Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Carotid artery plaque burden, indirectly measured by the degree of stenosis, quantifies future embolic risk. In natural history studies, patients with moderate degrees of stenosis have a lower stroke risk than those with severe stenosis. However, patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who have experienced TIA or stroke are found to have both moderate and severe degrees of stenosis. We sought to examine the association carotid artery stenosis severity with outcomes in symptomatic patients undergoing carotid interventions including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) and transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing CAS, CEA and TCAR between 2003 and 2020. Patients were stratified into two groups based on the severity of stenosis - non-severe (0 - 69%) and severe (≥ 70%). Primary endpoints were periprocedural neurologic events (strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs)). Secondary endpoints were periprocedural death, myocardial infarction (MI) and composite outcomes of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI per reporting standards for carotid interventions. RESULTS:Of 29,614 symptomatic patients included in the analysis, 5,296 (17.9%) patients underwent TCAR, 7,844 (26.5%) underwent CAS, and 16,474 (55.6%) underwent CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. In the CEA cohort, the neurologic event rate was similarly significantly lower in patients with severe stenosis when compared to those with non-severe stenosis (2.6% vs. 3.2%, P=.024). In the TCAR cohort, the periprocedural neurologic even rate was lower in patients with severe stenosis when compared to those with non-severe stenosis (3% vs. 4.3%, P=.033). There was no similar difference noted in the CAS cohort, with periprocedural neurologic event rates of 3.8% in the severe group versus 3.5% in the non-severe group (P=.518). On multivariable analysis, severe stenosis was associated with significantly decreased odds of post procedural neurologic events in patients undergoing CEA (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 - 0.92; P=.007) and TCAR (OR .83; CI, .69 - 0.99; P=.039), but not CAS. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Severe carotid stenosis as opposed to more moderate degrees of stenosis was associated with decreased rates of periprocedural stroke and TIAs in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR and CEA, but not CAS. The finding of increased rates of periprocedural neurologic events in symptomatic patients with lesser degrees of stenosis undergoing TCAR and CEA warrants further evaluation with a particular focus on plaque morphology and brain physiology, and their inherent risks with carotid revascularization procedures.

BACKGROUND:Mannitol is often administered during open juxtarenal or suprarenal aortic surgery to prevent ischemic injury to the kidneys. Prior evidence evaluating the benefits of intraoperative mannitol in reducing ischemia/reperfusion injury is conflicting and largely based on small, retrospective series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of mannitol in preventing postoperative hemodialysis in patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair where proximal control involved temporary renal ischemia. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing elective open AAA repair between 2003 and 2020. Patients were included in the current analysis if the proximal aortic clamp was placed above at least one renal artery. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as Cr > 1.8 mg/dL. Primary end points were 30-day major morbidity (myocardial infarction, respiratory complications, lower extremity or intestinal ischemia, and the need for temporary or permanent hemodialysis) and mortality. Comparisons were made between the mannitol and nonmannitol cohorts and stratified by the presence of preexisting CKD. RESULTS:During the study period, 4,156 patients underwent elective open AAA repair requiring clamp placement more than one (32.7%) or both (67.3%) renal arteries; 182 patients (4.4%) had preexisting CKD. Overall, 69.8% of patients received mannitol during their surgery. Mannitol was more frequently used in cases involving clamp placement above both renal arteries (70.3%) than one renal artery (61.5%). While prolonged ischemia time (more than 40 min) was associated with a higher risk of postoperative dialysis in patients without CKD, it was not significant in patients with baseline CKD. On a univariate analysis, mannitol use in patients with CKD was associated with a lower risk of postoperative dialysis (P = 0.005). This remained significant on a multivariate analysis (P = 0.008). Mannitol use did not appear to confer renal protective effects in patients without baseline CKD. CONCLUSIONS:Mannitol use was associated with a decreased risk of need for postoperative hemodialysis in patients with CKD undergoing suprarenal aortic clamping for open aneurysm repair. In appropriately selected patients, particularly those with underlying renal insufficiency, mannitol may confer a renal protective effect in open repair of pararenal AAA requiring suprarenal clamping.

