of utilizing these techniques routinely in every case, and the actual ability of these studies to improve the outcomes of the operation, remain areas of controversy. The most commonly used intraoperative assessment techniques include arteriography, duplex ultrasonography, and use of a hand-held continuous-wave Doppler probe. While surgeons who advocate intraoperative imaging presume that it will ultimately improve the technical 'perfection' of the operation by allowing the intraoperative identification and immediate revision of occult technical defects that would likely predispose toward perioperative stroke, there is little comparative data in the literature to support this premise. Proponents of routine intraoperative assessment argue that the identification of technical imperfections will allow their immediate correction prior to a perioperative stroke resulting from thromboembolization. In addition, surgeons who use these techniques believe that the presumed reduction in rate of serious technical errors will also result in a lower rate of recurrent carotid stenosis. However, many experienced vascular surgeons who perform CEA do not routinely utilize any of these intraoperative assessment techniques, and report equally excellent results using meticulous technique alone and clinical inspection of the endarterectomy site and arterial repair. Potential issues that may arise when performing routine intraoperative assessment can include: making a determination of which type of 'imperfections' actually require immediate revision of the arterial repair, and potential vascular injuries or cerebral ischemia associated with reclamping of the artery in order to perform an immediate revision. In an analysis of a large, population-based cohort study of CEAs, the authors have found no compelling evidence that routine use of these imaging techniques confers any advantage in terms of the perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy. Conclusions: the majority of surgeons who perform carotid endarterectomy do not routinely utilize any formal intraoperative completion imaging or assessment technique during CEA, other than clinical inspection of the arterial repair. However, even among vascular surgeons, less than 50% are routinely using intraoperative imaging or assessment. The routine use of intraoperative imaging studies did not appear to significantly improve perioperative outcomes with regard to ipsilateral perioperative stroke, and stroke/death. Considering the increased time and cost of performing these procedures, routine use of intraoperative imaging and assessment techniques during CEA is of questionable value. Selective use of these imaging or assessment techniques when the surgeon has a specific concern regarding the technical outcomes of the operation appears to be a reasonable alternative

OBJECTIVE: Most studies on outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have focused on the major complications of death and stroke. Less is known about minor but more common surgical complications such as hematoma, cranial nerve palsy, and wound infection. This study used data from a large, population-based cohort study to describe the incidence of minor surgical complications after CEA and examine associations between minor and major complications. METHODS: The New York Carotid Artery Surgery (NYCAS) study examined all Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CEA from January 1998 to June 1999 in NY State. Detailed clinical information on preoperative characteristics and complications < or =30 days of surgery was abstracted from hospital charts. Associations between minor (cranial nerve palsies, hematoma, and wound infection) and major complications (death/stroke) were examined with chi(2) tests and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The NYCAS study had data on 9308 CEAs performed by 482 surgeons in 167 hospitals. Overall, 10% of patients had a minor surgical complication (cranial nerve (CN) palsy, 5.5%; hematoma, 5.0%; and wound infection, 0.2%). Cardiac complications occurred in 3.9% (myocardial 1.1%, unstable angina 0.9%, pulmonary edema 2.1%, and ventricular tachycardia 0.8%). In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, the occurrence of any minor surgical complication, CN palsy alone, or hematoma alone was associated with 3 to 4-fold greater odds of perioperative stroke or combined risk of death and nonfatal stroke (P < 0.0001). Patients with cardiac complications had 4 to 5-fold increased odds of stroke or combined risk of death and stroke. CONCLUSION: Minor surgical complications are common after CEA and are associated with much higher risk of death and stroke. Patient factors, process factors, and direct causality are involved in this relationship, but future work will be needed to better understand their relative contributions

