Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively evaluate the comorbidities, treatment patterns and outcomes of Medicare enrolees who developed venous leg ulcers (VLUs). METHOD:Medicare Limited Data Standard Analytic Hospital Inpatient and Outpatient Department Files were used to follow patients who received medical care for a VLU between 1 October 2015 and 2 October 2019. Patients diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) and a VLU were propensity matched into four groups based on their treatment regimen. Episode claims were used to document demographics, comorbidities and treatments of Medicare enrolees who developed VLUs, as well as important outcomes, such as time to ulcer closure, rates of complications and hospital utilisation rates. Outcomes were compared across key propensity-matched groups. RESULTS:In total, 42% of Medicare enrolees with CVI (n=1,225,278), developed at least one VLU during the study, and 79% had their episode claim completed within one year. However, 59% of patients developed another VLU during the study period. This analysis shows that only 38.4% of VLU episodes received documented VLU conservative care treatment. Propensity-matched episodes that received an advanced treatment or high-cost skin substitutes for a wound which had not progressed by 30 days demonstrated the best outcomes when their cellular, acellular, matrix-like product (CAMP) treatment was applied weekly or biweekly (following parameters for use). Complications such as rates of infection (33%) and emergency department visits (>50%) decreased among patients who received an advanced treatment (following parameters for use). CONCLUSION:Medicare enrolees with CVI have diverse comorbidities and many do not receive sufficient management, which contributes to high rates of VLUs and subsequent complications. Medicare patients at risk of a VLU who receive early identification and advanced CAMP treatment demonstrated improved quality of life and significantly reduced healthcare resource utilisation.

BACKGROUND:Management roles for peripheral vascular injuries (PVI) are a source of ongoing debate given the concern for the loss of vascular skills among general surgeons and trauma surgeons (TS). We sought to analyze outcomes of PVI managed by TSs or vascular surgeons (VSs). METHODS:This is a retrospective study of a single, Level I trauma center. Trauma patients with PVI who underwent repair from 2010 to 2021 were included. Patients were separated into groups by the surgical specialty (TS or VS) undertaking the first intervention of the injured vessel. RESULTS:A total of 194 patients were included, with 101 (52%) PVI managed by TS and 93 (48%) by VS. The TS group had more penetrating injuries (84% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), were more often hypotensive (17% vs. 6%, p = 0.01), and had a higher median Injury Severity Score (10 vs. 9, p < 0.001). Time from arrival to operating room was lower in the TS group (77 vs. 257 minutes, p < 0.01), with no difference in rates of preoperative imaging. The TS group performed damage-control surgery (DCS) more frequently (21% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in reintervention rates between the two groups after excluding patients that required reintervention for definitive repair after DCS (13% vs. 9%, p = 0.34). Mortality was 8% in the TS group and 1% in the VS group ( p = 0.02) with no deaths related to the PVI repair in either group. There was no difference in PVI repair complication rates between the two groups (18% vs. 13%; p = 0.36). CONCLUSION:In our collaborative model at a high-volume trauma center, a wide variety of PVI are surgically managed by TS with VS. immediately available for consultation or for definitive repair of more complex vascular injuries. Trauma surgeons performed more DCS on higher acuity patients. No difference in vascular-related complications was detected between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

BACKGROUND:Cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) is a rare but known complication of carotid revascularization that can result in severe postoperative disability and death. CHS is a well-described sequela of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and, more recently, of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), but its incidence after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has not been delineated. The aims of this study were to determine the impact of procedure type (CEA versus TCAR versus TFCAS) on the development of CHS as well as to identify perioperative risk factors associated with CHS. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients aged ≥18 years who underwent CEA, TCAR, or TFCAS from 2015-2021. Emergent procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was postoperative development of CHS, defined as the presence of postoperative seizures, intracerebral hemorrhage due to hyperperfusion, or both. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with CHS. RESULTS:156,003 procedures were included (72.7% CEA, 12.4% TCAR, and 14.9% TFCAS). The incidence of CHS after CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS were 0.15%, 0.18%, and 0.53%, respectively. There was no significant difference in risk of CHS after TFCAS compared to CEA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.92; P = 0.416), nor was there a difference between TCAR and CEA (OR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.57-1.45; P = 0.691). Perioperative risk factors associated with an increased risk of CHS included previous history of transient ischemic attack or stroke (OR: 2.50; 95% CI 1.69-3.68; P < 0.0001), necessity for urgent intervention within 48 hr (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.43-2.89; P < 0.0001), treatment of a total occlusion (OR: 3.80; 95% CI 1.16-12.47; P = 0.028), and need for postoperative intravenous blood pressure medication (OR: 5.45; 95% CI 3.97-7.48; P < 0.0001). Age, preoperative hypertension, degree of ipsilateral stenosis less than or equal to 99%, and history of prior carotid procedures were not statistically associated with an increased risk of CHS. Discharging patients on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker was associated with a decreased risk of developing CHS (OR: 0.47; 95% CI 0.34-0.65; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with CEA, TCAR and TFCAS were not statistically associated with an increased risk of postoperative CHS. Patients with a previous history of transient ischemic attack or stroke, who require urgent intervention or postoperative intravenous blood pressure medication, or who are treated for a total occlusion are at a higher risk of developing CHS. Using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker on discharge appears to be protective against CHS and should be considered for the highest risk patients.