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes of patients with premature cerebrovascular disease (<=55 years) who undergo carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The objective of this study was to analyze demographics, presentation, perioperative, and later outcomes of younger patients undergoing CEA.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for CEA cases (2003-2020). Patients were stratified based on age 55 years or less or greater than 55 years. Primary end points were periprocedural stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and composite outcomes. Secondary end points analyzed included ipsilateral restenosis (>=80%) or occlusion, late ipsilateral neurologic events, and reintervention.
Result(s): Of 144,416 patients undergoing CEA, 8264 (5.7%) were aged 55 years or younger. The mean age was 51.3 years (range, 36 to 55 years). Younger patients were more likely to be female (44.5% vs 39.1%) and to be current smokers (58.8% vs 24.4%) (P <.001). They were less likely than older patients to have hypertension (82.2% vs 89.7%), coronary artery disease (25.6% vs 27.9%), and congestive heart failure (7.6% vs 11.2%; P <.001). Younger patients were less likely than older patients to be on aspirin, statins, or beta-blockers, but were more likely to be on P2Y12 inhibitors (P <.001). Younger patients were more likely to present with symptomatic disease (59% vs 47.2%) and were more likely to undergo nonelective CEA (19.3% vs 12.7%; P <.001). Younger patients had similar rates of perioperative stroke/death (1.8% vs 1.9%) and postoperative neurological events (1.7% vs 1.7%), but had lower rates of overall postoperative complications (3.8% vs 4.8%; P <.001). Sixty percent of patients had recorded follow-up (mean, 13 months). During follow-up, younger patients were significantly more likely than older patients to experience complete occlusion or significant (>=80%) restenosis of the operated artery (2.3% vs 1.6%), and were more likely to experience an ipsilateral neurological event (1.4% vs 0.9%) or any neurological event (3.2% vs 2.2%; P <.001).
Conclusion(s): Young patients undergoing CEA are more likely to be female, active smokers, and symptomatic. Although perioperative outcomes are similar, younger patients are more likely to experience carotid occlusion or restenosis as well as subsequent neurological events, during relatively short follow-up. These data suggest that younger CEA patients require more diligent follow-up, and a continued aggressive approach to medical management of atherosclerosis to prevent future events related to the operated artery.
Copyright

Background: Interventions for carotid occlusions are infrequently undertaken and the outcomes are poorly defined. We sought to study patients undergoing urgent carotid revascularization for symptomatic occlusions.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003 to 2020 to identify patients with carotid occlusions undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Only symptomatic patients undergoing urgent interventions, defined within 24 hours of presentation, were included in this analysis. This cohort was compared to patients undergoing urgent intervention for severe stenosis (>=80%). Patients were identified based on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, only. The primary end points were perioperative stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite outcomes.
Result(s): A total of 390 patients were identified who underwent urgent carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic occlusions. The mean age was 67.4 +/- 10.2 years with a range from 39 to 90 years. The cohort was predominantly male (60%), and had significant risk factors for cerebrovascular disease, including hypertension (87.4%), diabetes (34.4%), coronary artery disease (21.6%), current smoking (38.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.6%), and congestive heart failure (10.3%). Medications included statin therapy (78.6%), P2Y12 inhibitors (32.0%), aspirin (77.9%) and renin-angiotensin inhibitor use (43.7%). The perioperative rate of neurologic events was 4.9%%, associated mortality was 2.8% and rate of MI was 1.0%. The composite end point of stroke/death/MI was 7.7%. When compared to patients undergoing urgent endarterectomy for severe stenosis (>=80%), the two cohorts were well matched with regards to risk factors, but the severe stenosis cohort appeared to be better medically managed based on reported medications. In the severe stenosis group, the perioperative rate of neurologic events was 3.3%, associated mortality was 0.9% and rate of MI was 1.2%. The perioperative outcomes were significantly worse for the carotid occlusion cohort, primarily driven by the perioperative mortality, which was nearly threefold, 2.8% versus 0.9% (P <.001). The composite end point of stroke/death/MI was also significantly worse in the occlusion cohort (7.7% vs 4.9%; P =.014).
Conclusion(s): Revascularization for symptomatic carotid occlusion constitutes approximately 2% of carotid interventions captured in the Vascular Quality Initiative, affirming the rarity of this undertaking. These patients have acceptable rates of perioperative neurologic events but are at an elevated risk of overall perioperative adverse events, primarily driven by a significantly higher mortality. While intervention for a symptomatic carotid occlusion may be performed with acceptable rate of perioperative complications, judicious patient selection is warranted in this high-risk cohort.
Copyright