Physicians in residency training will be the referring physicians of tomorrow. We sought to determine the current surgical and medical trainees' perception of vascular surgery's endovascular qualifications and capabilities. An anonymous survey was sent to all general surgery and internal medicine residents at a single academic institution. Respondents answered the question 'Which specialty is the most qualified to perform (1) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion; (2) angiograms, angioplasty, and stenting of the carotid arteries; (3) renal arteries; (4) aorta; and (5) lower extremity arteries?' For each question, respondents chose one response, either vascular surgery, interventional radiology, interventional cardiology, or do not know. One hundred respondents completed the survey (general surgery, n=50; internal medicine, n=50). There was a significant difference in the attitudes of surgery and medicine residents when choosing the most qualified endovascular specialist (p<0.05). Surgery residents chose vascular surgery as the most qualified specialty for each listed procedure: carotid (80%, n=40), IVC (56%, n=28), aorta (100%, n=50), extremity (86%, n=43), renal (78%, n=39). Medicine residents chose vascular surgery as the most qualified specialty less frequently: carotid (66%, n=33), IVC (6%, n=3), aorta (88%, n=44), extremity (72%, n=36), renal (16%, n=8). There was no significant difference in specialty selection based on postgraduate year. There is a large discrepancy between surgical and medical trainees' perception of vascular surgery's endovascular abilities, particularly regarding IVC placement and renal artery interventions. If our own institution mirrors the nation, each passing year a significant portion of the 21,722 graduating internal medicine residents go into practice viewing vascular surgeons as second-tier endovascular providers. A concerted campaign should be undertaken to educate medical residents regarding the skills and capabilities of vascular surgeons

OBJECTIVE: The optimal timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after ipsilateral hemispheric stroke is controversial. Although early studies suggested that an interval of about 6 weeks after a completed stroke was preferred, more recent data have suggested that delaying CEA for this period of time is not necessary. With these issues in mind, we reviewed our experience to examine perioperative outcome with respect to the timing of CEA in previously symptomatic patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all CEAs performed at our institution from 1992 to 2003 showed that 2537 CEA were performed, of which 1,158 (45.6%) were in symptomatic patients. Patients who were operated on emergently <or=48 hours of symptoms for crescendo transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) or stroke-in-evolution were excluded from analysis (n = 25). CEA was considered 'early' if performed <or=4 weeks of symptoms, and 'delayed' if performed after a minimum of a 4-week interval following the most recent symptom. RESULTS: Of nonurgent CEAs in symptomatic patients, in 87 instances the exact time interval from symptoms to surgery could not be precisely determined secondary to the remoteness of the symptoms (>18 months), and these were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 1,046 cases, 62.7% had TIAs and 37.3% had completed strokes as their indication for surgery. Among the entire cohort, patients who underwent early CEA were significantly more likely to experience a perioperative stroke than patients who underwent delayed CEA (5.1% vs 1.6%, P = .002). Patients with TIAs alone were more likely to be operated on early rather than in a delayed fashion (64.3% vs 46.7%, P < .0001), likely reflecting institutional bias in selecting delayed CEA for stroke patients. However, even when examined as two separate groups, both TIA patients (n = 656) and CVA patients (n = 390) were significantly more likely to experience a perioperative stroke when operated upon early rather than in a delayed fashion (TIA patients, 3.3% vs 0.9%, P = .05; CVA patients, 9.4% vs 2.4%, P = .003). There were no significant differences in demographics or other meaningful variables between patients who underwent early CEA and those who underwent delayed CEA. CONCLUSIONS: In a large institutional experience, patients who underwent CEA <or=4 weeks of ipsilateral TIA or stroke experienced a significantly increased rate of perioperative stroke compared with patients who underwent CEA in a more delayed fashion. This was true for both TIA and stroke patients, although the results were more impressive among stroke patients. On the basis of these results, we continue to recommend that waiting period of 4 weeks be considered in stroke patients who are candidates for CEA

Systemic administration of dexmedetomidine (DEX) decreases cerebral bloodflow (CBF) via direct alpha-2-mediated constriction of cerebral blood vessels and indirectly via its effect on the intrinsic neural pathway modulating vascular smooth muscle. Reduction in CBF without a concomitant decrease in cerebral metabolic rate has raised concerns that DEX may limit adequate cerebral oxygenation of brain tissue in patients with already compromised cerebral circulation (e.g., carotid endarterectomy [CEA]). In this study, we established the incidence of intraarterial shunting used as a sign of inadequate oxygen delivery in a consecutive series of 123 awake CEA performed in our institution using DEX as a primary sedative. Data were prospectively recorded in 151 patients who underwent CEA during the study period. Eighteen patients were sedated with midazolam and fentanyl (M/F) for medical or logistical reasons. Patients thought to be at risk of an intraoperative stroke were treated with a prophylactic intraarterial shunt. These patients, as well as those who required general anesthesia, were excluded from the final analysis. Five patients (4.3%) in the DEX group required intraarterial shunts. The incidence of shunting in patient undergoing awake CEA in our institution is 10% (historical control). No patients developed a stroke or other serious complications. It appears that the use of DEX as a primary sedative drug for CEA does not increase the incidence of intraarterial shunts