Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate infrainguinal runoff is considered an important risk factor for iliac stent failure. However, the influence of concomitant infrainguinal arterial reconstruction (CIAR) on iliac stent patency is unknown. This study evaluated the influence of CIAR on outcome of iliac angioplasty and stenting (IAS) in patients with poor distal runoff. METHODS: Over 5 years (1996 to 2001), 68 IAS procedures (78 stents) were performed in 62 patients with poor distal runoff (angiographic runoff score >or=5). The SVS/AAVS reporting standards were followed to define outcome variables and risk factors. Data were analyzed with both univariate analysis (Kaplan-Meier method [K-M]) and regression analysis (Cox proportional hazards model). RESULTS: Indications for iliac artery stenting were disabling claudication (59%) and limb salvage (41%). Of the 68 procedures, IAS with CIAR was performed in 31 patients (46%), and IAS alone was performed in 37 patients (54%). Patients undergoing IAS with CIAR were older (P =.03) and had more extensive and multifocal iliac artery occlusive disease, with more TASC (TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus) type C lesions (P =.03), compared with patients undergoing IAS alone. No other significant differences in risk factors were noted. Runoff scores between patients undergoing IAS with CIAR and those undergoing IAS alone were not significantly different (median runoff scores, 6 [range, 5-8] and 7 [range, 5-9], respectively; P =.77). Primary stent patency rate at 1, 3, and 5 years was 87%, 54%, and 42%, respectively, for patients undergoing IAS with CIAR, and was 76%, 66%, and 55%, respectively, for patients undergoing IAS. Univariate analysis revealed that primary stent patency rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups (K-M, log-rank test, P =.81). Primary graft patency rate for CIAR was 81%, 52%, and 46% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Performing CIAR did not affect primary iliac stent patency (relative risk, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-2.47; P =.81). Overall, there was a trend toward improved limb salvage in patients undergoing IAS with CIAR, compared with those undergoing IAS alone (K-M, log rank test, P =.07). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing IAS with poor distal runoff, CIAR does not improve iliac artery stent patency. Infrainguinal bypass procedures should therefore be reserved for patients who do not demonstrate clinical improvement and possibly for those with limb-threatening ischemia

PURPOSE: To evaluate the patency rates of femorofemoral grafts performed in conjunction with aortomonoiliac or aortomonofemoral (AMI/F) endografts. METHODS: Over the past 8 years, 110 patients (98 men; mean age 77+/-7 years, range 57-90) underwent aortoiliac aneurysm repair with an AMI/F endograft. Follow-up data in these patients were prospectively collected for a mean 2.3 years (range 1-68 months). RESULTS: There were 2 early (<7 days) AMI/F endograft thromboses with secondary femorofemoral graft occlusion. In both patients, patency of all grafts was restored by thrombectomy plus stenting of the endograft. Three late (4, 5, and 10 months) AMI/F endograft thromboses led to femorofemoral graft failure; 2 were successfully treated, but the third patient refused further intervention. No femorofemoral bypass failed in the absence of AMI/F endograft thrombosis. There were no femorofemoral graft infections. Four-year life-table primary and secondary patency rates were 95% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Femorofemoral bypasses with AMI/F endografts for aneurysmal disease are durable procedures and have better patency than femorofemoral grafts used to treat occlusive disease. Femorofemoral bypass patency rates alone are not a disadvantage of aortomonoiliac endografts

There is considerable evidence that embolization takes place universally during all carotid stenting procedures. In addition, the development of sophisticated distal protection devices and their availability made the concept of cerebral protection widely acceptable, and currently there is a consensus among specialists that protection devices need to be used routinely. The results of the SAFER trial as well as the SAPPHIRE trial have further increased the enthusiasm for routine use of protection devices. However, each additional step to an existing procedure adds potential risks to the procedure. This is true for cerebral protection devices. The problems associated with the use of a distal protection device relate to (1) difficulties in introducing and deploying the device, (2) effectiveness of emboli capture, (3) protection device induced vessel injury, and (4) difficulties in retrieving the device. This article reviews the early clinical experience with various protection devices and summarizes some of the disadvantages of these devices

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urolithiasis may result in rupture of a coexistent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We report a patient who required ESWL and who had an AAA. Open surgery was precluded by morbid obesity and persisting incisional hernias after mesh repair. Endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) with bifurcated grafts was precluded by an 11-mm distal aorta. EVAR with stacked tubular AneuRx components was performed, followed by ESWL. The AAA was excluded, and the integrity and position of the endografts were not altered by ESWL

