Faculty Bibliography

AIM: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) larger than 5.5 cm should generally undergo elective repair. However, some of these patients have serious comorbid conditions, which greatly increase operative risk. This study evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative, observational management and selective delayed AAA repair in high-risk patients with large infrarenal and pararenal AAAs. METHODS: Among 226 patients with AAAs >5.5 cm, we selected 72 with AAAs 5.6-12.0 cm (mean 7.0 cm) for periods of nonoperative management because of their prohibitive surgical risks. Comorbid factors included a low ejection fraction of 15-34% (mean 22%) in 18 patients; FEV1 <50% (mean 38%) in 25; prior laparotomy in 10; and morbid obesity in 22. Follow-up was complete in the 72 patients for the 6-76 months (mean 23 months) that they were treated nonoperatively. Fifty-three patients ultimately underwent repair because of AAA enlargement or onset of symptoms after 6-72 months (mean 19 months) of observational treatment. RESULTS: Of the 72 selected patients, 54 (75%) are living and 18 (25%) are dead. Seven patients undergoing only nonoperative treatment presently survive after 28-76 months (mean 48 months). Of the 18 deaths, AAA rupture occurred in only 3 patients (4%) who had been observed for 12, 31, and 72 months before rupture. Nine other deaths (13%) occurred after 6-72 months from comorbidities unrelated to the patient's AAA. Six of the 53 patients undergoing delayed AAA repair died within 30 days of operation (11% mortality). The mortality for the 154 good risk AAA patients, who underwent prompt open or endovascular repair, was 2.2%. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities are acceptably managed for long periods (6-76 months) by nonoperative means. Substantial delays of 12 to 76 months resulted in an AAA rupture rate of only 4%, while 13% of these patients (9 of 72) died of their comorbidities unrelated to AAA rupture or surgery and mortality in this group of patients, when operated on, was 11% (6 of 53). These findings support the selective use of nonoperative observational management in some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities

PURPOSE: To assess unenhanced and delayed phase computed tomographic (CT) images combined with arterial phase images for detecting endoleaks after endovascular treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of endoleaks after endovascular treatment of AAAs in 33 patients with endoleak (positive group) and 40 patients without evidence of endoleak or aneurysm enlargement (negative group). All patients underwent unenhanced and biphasic contrast material-enhanced CT. The CT scans were reviewed in the following combinations: (a) arterial phase and unenhanced scans (uniphasic/unenhanced set), (b) arterial and delayed phase scans only (biphasic set), and (c) arterial and delayed phase scans with unenhanced scans (complete set). Each set was reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the diagnosis of endoleak. Findings were recorded as positive, negative, or indeterminate for endoleak. RESULTS: Within the positive group, endoleaks were diagnosed with the uniphasic/unenhanced, biphasic, and complete image sets in 30 (91%), 32 (97%), and 33 (100%) patients, respectively. With the uniphasic/unenhanced set, three (9%) endoleaks (seen only on delayed phase images) were missed. With the biphasic set, one (3%) endoleak was interpreted as indeterminate. Within the negative group, uniphasic/unenhanced, biphasic, and complete image sets were negative for endoleaks in 100%, 80%, and 100% of patients, respectively. With the biphasic set, results were indeterminate in 20% of cases. CONCLUSION: A delayed CT acquisition enables detection of additional endoleaks, while an unenhanced acquisition helps eliminate indeterminate results. Thus, both acquisitions contribute to accurate diagnosis of endoleaks when combined with an arterial phase acquisition

This paper describes the present status of the initiative to obtain American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approval of an independent American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS). The need for such a board arises from the evolution of vascular surgery into a distinct, well-defined specialty that deals with all aspects of vascular disease, including knowledge of its natural history, all methods of noninvasive and invasive diagnosis, conservative and medical treatment, open operative treatment, endovascular treatment, and periprocedural care. Because of the greater skill requirements and increased complexity of vascular surgery, its paradigms of training must be changed. Longer periods of vascular training are required with a reciprocal 2- to 3-year shortening of training in general surgery. This cannot be done without an independent ABVS. The effort to obtain ABVS approval has elicited opposition from the American Board of Surgery (ABS) and from some vascular surgery leaders associated with it, making the ABVS a contentious issue. A successful effort was made to reach consensus within vascular surgery, and the ABVS application was submitted to the ABMS. As a result of an ABS campaign that combined pressure and dire warnings, this application encountered intense opposition within the ABMS and its Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB). Institutional and professional self-interest, rather than quality of patient care, appeared to be the overriding considerations in the ABS argument. Measures to overcome this ABS opposition and obstructionism are proposed. They require unity, action, and tangible support from all vascular surgeons. If this call to arms goes unheeded, vascular surgery will not continue to be the self-sufficient specialty it has become and, most importantly, patient care will suffer