OBJECTIVE:Endothermal ablation is well established for the treatment of the great and small saphenous veins. Data are lacking for treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein (AASV). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AASV treatment using endothermal ablation. METHODS:This was a retrospective review of 314 limbs at a single academic institution from 2016-2018 using the institutional Vascular Quality Initiative database. All limbs had documented AASV reflux. Baseline characteristics were evaluated including age, sex, ethnicity, CEAP (clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology) classification, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and vein diameter. Outcomes relating to procedure safety and efficacy included treatment modality and length, successful ablation on post-operative imaging, post-procedural clinical outcomes, incidence of endothermal heat induced thrombosis (EHIT), and any post-procedural complication. RESULTS:A total of 314 consecutive limbs were identified from 2016-2018. Pre-procedure VCSS scores were available for 312 limbs and averaged 6.13 ± 3.33. History of varicose veins were reported in all limbs with 49.4% (n=155) having previously undergone a procedure. The most common presenting symptom was mild edema in 52.5% (n=165). Vein diameter and assessment of reflux were obtained by venous duplex ultrasound (DUS). The largest AASV diameter was available for 304 limbs, averaging 7.93 ± 2.69 mm. Treatment modalities included radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in 59.2% (n=186), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in 37.9% (n=119), and isolated microphlebectomy in 2.9% (n=9). 38.5% (N=121) of limbs underwent concomitant microphlebectomy at the time of EVLA. Total treatment length was obtained in 297 limbs, averaging 23.0 cm ± 12.0. Post-operatively, 94.6% (n=297) of limbs were prescribed compression stockings. Post-operative DUS was performed in 312 limbs, revealing successful ablation in 96.5% (n=303) with 2 limbs (0.6%) developing an EHIT, both treated with therapeutic enoxaparin for one week. Repeat DUS revealed thrombus resolution in one limb, while the other patient was lost to follow-up. VCSS scores post-procedure were available for 145 limbs and averaged 4.45 ± 2.31. This was a statistically significant decrease from pre-procedure VCSS scores (p<0.01). Average duration of follow-up was 2.2 years, with two limbs lost to follow-up. Of the 9 limbs (3.5%) whose initial procedure failed, 5 (56%) were treated using RFA and 4 (44%) were treated using EVLA. There were no other post-operative complications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our experience over a three-year period for treating the AASV shows it to be safe and effective in a broad range of disease severity with an improvement in VCSS and a low incidence of EHIT. Additionally, RFA and EVLA exhibit similar treatment efficacy. Long-term follow-up data are needed.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in the modern era. While numerous devices exist for standard infrarenal AAA repair, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open repair in patients with short infrarenal necks. Over time, aortic neck dilation can occur leading to loss of proximal seal, endoleaks, and AAA sac growth. This study analyzes aortic remodeling following EVAR versus fEVAR and further evaluates whether fEVAR confers a benefit in terms of sac shrinkage. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 120 patients undergoing EVAR was performed: 30 patients were treated with fEVAR (Cook Zenith© Fenestrated) and 90 patients were treated with EVAR devices (30 with each Medtronic Endurant ©, Gore Excluder ©, and Cook Zenith ©). Demographic data were recorded, and anatomic measurements were taken for each patient pre-operatively, 30 days post-operatively, and at the longest point of follow-up using three-dimensional reconstruction software. RESULTS:There were no significant differences in demographics data between the 4 groups. fEVAR was used more often in aortas with large necks and irregular morphology (p= 0.004). At the time of longest follow up, the suprarenal aorta encompassing 5, 10, and 15mm above the lowest renal artery (ALRA) dilated the most for fEVAR versus all EVAR groups. Despite this, the infrarenal segment tended to increase by the least, or even regress, for fEVAR compared to all EVAR groups, and was associated with the overall greatest proportion of sac shrinkage for the fEVAR group compared to Medtronic, Gore, and Cook devices, respectively (-13.90% vs. -5.75% vs. -2.31% vs. -4.68%, p=0.025). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to EVAR, patients treated with fEVAR had greater suprarenal dilation over time, consistent with an overall greater burden of disease in the proximal native aorta. However, the infrarenal segment dilated significantly less over time in the fEVAR group compared to all EVAR groups, suggesting that fEVAR may stabilize the infrarenal neck, promoting positive sac remodeling, as evidenced by the greatest degree of decrease in largest AAA diameter in the fEVAR group.

OBJECTIVE:Type II endoleaks (T2Es), often identified after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), have been associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. The number and size of the patent aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels (ie, the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries) have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2Es. Given the technical challenges associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic embolization of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels has been advocated to prevent T2Es; however, the evidence available at present is limited. We sought to examine the effects of concomitant prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization in patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS:Patients aged ≥18 years included in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included in the present study. Patients with a history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. The patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR alone vs EVAR with prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization (emboEVAR). The outcomes of interest were the in-hospital postoperative complication rates, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (≥5 mm) and T2Es, and reintervention rates during follow-up. RESULTS:A total of 15,060 patients were included. Of these patients, 272 had undergone emboEVAR and 14,788 had undergone EVAR alone. No significant differences were found between the two groups in age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics, including the mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs 5.6 cm; P = .48). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs 124 minutes; P < .0001), prolonged fluoroscopy times (32 vs 23 minutes; P < .0001), increased contrast use (105 vs 91 mL; P < .0001), without a significant reduction in T2Es at case completion (17.7% vs 16.3%; P = .54). The incidence of postoperative complications (3.7% vs 4.6%; P = .56), index hospitalization reintervention rates (0.7% vs 1.3%; P = .59), length of stay (1.8 vs 2 days; P = .75), and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0%; P = 1.00) were similar between the two groups. At mid-term follow-up (14.6 ± 6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significantly greater mean reduction in the maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs 0.54 cm; P = .006), with a greater proportion experiencing sac regression of ≥5 mm (53.5% vs 48.7%). The reintervention rates were similar between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.74; P = .024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression. CONCLUSIONS:Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR was associated with significant sac regression compared with EVAR alone at mid-term follow-up. Although no decrease was found in the incidence of T2Es, this technique shows promise, and future efforts should focus on identifying a subset of aneurysm and outflow branch characteristics that will benefit from concomitant selective vs complete prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization.

