Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence, severity, and etiologic factors of the development of colon ischemia after endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: During the last 9 years we performed 278 elective EVARs using a variety of grafts. To facilitate these repairs, one hypogastric artery (HA) was coil embolized in 109 patients and both HAs were coil embolized in 13 patients. The preprocedural status of the inferior mesenteric, hypogastric, and iliac arteries as well as anatomical characteristics of the abdominal aortic aneurysm were determined arteriographically and by computerized tomographic scans. Postoperative colon ischemia was documented by colonoscopy or operative findings. RESULTS: Colon ischemia occurred in eight patients (2.9%). Three patients with colon ischemia died and had evidence of widespread (cutaneous, renal, small bowel, and/or lower extremity) microembolization. One of these three had a colectomy and microscopic emboli were present. One other patient who required a colectomy also had pathologic evidence of colonic microembolization but survived. Four other patients with colon ischemia were treated conservatively and survived. In one patient, previous colectomy with interruption of mesenteric collaterals may have been a contributory cause of colon ischemia. Of the eight patients with colon ischemia, only one had unilateral HA occlusion, and none had bilateral HA occlusion. The other 121 patients with unilateral and bilateral HA occlusion had no evidence of colon ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Colon ischemia occurs after EVAR with an incidence approximating that of open repair. Colon ischemia was unrelated to HA interruption. Embolization appears to be a major cause of colon ischemia, although inadequate mesenteric collateral circulation may also play an etiologic role. Mortality with colon ischemia accompanied by widespread embolization was high, whereas colon ischemia without it was often mild and amenable to nonoperative management

BACKGROUND: To determine the need for routine versus selective intraoperative IVUS during endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm (AIA) repair. METHODS: One-hundred and eighty-eight endovascular AIA repairs performed over a 5-year period were reviewed and included in the study. Surgeon-made aorto-uni-femoral grafts (n=78) and industry-made bifurcated or tube grafts (n=110) were used. In the initial 51 cases IVUS was routinely performed. In the latter 137 cases IVUS was used selectively. In this group graft deformities suspected on completion angiography or pullback pressure measurements were treated with balloon dilatation and stenting. IVUS was then performed only in the presence of a persistent pressure gradient or inconclusive angiographic findings. RESULTS: In the initial 51 cases IVUS revealed 20 lesions of which 8 were not initially detected angiographically and which required further treatment. In the latter 137 cases IVUS was necessary in only 1 case, and guided the treatment of an angiographically undetectable lesion. There have been no late episodes of graft compression, kinking, or thrombosis in the selective IVUS group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of pullback pressure measurements with a low threshold for angioplasty and stenting, especially in unsupported grafts, followed by the selective use of IVUS decreases the overall requirement for IVUS and its associated costs

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of postoperative hypertension (HTN) after eversion carotid endarterectomy (e-CEA) was compared with that after standard carotid endarterectomy (s-CEA). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis from January 1998 to January 2000, 217 patients underwent 219 CEAs for symptomatic (68) or asymptomatic (151) high-grade (>80%) carotid artery stenosis by either standard (137) or eversion (82) techniques. The eversion technique involves an oblique transection of the internal carotid artery at the carotid bulb and a subsequent endarterectomy by everting the internal carotid artery over the atheromatous plaque. All procedures were done under general anesthesia, and somatosensory-evoked potentials were used for cerebral monitoring. Patients with s-CEA were compared with those with e-CEA for postoperative hemodynamic instability, carotid sinus nerve block, requirement for intravenous vasodilators or vasopressors, stroke, and death. RESULTS: Patients who underwent e-CEA had a significantly (P <.005) increased postoperative blood pressure and required more frequent intravenous antihypertensive medication (24%), compared with patients having an s-CEA (6%). Furthermore, postoperative vasopressors were required after 10% of s-CEAs, but after none of the e-CEAs. No statistically significant difference was noted in the morbidity or mortality of patients after s-CEA and e-CEA. CONCLUSION: e-CEA is a substantial risk factor for HTN in the immediate postoperative period, when compared with the s-CEA. This difference would be even more remarkable in the absence of antihypertensive medications in the e-CEA group and vasopressors in the s-CEA group. Therefore, particular attention should be focused on diagnosing and controlling postoperative HTN in patients after e-CEA