OBJECTIVE: The lack of aneurysm pulsatility after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is deemed by some an important guide to the effectiveness of exclusion. However, factors that contribute to aneurysm pulsatility after EVAR have not been elucidated. This study quantitatively analyzed the effects of systemic pressure, aneurysm sac pressure, endoleak, branch outflow from aneurysm sac, and intra-sac thrombus on aneurysm pulsatility after EVAR. METHODS: In an ex vivo model, an artificial aneurysm sac was incorporated within a mock circulation comprised of rubber tubing and a pulsatile pump. The aneurysm sac was then completely excluded from the circulatory circuit with two types of stent-grafts, ie, supported and unsupported, and heparinized canine blood was circulated. Systemic circulation and aneurysm sac pressure was recorded in the absence and presence of endoleaks, and simulated open and closed lumbar branch outflow from the aneurysm sac. The aneurysm sac was then filled with organized human thrombus, and all pressure measurements were repeated. Two observers blinded to the above-mentioned variables independently evaluated aneurysm sac pulsatility with palpation in five separate experiments. Analysis of variance was performed, with significance accepted at P =.05. RESULTS: Systemic pressure was simulated in the artificial circulation to range from 100/60 to 180/60 mm Hg. Regardless of the simulated lumbar branch outflow from the aneurysm, sac pressure was directly related to the presence of endoleak (P <.001). Aneurysm sac pulsatility was present only when the lumbar branch outflow was patent and not dependent on sac pressures. Aneurysm sac thrombosis or type of stent-graft did not influence sac pressure and pulsatility. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, after EVAR pulsatility depends on aneurysm sac outflow, regardless of endoleak, sac thrombosis, sac pressure, or stent-graft. Furthermore, persistent pulsatility does not predict systemic intra-sac pressure, nor does lack of pulsatility reflect freedom of the aneurysm sac from systemic pressurization. This ex vivo model suggests that aneurysm pulsatility is an unreliable guide for predicting aneurysm sac pressurization after EVAR. Other diagnostic methods must be used to assess successful aneurysm exclusion

OBJECTIVE: Subintimal angioplasty (SIA) has been advocated to treat long segment lower extremity arterial occlusions, but many question its value. We evaluated the role of SIA in a group of patients with severe lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. METHODS: During a 2.5-year period, 39 patients with arterial occlusions (median length, 8 cm; range, 2 to 31 cm) were treated on an intention-to-treat basis with SIA. Twenty-five patients had gangrene, five had rest pain, and nine had disabling (<one block) claudication. There were 24 superficial femoral, two superficial-femoral-popliteal, four popliteal, two popliteal-tibial, five tibial, and two external iliac artery lesions. With fluoroscopic guidance, via a prograde common femoral artery puncture (n = 29) or a contralateral common femoral artery puncture (n = 9), a subintimal dissection plane was created across the occlusion with a standard guidewire and catheter. The arterial lumen was reentered distal to the occlusion, and the recanalized segment balloon was dilated. All patients were followed prospectively with arterial duplex scan. RESULTS: SIA was technically successful in 34 of 39 patients (87%). All five failures were from an inability to reenter the patent lumen distally. These five patients underwent successful bypasses that in no case were more distal than would have been required before SIA. In the 34 technically successful SIAs, pain completely resolved (14/14) and areas of gangrene (21/25) healed. The cumulative patency rate in patients who underwent successful SIA was 74% +/- 10% at 12 months. The mean increase in ankle-brachial index after SIA was 0.34 (range, 0.1 to 0.69). There were two distal embolic events, successfully treated surgically (n = 1) or with catheter-directed techniques (n = 1). Three patients underwent subsequent bypass, and the remaining five patients remain asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: SIA is feasible and can be effective in some patients with lower extremity arterial occlusions and threatened limbs. These results, plus SIA's many advantages, support an increasing role for it in the treatment of lower extremity arterial occlusive disease