BACKGROUND:Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch is increasingly being performed and novel endografts have been developed for this procedure, but the association of stroke and relative risk of procedural techniques remains unclear. This study evaluates the procedural risk factors for stroke and mortality with zone 0-2 TEVAR. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR with proximal landing in zone 0-2 from 2013 to 2022. Emergent and ruptured cases were excluded. Primary exposure variables included proximal seal zone (0-2) and branch vessel revascularization technique: open debranching/bypass, total endovascular incorporation, or combination (at least 1 branch open and 1 branch endovascular). The primary outcome was perioperative inhospital stroke and the secondary outcome was inhospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS:In total, 4,355 cases were analyzed with 350 in zone 0 (8%), 513 in zone 1 (12%), and 3,492 in zone 2 (80%). For zone 0, 1, and 2, the stroke rates were 11.1%, 5.3% and 4.7% (P < 0.0001) and inhospital mortality rates were 6.9%, 5.3% and 3.5% (P = 0.002), respectively. Branch vessel revascularization technique was associated with stroke in zone 0 with a 3-fold higher stroke rate for total endovascular incorporation of branches compared to combination and open techniques (P = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, zone 0 was independently associated with a greater than 2-fold increased odds of stroke compared to zone 2 (95% CI 1.4-3.2, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS:Stroke rate was 2-3 times higher for zone 0 TEVAR compared to zones 1 and 2. Within zone 0, total endovascular branch incorporation was associated with a 3-fold higher stroke rate than open and combination techniques. Future device design modifications and novel endovascular strategies for stroke prevention are required to make total endovascular repair of the aortic arch an acceptable alternative to combination and open debranching/bypass techniques.

OBJECTIVE:Penetrating carotid artery injuries (PCAI) are significantly morbid and deadly, often presenting in extremis with associated injuries and central nervous system deficit. Repair may be challenging with arterial reconstruction vs ligation role poorly defined. This study evaluated contemporary outcomes and management of PCAI. METHODS:PCAI patients in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2018 were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between repair and ligation groups after additionally excluding external carotid injuries, concomitant jugular vein injuries, and head/spine Abbreviated Injury Severity score of ≥3. Primary end points were in-hospital mortality and stroke. Secondary end points were associated injury frequency and operative management. RESULTS:There were 4723 PCAI (55.7% gunshot wounds, 44.1% stab wounds). Gunshot wounds more frequently had associated brain (73.8% vs 19.7%; P < .001) and spinal cord (7.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001) injuries; stab wounds more frequently had jugular vein injuries (19.7% vs 29.3%; P < .001). The overall in-hospital mortality was 21.9% and the stroke rate was 6.2%. After exclusion criteria, 239 patients underwent ligation and 483 surgical repair. Ligation patients had lower presenting Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) than repair patients (13 vs 15; P = .010). Stroke rates were equivalent (10.9% vs 9.3%; P = .507); however, in-hospital mortality was higher after ligation (19.7% vs 8.7%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality was higher in ligated common carotid artery injuries (21.3% vs 11.6%; P = .028) and internal carotid artery injuries (24.5% vs 7.3%; P = .005) compared with repair. On multivariable analysis, ligation was associated with in-hospital mortality, but not with stroke. A history of neurological deficit before injury lower GCS, and higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) were associated with stroke; ligation, hypotension, higher ISS, lower GCS, and cardiac arrest were associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS:PCAI are associated with a 22% rate of in-hospital mortality and a 6% rate of stroke. In this study, carotid repair was not associated with a decreased stroke rate, but did have improved mortality outcomes compared with ligation. The only factors associated with postoperative stroke were low GCS, high ISS, and a history of neurological deficit before injury. Beside ligation, low GCS, high ISS, and postoperative cardiac arrest were associated with in-hospital mortality.

Type B aortic dissection is a life-threatening medical emergency that can result in rupture of the aorta. Due to the complexity of patient-specific characteristics, only limited information on flow patterns in dissected aortas has been reported in the literature. Leveraging the medical imaging data for patient-specific in vitro modeling can complement the hemodynamic understanding of aortic dissections. We propose a new approach toward fully automated patient-specific type B aortic dissection model fabrication. Our framework uses a novel deep-learning-based segmentation for negative mold manufacturing. Deep-learning architectures were trained on a dataset of 15 unique computed tomography scans of dissection subjects and were blind-tested on 4 sets of scans, which were targeted for fabrication. Following segmentation, the three-dimensional models were created and printed using polyvinyl alcohol. These models were then coated with latex to create compliant patient-specific phantom models. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) structural images demonstrate the ability of the introduced manufacturing technique for creating intimal septum walls and tears based on patient-specific anatomy. The in vitro experiments show the fabricated phantoms generate physiologically-accurate pressure results. The deep-learning models also show high similarity metrics between manual segmentation and autosegmentation where Dice metric is as high as 0.86. The proposed deep-learning-based negative mold manufacturing method facilitates an inexpensive, reproducible, and physiologically-accurate patient-specific phantom model fabrication suitable for aortic dissection flow modeling.