OBJECTIVE:Data on the efficacy of non-reversed and reversed great saphenous vein bypass (NRGSV and RGSV) techniques are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing open infrainguinal revascularisation using NRGSV and RGSV from a multi-institutional database. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing infrainguinal bypasses using NRGSV and RGSV for symptomatic occlusive disease from January 2003 to February 2021. The primary outcome measures included primary and secondary patency at discharge and one year. Secondary outcomes were re-interventions at discharge and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the impact of graft configuration on outcomes of interest. RESULTS:Of 7 123 patients, 4 662 and 2 461 patients underwent RGSV and NRGSV, respectively. At one year, the rates of primary patency (78% vs. 78%; p = .83), secondary patency (90% vs. 89%; p = .26), and re-intervention (16% vs. 16%; p = .95) were similar between the RGSV and NRGSV cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on outflow bypass target and indication for revascularisation did not show differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. Multivariable analysis confirmed that RGSV (NRGSV as the reference) configuration was not independently associated with increased risk of primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 - 1.13; p = .80), secondary patency loss (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81 - 1.10; p = .44), and re-intervention (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 - 1.16; p = .67) at follow up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The study shows that RGSV and NRGSV grafting techniques have comparable peri-operative and one year primary and secondary patency and re-intervention rates. This effect persisted when stratified by outflow targets and indication for revascularisation. Therefore, optimal selection of vein grafting technique should be guided by the patient's anatomy, vein conduit availability, and surgeon's experience.

Objectives: Although, post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stroke is rare, it can be devastating. The impairment degree and 1-year effects are unclear. Our goal was to assess the postoperative and 1-year outcomes for patients experiencing a stroke after CEA without preoperative disability.
Method(s): The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA registry was used to examine strokes after CEA that were asymptomatic or symptomatic with a preoperative modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0 or 1. The mRS score for stroke disability was classified as 0 (none), 1 (not significant), 2 to 3 (moderate), 4 to 5 (severe), and 6 (dead). Patients who had experienced a postoperative ipsilateral stroke with a recorded postoperative mRS score were included. Perioperative disability and long-term outcomes were analyzed.
Result(s): Of 149,285 patients, 1178 without a preoperative disability had had a postoperative ipsilateral stroke with a mRS score recorded. The average age was 71 years, and 59.6% were men. Preoperatively, most (98.8%) had lived at home and were independently ambulatory (90%). The preoperative symptoms were none (83.5%), transient ischemic attack (7.3%), and stroke (9.2%). All preoperative patients with stroke had had a mRS score of 0 or 1. Of these patients, 11.6% had required reexploration. The mRS score for all patients with a postoperative stroke with disability was classified as none for 11.6%, not significant for 19.5%, moderate for 29.4%, severe for 26.9%, and dead for 8%. The 1-year survival stratified by postoperative disability was 91.4% for none, 95.6% for not significant, 92.1% for moderate, and 81.5% for severe (P <.001). Multivariable analysis showed that severe postoperative disability was associated with death at 1 year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.9; P <.001) but moderate postoperative disability was not (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.45-2; P =.88). Other factors associated with death at 1 year were end-stage renal disease (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.97-23; P <.001) and previous contralateral stroke (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.13-4.07; P =.019), with postoperative reexploration associated less with death at 1 year (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77; P =.01). The 1-year freedom from ipsilateral neurologic events or death stratified by postoperative disability was 87.8% for none, 93.3% for not significant, 88.5% for moderate, and 77.9% for severe (P <.001). Multivariable analysis showed that severe disability was associated with subsequent ipsilateral neurologic events or death at 1 year (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.25-4.4; P =.008) but moderate postoperative disability was not (HR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.46-1.82; P =.8).
Conclusion(s): Most patients without preoperative disability who experienced a stroke after CEA had a significant disability. Severe disability was associated with higher 1-year mortality and subsequent neurologic events. These data can help aid in the informed consent process and expectations after a postoperative stroke.
Copyright