Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has shown favorable outcomes for repair of complex aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Physician-modified endografting (PMEG) and the Gore thoracoabdominal multibranch endoprosthesis (TAMBE) provide custom and off-the-shelf devices for FB-EVAR, respectively. This study compares the outcomes of TAMBE and PMEG at a single institution. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent TAMBE as part of the multicenter pivotal trial or PMEG as part of a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption at a single institution between 2020 and 2022 were completed. Patient demographics, characteristics, and perioperative and midterm outcomes were compared. RESULTS:A total of 68 patients were included, with 12 in the TAMBE group and 56 in the PMEG group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Aneurysm type was most often thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in both groups (58% TAMBE and 52% PMEG). TAMBE had a higher rate of upper extremity access (100% vs 63%; P = .013) and longer mean procedure time (247 ± 36 minutes vs 189 ± 49 minutes; P < .001). Other intraoperative metrics were similar between groups. Technical success was 100% in TAMBE and 95% in PMEG (P = .412). There was no 30-day mortality in either group. No major adverse events occurred with TAMBE, whereas in PMEG cases, 2% had respiratory failure, 2% required dialysis, and 4% experienced spinal cord ischemia. Although the overall endoleak rates were similar (50% of TAMBE vs 41% of PMEG; P = .57), type II endoleaks accounted for all of the endoleaks in the TAMBE group, whereas type I or III endoleaks were seen in 11% of PMEG patients. At a median follow-up of 26.7 months for the TAMBE group and 21.2 months for the PMEG group, target vessel instability was seen in 10.4% of TAMBE, and 6.9% of PMEG targeted branches (P = .401). Reintervention was required in 33% of TAMBE patients and 27% of PMEG patients (P = .646). Estimated freedom from reintervention rates at 3 years were similar (56% TAMBE vs 62% PMEG, log-rank P = .910). Freedom from visceral renal target vessel instability at 3 years was 89% for both groups (log-rank P = .459). The Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimated survival was 100% for patients in the TAMBE group and 77% for patients in the PMEG group (log-rank P = .157). CONCLUSIONS:At experienced centers, FB-EVAR can be completed with PMEG or TAMBE with comparable, excellent perioperative and midterm outcomes. Reinterventions are frequently needed for both TAMBE and PMEG.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Despite advances in complex endovascular aortic repair techniques, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a devastating complication following endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic repairs. Novel strategies to preserve key intercostal/lumbar arteries have been described. We report our early results of patients who underwent direct intercostal/lumbar artery revascularization using endovascular incorporation of fenestrations/branches or extra-anatomic approaches for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FBEVARs). MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent FBEVAR with intercostal/lumbar artery revascularization from 2018 to 2022 was performed. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and outcomes including SCI and branch occlusions were evaluated. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 317 patients who underwent FBEVAR during the study period, 12 patients were included. Aortic pathologies consisted of degenerative aneurysms (33%), postdissection aneurysms (33%), extensive penetrating aortic ulcers with intramural hematoma (25%), and visceral patch pseudoaneurysm (8%). Full thoracoabdominal coverage was required in 8 patients and supraceliac coverage >10 cm was required in 4. Nine patients received endovascular incorporation, including directional branches (5/9), unstented fenestrations (2/9), and stented fenestration (2/9). Three patients received extra-anatomic subcutaneous femoral-to-radicular artery bypass using a composite graft of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and venous conduit. Our institutional SCI prevention protocol, consisting of prophylactic cerebral spinal fluid drain (CSFD) for high-risk patients, hemodynamic augmentation, and oxygen supplementation, was followed. Prophylactic CSFD was placed in 9 patients. One patient had unsuccessful drain placement attempts. The other 2 patients had previous unsuccessful attempts at CSFD placement. Median number of target vessels for FBEVAR was 4 with fluoroscopy time 66±31 minutes, contrast usage 109±51 ml. There were no in-hospital mortalities. Tarlov grade II SCI (ASIA grade D) were seen in 2 patients (1 endovascular and 1 extra-anatomic bypass), which resolved before discharge. At mean follow-up of 472±447 days, 3 patients had thrombosed intercostal/lumbar branches (1 extra-anatomic bypass and 2 endovascular branches) with no new SCI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In patients at high risk for SCI undergoing FBEVAR, direct revascularization of an intercostal or lumbar artery is feasible using endovascular or extra-anatomic bypass approach. Further studies are planned to identify key contributing segmental arteries and optimization of revascularization strategies. CLINICAL IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the feasibility of Endovascular and extra-anatomic bypass to preserve segmental artery flow, aimed at reducing the risk of spinal cord ischemia during endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic repairs.

BACKGROUND:Disruption score (DS) is a novel bibliometric created to identify research that shifts paradigms, which may be overlooked by citation count (CC). We analyzed the most disruptive, compared to the most cited, literature in vascular surgery, and hypothesized that DS and CC would not correlate. METHODS:A PubMed search identified vascular surgery publications from 1954 to 2014. The publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool and DS algorithm to identify the top 100 studies by CC and DS, respectively. The publications were reviewed for study focus, design, and contribution, and subsequently compared. RESULTS:= .03). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:DS was weakly correlated with CC and captured a unique subset of literature that created paradigm shifts in vascular surgery. DS should be utilized as an adjunct to CC to avoid overlooking impactful research and influential researchers, and to measure true academic productivity.

A 75-year-old man who had undergone zone 2 thoracic endovascular repair of a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer using a Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE) device (W.L. Gore & Associates) 5 years before had presented with an enlarging extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. A physician-modified five-vessel fenestrated-branched endograft repair was performed using preloaded wires. The visceral renal vessels were sequentially catheterized from the left brachial access via the TBE portal, and the endograft was deployed in staggered fashion. At 1 year of follow-up, imaging studies demonstrated a stable aneurysm sac, patent visceral renal branches, and no endoleak. The retrograde portal of Gore TAG TBE can facilitate fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Endovascular techniques are increasingly used to repair major traumatic vascular injuries, but most endovascular implants are not designed/approved for trauma-specific indications. No inventory guidelines exist for the devices used in these procedures. We aimed to describe the use and characteristics of endovascular implants used for repair of vascular injuries to allow for better inventory management. METHODS:This CREDiT study is a six-year retrospective cohort analysis of endovascular procedures performed for repair of traumatic arterial injuries at five participating US trauma centers. For each treated vessel, procedural and device details were recorded and outcomes assessed with the aim of defining the range of implants and sizes used for these interventions. RESULTS:A total of 94 cases were identified; 58 (61%) were descending thoracic aorta, 14 (15%) axillosubclavian, 5 carotid, 4 abdominal aortic, 4 common iliac, 7 femoropopliteal, and 1 renal. Vascular surgeons performed 54% of cases, trauma surgeons 17%, IR/CT Surgery 29%. Systemic heparin was administered in 68% and procedures were performed a median of 9 h after arrival (IQR 3-24 h). Primary arterial access was femoral in 93% of cases, 49% were bilateral. Brachial/radial access was used primarily in 6 cases, and secondary to femoral in 9. The most common implant was self-expanding stent graft; 18% used >1 stent. Implants ranged in diameter and length based on vessel size. Five of 94 implants underwent reintervention (1 open surgery) at a median of 4d postop (range 2-60d). Two occlusions and 1 stenosis were present at follow-up at a median of 1 month (range 0-72 m). CONCLUSIONS:Endovascular reconstruction of injured arteries requires a broad range of implant types, diameters, and lengths which should be readily available in trauma centers. Stent occlusions/stenoses are rare and can typically be managed by endovascular means.

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.