BACKGROUND:Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch. METHODS:Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions. RESULTS:288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.

OBJECTIVE:Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has become a favorable treatment strategy for patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) who are high risk for open repair. Compared with degenerative aneurysms, post-dissection aneurysms can pose additional challenges for endovascular repair. Literature on physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for post-dissection aortic aneurysms is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR for degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. METHODS:A single-center institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients that underwent PM-FBEVAR between 2015 and 2021. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and clinical outcomes were compared between degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included technical success, major complications, endoleak, target vessel instability, and reintervention. RESULTS:Of the 183 patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR in the study, 32 had aortic dissections, and 151 had degenerative aneurysms. There was one 30-day death (3.1%) in the post-dissection group and eight 30-day deaths (5.3%) in the degenerative aneurysm group (P = .99). Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast usage were similar between the post-dissection and degenerative groups. Reintervention during follow-up (28% vs 35%; P = .54) and major complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Endoleak was the most common reason for reintervention, with the post-dissection group having a higher rate of type IC, II, and IIIA endoleaks (31% vs 3%; P < .0001; 59% vs 26%; P = .0002; and 16% vs 4%; P = .03). During the mean follow-up of 14 months, all-cause mortality was similar between the groups (12.5% vs 21.9%; P = .23). CONCLUSIONS:PM-FBEVAR is a safe treatment for post-dissection cAAAs and TAAAs with high technical success. However, endoleaks requiring reintervention were more frequent in post-dissection patients. The impact of these reinterventions on long-term durability will be assessed with continued follow-up.

OBJECTIVE:Patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) (ie, endovascular revascularization) for symptomatic lower extremity peripheral artery disease remain at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. High-quality evidence demonstrates the addition of a low-dose oral factor Xa inhibitor to single antiplatelet therapy, termed dual pathway inhibition (DPI), reduces the incidence of major adverse events in this population. This study aims to describe the longitudinal trends in factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI, identify patient and procedural characteristics associated with factor Xa inhibitor use, and describe temporal trends in antithrombic therapy post-PVI before vs after VOYAGER PAD. METHODS:This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry from January 2018 through June 2022. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation following PVI, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:A total of 91,569 PVI procedures were deemed potentially eligible for factor Xa inhibitor initiation and were included in this analysis. Overall rates of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI increased from 3.5% in 2018 to 9.1% in 2022 (P < .0001). The strongest positive predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI were non-elective (OR, 4.36; 95% CI, 4.06-4.68; P < .0001) or emergent (OR, 8.20; 95% CI, 7.14-9.41; P < .0001) status. The strongest negative predictor was postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy prescription (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.17-0.23; P < .0001), highlighting significant hesitation about use of DPI after PVI and limited translation of VOYAGER PAD findings into clinical practice. Antiplatelet medications remain the most common antithrombotic regimen after PVI, with almost 70% of subjects discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy and approximately 20% discharged on single antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI has increased in recent years, although the absolute rate remains low, and most eligible patients are not prescribed this treatment.

OBJECTIVE:The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. Although previous reports showed trends towards the increased use of catheter-based techniques, there have been no contemporary studies of practice patterns and how these approaches differ by anatomic distributions of injury. The objective of this study is to provide a temporal assessment of the use of endovascular techniques in the management of torso, junctional (subclavian, axillary, iliac), and extremity injury and to evaluate any association with survival and length of stay. METHODS:The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry (PROOVIT) is the only large multicenter database focusing specifically on the management of vascular trauma. Patients in the AAST PROOVIT registry from 2013 to 2019 with arterial injuries were queried, and radial/ulnar, and tibial artery injuries were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the frequency in use of endovascular techniques over time and by body region. A secondary analysis evaluated the trends for junctional injuries and compared the mortality between those treated with open vs endovascular repair. RESULTS: = .89). Endovascular treatment was more common for thoracic, abdominal, and cerebrovascular injuries, and least likely in upper and lower extremity injuries. Injury severity score was higher for patients receiving endovascular repair in every vascular bed except lower extremity. Endovascular repair was associated with significantly lower mortality than open repair for thoracic (5% vs 46%; P < .001) and abdominal injuries (15% vs 38%; P < .001). For junctional injuries, endovascular repair was associated with a non-statistically significant lower mortality (19% vs 29%; P = .099), despite higher injury severity score (25 vs 21; P = .003) compared with open repair. CONCLUSIONS:The reported use of endovascular techniques within the PROOVIT registry increased more than 10% over a 6-year period. This increase was associated with improved survival, especially for patients with junctional vascular injuries. Practices and training programs should account for these changes by providing access to endovascular technologies and instruction in the catheter-based skill sets to optimize outcomes in the future.