Faculty Bibliography

Objective: Data regarding the effect of bilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) occlusion during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) are conflicting, with reported varied risks of pelvic and gastrointestinal ischemia. The aim of our study was to report the perioperative and long-term outcomes of IIA occlusion with origin graft coverage in patients undergoing elective EVAR.
Method(s): Using the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2010-2020), we retrospectively identified patients who had undergone EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and aortoiliac aneurysms with or without IIA occlusion by graft coverage or coils. The patients were stratified into three groups according to IIA occlusion status (none, unilateral, bilateral). The baseline characteristics, procedural details, in-hospital outcomes, and overall survival at 5 years were reviewed. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and complications. The secondary outcomes included 5-year mortality. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the predictive factors of perioperative and 2-year mortality.
Result(s): A total of 26,690 patients were identified (mean age, 73.5 years; 82% male) who had undergone elective EVAR with bifurcated endografts. Of the 26,690 patients, 2195 (8.2%) had undergone adjunctive unilateral IIA origin graft occlusion, 523 (2%) had undergone bilateral IIA origin graft occlusion, and 23,970 (89.8%) had not undergone any IIA graft occlusion. Perioperatively, no statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of death (0.4% vs 0.6% vs 0.4%; P =.2), gastrointestinal ischemia (0.1% vs 0.1% vs 0.2%; P =.888), unplanned reoperation (1.5% vs 1.8% vs 2.3%; P =.181), or cardiopulmonary complications (2.5% vs 2.8% vs 3.4%; P =.247) among those with no, unilateral, and bilateral IIA origin graft occlusion, respectively (Table). The Kaplan-Meier estimate demonstrated comparable overall survival at 5 years (none, 86.7%; unilateral, 85.2%; bilateral, 89.4%; P =.133; Fig). On multivariable analysis, the status of IIA origin graft coverage was not associated with increased perioperative mortality or complications.
Conclusion(s): EVAR with bilateral IIA interruption was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes with a low rate of major complications. At the time of EVAR, unilateral and bilateral IIA occlusion with a stent-graft did not appear to confer additional risks of perioperative complications and mortality. Our results showed the safety of bilateral IIA interruption in patients undergoing elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms and aortoiliac aneurysms. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: Type II endoleaks (T2E), commonly identified after EVAR, are associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. Quantity and size of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels (AASOV), namely the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries, have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2E. Given technical difficulties associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic coil embolization of AASOV-related T2E has been advocated to prevent retrograde T2E; however, current evidence is limited. We sought to examine the effect of concomitant prophylactic AASOV coil embolization in patients undergoing EVAR.
Method(s): Patients 18 and older in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included. Patients with a history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR with or without prophylactic AASOV embolization (emboEVAR). Primary outcomes of interest were rates of in-hospital postoperative complications, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (>=5 mm), and rates of reintervention in follow-up.
Result(s): A total of 15,060 patients were included: 272 had emboEVAR and 14,788 had EVAR alone. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics including mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs 5.6 cm, P =.48) (Table I). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs 124 minutes, P <.0001), prolonged fluoroscopy (32 vs 23 minutes, P <.0001), increased contrast use (105 vs 91 mL, P <.0001), without significant reduction in T2E at completion (17.7% vs 16.3%, P =.54). Incidences 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) were similar between groups. In mid-term follow-up (14.6 +/- 6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significant mean reduction in maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs 0.54 cm, P =.006) with a higher proportion experiencing sac regression >=5 mm (53.5% vs 48.7%) and reintervention rates were similar between groups. On multivariate analysis, prophylactic AASOV (odds ratio: 1.34, confidence interval: 1.04-1.74, P =.024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression (Table II).
Conclusion(s): Prophylactic AASOV embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR is associated with significant sac regression compared with EVAR alone in mid-term follow-up. This technique shows promise and future efforts should focus on elucidating the role of concomitant selective vs complete prophylactic AASOV embolization in patients undergoing EVAR. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: The two feared complications of pelvic flow disruption include buttock ischemia and mesenteric ischemia. In cases of extensive aortic coverage, spinal cord ischemia is also a risk. Unilateral or bilateral hypogastric artery flow interruption, either from atherosclerosis or intentionally, is considered problematic in endovascular repair and has not been well studied in open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR). We examined the effect of the interruption of flow to one or both hypogastric arteries on the outcomes after OAR.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone elective OAR between 2003 and 2020. All patients who had undergone elective OAR were included. Patients with data on their hypogastric arteries were stratified into two groups-patent bilaterally (normal pelvic perfusion) and unilateral or bilateral occlusion or ligation (compromised pelvic perfusion [CPP]). The primary endpoints were 30-day major morbidity (myocardial infarction, respiratory complications, renal injury, and lower extremity or intestinal ischemia) and mortality.
Result(s): During the study period, 9492 patients underwent elective OAR-860 (9.1%) with CPP and 8632 (90.9%) with patent bilateral hypogastric arteries. The two groups had similar cardiac risk factors, including a history of coronary artery disease, prior coronary intervention, and the use of P2Y12 inhibitors and statins (Table I). Most patients in the CPP cohort had concurrent iliac aneurysms (63.3% vs 24.8%; P <.001). Perioperative mortality was significantly higher in the CPP group (5.5% vs 3.1%; P <.001). Bilateral flow interruption resulted in greater perioperative mortality compared with unilateral interruption (7.1% vs 4.7%; P <.001). The CPP group also had increased rates of myocardial injury (6.7% vs 4.7%; P =.012), renal complications (18.9% vs 15.9%; P =.024), leg ischemia (3.5% vs 2.1%; P =.008), and bowel ischemia (5.7% vs 3.4%; P <.001). On multivariable analysis, CPP was associated with increased perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.88; P =.003). Intraoperative blood transfusion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and renal insufficiency were other factors associated with perioperative mortality (Table II).
Conclusion(s): CPP is associated with increased perioperative complications and higher mortality in patients undergoing OAR. Hypogastric artery occlusion or the need to ligate these vessels likely signifies the presence of more complex disease. Careful technique and appropriate patient selection are critical in this cohort of patients. Furthermore, the differences in physiology of pelvic circulation in open and endovascular repair warrant further examination. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: Although beta-blocker (BB) use is routine for type B aortic dissections (TBADs), its effect in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is unclear. Furthermore, the effect of BB use on the perioperative outcomes after TEVAR has not been evaluated. We evaluated the effect of BB use on the perioperative outcomes in patients with TBAD undergoing TEVAR.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD between September 2012 and February 2020. BB use was defined as the use of such medications for >=30 days preoperatively. Patients were dichotomized according to preoperative BB use (no-BB and BB cohorts). The patient characteristics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were compared. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall postoperative complications, including myocardial infarction, new dysrhythmia, congestive heart failure, access site complications, respiratory, cerebrovascular symptoms, and arm, leg, renal, spinal cord, and gastrointestinal ischemia requiring surgical intervention.
Result(s): Of 2283 patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD, 1130 (49%) were receiving a BB preoperatively. The BB cohort was older with greater proportions of hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease (Table I). Additionally, the BB cohort were more likely to be taking aspirin, a P2Y12 antagonist, a statin, or an ACE inhibitor, and/or receiving anticoagulation therapy preoperatively. The non-BB cohort had more nonelective, symptomatic, and acute dissections. The procedural details, including rates of open conversion and general anesthesia, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, and operative times were comparable. On univariate analysis, the BB cohort had a lower risk of overall postoperative complications (22% vs 33%; P <.001) and mortality (4.7% vs 7.7%; P =.003) compared with the non-BB cohort. On multivariable analysis, BB use was associated with a 22% reduction in the odds of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.99; P =.044) but did not influence mortality (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.71; P =.562; Table II).
Conclusion(s): BB use was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative complications for patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. Therefore, BB use should be strongly encouraged for appropriately selected patients undergoing TEVAR. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: There is a paucity of data evaluating outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) using suprainguinal inflow for infrainguinal vessels. The purpose of this study is to report outcomes after LEB originating from aortoiliac arteries to infrafemoral targets.
Method(s): The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2020) was queried for patients undergoing LEB originating from the aortoiliac arteries and to the popliteal and tibial arteries. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on outflow targets (above-knee popliteal, below-knee popliteal and tibial arteries). Perioperative and 1-year outcomes including primary patency, amputation-free survival, and major adverse limb events (MALEs) were compared, and the Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the independent prognostic factors of outcomes.
Result(s): Of 403 LEBs, 389 (96.5%) originated from the external iliac artery, whereas the remaining from the aorta and common iliac artery. A total of 116 (28.8%), 151 (27.5%), and 136 (43.7%) were to the above-knee popliteal, below-knee popliteal, and tibial arteries, respectively (Table). In total, 194 (48%) and 186 (46%) patients had prior ipsilateral LEB and percutaneous vascular interventions, respectively. Below-knee popliteal and tibial bypasses were performed more frequently in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (70% and 70% vs 48%; P <.001). Vein conduit was more often used for tibial bypass than for above- and below-knee popliteal bypasses (46% vs 22% and 17%; P <.001). In the perioperative period, below-knee popliteal and tibial bypass patients had higher reoperation rates (17% and 14% vs 5%; P =.015) and lower primary patency (91% and 90% vs 96%; P =.044) than above-knee bypass patients. Perioperative pulmonary complication and mortality rates were similar among the cohorts. At 1 year, compared with above-knee popliteal bypasses, below-knee and tibial bypasses demonstrated lower primary patency (60.9% and 62.3% vs 83.3%; P <.001; Fig) and amputation-free survival (69.1% and 66.4% vs 79.4%; P =.0223), but freedom from MALEs were similar (87.2% and 82.8% vs 90.9%; P =.0585). On multivariable analysis, compared with above-knee popliteal bypasses, tibial bypasses were independently associated with increased loss of primary patency (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.51; P =.039), but with similar major ipsilateral amputation/death and MALEs.
Conclusion(s): Compared with those using historic infrainguinal inflow, LEBs with suprainguinal inflow appear to have accepTable rates of 1-year patency and limb salvage in patients at high risk of bypass failure. Tibial outflow target was independently associated with worse primary patency. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

BACKGROUND:Autologous vein is considered the preferred conduit for lower extremity bypass. There is, however, limited literature regarding conduit choice for open popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair. We sought to compare outcomes of PAA repair using vein versus prosthetic conduits. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2019) was queried for patients with PAAs undergoing elective conventional revascularization originating from the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. Conduits were categorized as vein or prosthetic. Primary outcomes were primary graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb event (MALE) and MALE-free survival at 2-years. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for estimation and comparison of patency. RESULTS:A total of 1,146 limbs in 1,065 patients underwent elective open revascularization for popliteal artery aneurysm. Vein was used in 921 limbs (80%), and prosthetic in 225 (20%). Patients in the prosthetic cohort had a shorter procedure time, were older, and had a higher prevalence of COPD. Postoperatively, prosthetic patients were more likely to be started and maintained on anticoagulation without increased incidence of hematoma. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (2% vs. 2%; P = .946). There was an increased tendency toward more symptomatic patients in the vein cohort although not statistically significant (49% vein vs. 41% prosthetic; P = .096). On a mean follow-up of 13 ± 5 months, the incidence of MALE and MALE-free survival were comparable between the two groups. The 2-year primary and secondary patency rates were similar, 87% and 96% in the vein, and 91% and 95% in the prosthetic groups, respectively. At multivariable analysis, outflow bypass targets to the infrapopliteal arteries (HR 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-3.65; P = .014) and symptomatic aneurysm (HR 1.81; 95% CI, 1.04-3.15; P = .037) were independently associated with loss of primary patency. Conduit type did not make a difference in MALE-free survival, or primary graft patency at 2-years. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that conventional open PAA repair with prosthetic conduit yields results comparable to those with vein conduit with regard to primary and secondary patency and major adverse limb events at 2-years for targets to the popliteal artery. However, when the distal target was infrapopliteal, worse outcomes were observed with prosthetic conduit. Our results suggest that vein conduit should be preferentially used for infrapopliteal targets, while prosthetic conduit confers comparable outcomes in a subset of patients who do not have suitable autologous vein conduits.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The natural history of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU) and intramural hematomas (IMH) of the aorta is not well described. While repair is warranted for rupture, unremitting chest pain or growth, there is no established threshold for treating incidental findings. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers an attractive approach in treating these pathologies, however, peri-procedural and post-operative outcomes are not well defined. METHODS:Patients 18 or older identified in the VQI database who underwent TEVAR for PAU and/or IMH between 1/2011-2/2020 were included. We identified 1042 patients, of whom 809 had available follow-up data. Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed to identify risk factors for major adverse events (MAE), as well as postoperative and late mortality. RESULTS:The cohort was 54.8% female and 69.9% former smokers with a mean age of 71.1 years. Comorbidities were prevalent with 57.8% classified ASA IV; 89.8% had hypertension, 28.3% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 17.9% coronary artery disease, and 12.2% congestive heart failure (CHF). Patients were predominately symptomatic (74%) and 44.5% underwent non-elective repair. MAE incidence was 17%. Independent predictors of MAE were history of CAD, non-Caucasian race, emergent procedural indication, ruptured presentation, and deployment of two or more endografts. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Seventy-three percent of index hospitalization mortalities were treatment-related. Of 809 patients with follow-up (mean 25.1 months±19 months), all-cause mortality was 10.6%. Predictors of late mortality in follow-up included age greater than 70 years, ruptured presentation, and history of COPD and ESRD. Subset analysis comparing symptomatic (74%) vs. asymptomatic (26%) patients demonstrated the former were frequently female (58.2% vs. 45.3%, p<.001) with a higher incidence of MAE (20.6% vs. 6.9%, p<.001), notably higher in-hospital reintervention rates (5.9% vs. 1.5%, p=.002) and mortality (5.6% vs. 0.7%, log-rank p=.015), and prolonged length of stay (6.9 vs. 3.7 days, p<.0001) despite similar procedural risks. In follow-up, late mortality was higher in the symptomatic cohort (12.2% vs. 6.5%, log-rank p=.025), with all treatment-related mortalities limited to the symptomatic group. CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrate significantly higher morbidity and mortality in symptomatic patients undergoing repair compared to asymptomatic patients, despite similar baseline characteristics. Asymptomatic patients treated with TEVAR had no treatment-related mortality in follow-up, with overall prognosis largely dependent on pre-existing comorbidities. These findings, in conjunction with growing evidence highlighting the risk of disease progression and attendant morbidity associated with these aortic entities, suggest a need for natural history studies and definitive guidelines on the elective repair of IMH and PAU.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose was to assess whether combining patient reported scores (VVSymQ®) and physician reported scores (VCSS) stratifies disease severity in C2 patients. METHODS:Consecutive patients were pooled from the VANISH-1 and VANISH-2 cohorts. VCSS and VVSymQ® were calculated for each patient. The relationship between scoring systems was evaluated using Pearson's correlation and frequency distribution analysis. RESULTS:Two-hundred and ten C2 limbs were included. Scoring systems demonstrated: VVSymQ®: mean = 8.72; VCSS: mean = 6.32; correlation (r = 0.22, p = 0.05). Frequency distribution analysis demonstrated 61.4% of patients had low VVSymQ® and low VCSS; 31.3% had elevated VVSymQ® and increased VCSS; 7.3% were inconsistent with C2 disease. Strict concordance analysis revealed 40.5% had VVSymQ® (< 9)/VCSS (0-6), 18.6% had VVSymQ® (≥ 9)/VCSS (7-9), and 2.9% had VVSymQ® (≥9)/VCSS (≥10). CONCLUSIONS:For combined elevated VVSymQ® and VCSS, moderate/severe disease is corroborated, and intervention may be indicated. For combined lower scores, the disease severity is mild and conservative therapy is more appropriate.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Venous thromboembolism, including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a major source of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Given the prevalence of venous thromboembolism and its associated mortality, our study sought to identify factors associated with loss to follow-up in venous thromboembolism patients. METHODS:-value of <0.05 set for significance. RESULTS: = 0.03) as opposed to home. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that over one-third of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism at our institution are lost to venous thromboembolism-specific follow-up, particularly those discharged to a facility. Our work suggests that significant improvement could be achieved by establishing a pathway for the targeted transition of care to a venous thromboembolism-specific follow-up clinic.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused devastating morbidity and mortality worldwide. In particular, thromboembolic complications have emerged as a key threat in COVID-19. We assessed our experience with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with COVID-19 undergoing upper or lower extremity venous duplex ultrasonography at an academic health system in New York City between March 3 2020 and April 12 2020 with follow-up through May 12 2020. A cohort of hospitalized patients without COVID-19 (non-COVID-19) undergoing venous duplex ultrasonography from December 1 2019 to December 31 2019 was used for comparison. The primary outcome was DVT. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary embolism (PE), in-hospital mortality, admission to intensive care unit, and antithrombotic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for DVT and mortality. RESULTS:Of 443 patients (188 COVID-19 and 255 non-COVID-19) undergoing venous duplex ultrasonography, patients with COVID-19 had higher incidence of DVT (31% vs. 19%; P=0.005), compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. The incidence of PE was not statistically different between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts (8% vs. 4%; P=.105). The DVTs in the COVID-19 group were more distal (63% vs. 29%; P<.001) and bilateral (15% vs. 4%; P<.001). The result of duplex ultrasonography had a significant impact on the antithrombotic plan; 42 (72%) patients with COVID-19 in the DVT group had their therapies escalated while 49 (38%) and 3 (2%) patients had their therapies escalated and de-escalated in the non-DVT group, respectively (P<.001). Within the COVID-19 cohort, the D-dimer was significantly higher in the DVT group at the time of admission (2,746 ng/mL vs 1,481 ng/mL; P=.004) and at the time of the duplex exam (6,068 ng/mL vs. 3,049 ng/mL; P<0.01). At multivariable analysis, male sex (odd ratio (OR) 2.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-4.87; P=.035), ICU admission (OR 3.42; 95% CI, 1.02-11.44; P=.046) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR 5.5; 95% CI, 1.01-30.13; P=.049) were independently associated with DVT. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolic events in this population, we support the decision to empirically initiate therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with low bleeding risk and severe COVID-19 infection, with duplex ultrasonography reserved for patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE in which anticoagulation may pose a life-threatening consequence. Further study is warranted in patients with COVID-19 to elucidate the etiology of vascular thromboembolic events and guide prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in these patients.