BACKGROUND: Total graft excision with in situ or extra-anatomic revascularization is considered mandatory to treat infection involving the body of aortic grafts. We present a series of nine patients with this complication and such severe comorbid medical illnesses or markedly hostile abdomens that traditional treatments were precluded. In these patients selective complete or partial graft preservation was used. METHODS: Over the past 20 years we have treated nine infected infrarenal aortic prosthetic grafts with complete or partial graft preservation, because excision of the graft body was not feasible. In all nine patients infection of the main body of the aortic graft was documented at computed tomography or surgery. Essential adjuncts included percutaneous or operative drain placement into retroperitoneal abscess cavities and along the graft, with instillation of antibiotics three times daily, repeated debridement of infected groin wounds, and intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 6 weeks. RESULTS: One patient with purulent groin drainage treated with complete graft preservation died of sepsis. One patient with groin infection treated with complete graft preservation initially did well, but ultimately required total graft excision 5 months later, after clinical improvement. In four patients complete graft preservation was successful; two patients required excision of an occluded infected limb of the graft; and one patient underwent subtotal graft excision, leaving a graft remnant on the aorta, and axillopopliteal bypass. In summary, seven of nine patients survived hospitalization after complete or partial graft preservation; amputation was avoided in all but one patient; and no recurrent infection developed over mean follow-up of 7.6 years (range, 2-15 years). CONCLUSIONS: Although contrary to conventional concepts, partial or complete graft preservation combined with aggressive drainage and groin wound debridement is an acceptable option for treatment of infection involving an entire aortic graft in selected patients with prohibitive risks for total graft excision. This treatment may be compatible with long-term survival and protracted absence of signs or symptoms of infection

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to review our experience with delayed open conversion (>30 days) following endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to introduce the concept and advantages of endograft retention in this setting. METHODS: From January 1992 to January 2003, a total of 386 EVARs using a variety of endografts were successfully deployed. Eleven (2.8%) patients required delayed conversion to open repair at an average of 30 months (range, 10-64). Data from all patients undergoing both EVAR and open conversion were prospectively collected. RESULTS: EVARs were performed using grafts made by Talent (4), Vanguard (2,) AneuRx (1), and Surgeon (4). Conversion to open repair (9 transabdominal, 1 retroperitoneal, 1 transabdominal plus thoracotomy) was performed for aneurysm rupture in 7 patients (4 type 1 endoleak, 2 type 2 endoleak, 1 aortoenteric fistula) and aneurysm enlargement in 4 patients (1 type 1 endoleak, 1 type 2 endoleak, 1 type 3 endoleak, 1 endotension). Patients with aneurysm rupture were treated on an emergent basis. Complete removal of the endograft with supraceliac cross-clamping was performed in two cases. One patient (rupture) did not survive the operation, and one patient (aortoenteric fistula) died 2 weeks postoperatively. In the remaining nine cases, the endograft was either completely (1) or partially (6) removed, or left in situ (2). Supraceliac balloon control (2), supraceliac clamping (1), suprarenal clamping (1), or infrarenal clamping (5) was used in these cases. All nine of these patients survived the operation. In one procedure in which the endograft was left intact (endotension), repair was accomplished by exposing the endograft and by placing a standard tube graft over it as a sleeve. In the second procedure in which the graft was left in situ (rupture), the graft was well incorporated, and bleeding lumbar arteries were oversewn and the sac was closed tightly over the endograft. In the remaining 7 cases, the endograft was transected and the proximal portion only (6) or the proximal and distal portions (1) were excised. All surviving patients continue to do well and remain without complications associated with the endograft remnant at a mean follow-up of 22 months (range, 3-56) from the time of open conversion and 46 months (range, 10-73) from the time of original EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair in the setting of a long-standing endograft offers several unique technical challenges but can be successfully accomplished in most patients. Preservation of all or part of the endograft is possible in many patients. This technique simplifies the operative approach and is preferred over complete endograft removal if possible

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and the role of a modified retroperitoneal approach in a high-volume endovascular center. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data for 175 elective infrarenal open AAA repairs performed over 6 years. A transperitoneal approach was used in 118 procedures, and a modified retroperitoneal approach was used in 57 procedures. The incisional modification, which facilitated repair in patients with massive obesity, scarring, or ventral hernia, included a higher, more posterolateral location in the ninth intercostal space. Risk factors that added to the difficulty of the repair included aneurysms with a short (<1 cm) or no aortic neck in 45 patients; large, angled or flared aortic neck in 32 patients;, tortuous and calcified iliac arteries in 6 patients; morbid obesity in 10 patients; low ejection fraction (15%-30%) in 14 patients; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with forced expiratory volume at 1 second less than 55% in 4 patients; previous laparotomy in 18 patients; previous left-sided colectomy in 11 patients; large right iliac aneurysm in 8 patients; large ventral hernia in 8 patients; pelvic irradiation in 4 patients; failed endovascular repair in 5 patients; and previous failed open repair attempt in 2 patients. Many of these factors occurred with significantly greater frequency (P =.04-.001) in the retroperitoneal group. All factors were correlated with outcome. RESULTS: Despite these risk factors, overall 30-day mortality was 3.5% (retroperitoneal group, 3.8%), and mean length of hospital stay was 9 days (retroperitoneal group, 8 days). There was no significant correlation between mortality or length of stay and any of the mentioned risk factors (P >.2). CONCLUSION: In the era of endovascular aneurysm exclusion, open AAA repair is generally used to treat anatomically complex or difficult aneurysms, many of which are present in patients at high risk. Despite this combination of anatomic and systemic risk factors, the modified retroperitoneal approach facilitates treatment in difficult circumstances and enables open AAA repair to be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity