Faculty Bibliography

Objective: Statins are often used for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in perioperative complications after carotid endarterectomy for patients taking statins. However, data for statin use for patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) are limited. We evaluated the effects of statin use on the postoperative outcomes after TCAR.
Method(s): The records of the Vascular Quality Initiative carotid artery stenting registry (2012-2020) were reviewed for patients who had undergone TCAR. The patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were compared between the patients treated with and without statins (statin and no-statin group, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of statins on the postoperative outcomes.
Result(s): A total of 15,797 patients had undergone TCAR, of whom, 10,116 (64%) were men. Of the 15,797 patients, 14,152 (89.6%) were taking a statin preoperatively (Table I). The statin group was more likely to have hypertension (91% vs 87%; P <.001), coronary artery disease (26% vs 23%; P =.008), and diabetes mellitus (33% vs 29%; P <.001). The incidence of both prior ipsilateral stroke (17.2% vs 13.5%; P <.001) and recent ipsilateral stroke (<=30 days; 7.1% vs 5.6%; P =.02) was higher in the statin group. No differences were found in the perioperative characteristics, including median operative time, contrast amount used, technical success, and number of stents used. Perioperative stroke and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia) occurred in 1.5% and 2.4% of the statin group and 1.4% and 2.3% of the no-statin group, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the logistic regression method, statin use was associated with a 62% reduction in the odds of mortality (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.99; P =.047; Table II) for patients who had experienced a perioperative stroke or MACE after TCAR.
Conclusion(s): Statin use was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative mortality for patients who had experienced a stroke or MACE after TCAR. Therefore, strict adherence to statin use is strongly recommended, especially for patients who could be at high risk of major postoperative complications. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objectives: In patients with carotid stenosis, both the severity of the stenosis as well as the plaque morphology influence the likelihood of future transient ischemic attack or stroke. In general, severely stenotic lesions are presumed to have a higher embolic potential than moderately stenotic lesions. Carotid intervention is indicated in patients with both moderate and severe stenosis with related cerebrovascular symptoms. However, the effect of the degree of carotid stenosis in symptomatic patients upon the outcome of carotid intervention has not been extensively studied.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing transfemoral carotid stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and transcervical carotid stenting (TCAR) between 2003 and 2020. Patients undergoing interventions for symptomatic disease were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the severity of stenosis-moderate (0%-69%) and severe (greater than or equal to 70%). Primary endpoints were perioperative neurologic events (strokes and transient ischemic attacks [TIAs]). Secondary endpoints were perioperative mortality and postoperative complications.
Result(s): Over 50,000 patients were included in the analysis: 5296 patients (8.9%) underwent TCAR, 7844 (13.3%) underwent CAS, and 45,853 (77.8%) underwent CEA for symptomatic carotid artery disease. In the TCAR and CEA cohorts, patients with moderate stenosis had a significantly higher rate of perioperative neurologic events than patients with severe stenosis (TCAR 4.3% vs 3.0%; P =.033; CEA 3.0% vs 2.3%; P <.001). In contrast, in patients undergoing CAS, there was no significant difference noted in the perioperative neurologic event rate (3.5% in moderate stenosis group vs 3.8% in severe stenosis group; P =.518). There were no differences in perioperative myocardial infarction or mortality (Table). On multivariable analysis, moderate stenosis was significantly and independently associated with an increased rate of neurologic events in the TCAR (odds ratio [OR], 0.833; 95% confidence interval, 0.693-1.000; P =.05), and CEA (odds ratio, 0.901; 95% confidence interval, 0.861-0.944; P <.001) cohorts.
Conclusion(s): Moderate carotid stenosis was associated with increased perioperative neurologic events in patients undergoing TCAR and CEA, but not CAS. Therefore, this effect was noted only in the cohorts that require direct open surgical manipulation of the cervical carotid artery (TCAR and CEA). Moderately stenotic lesions that become symptomatic likely have worse intrinsic plaque morphology than severely stenotic lesions, producing cerebrovascular symptoms at a lower degree of stenosis. The mechanism of such events warrants further evaluation with a particular focus on plaque morphology and brain physiology. [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:Contemporary commercially available endovascular devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) include standard endovascular aortic repair (sEVAR) or fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) endografts. However, aortic neck dilatation (AND) can occur in nearly 25% of patients following EVAR, resulting in loss of proximal seal with risk of aortic rupture. AND has not been well characterized in fEVAR, and direct comparisons studying AND between fEVAR and sEVAR have not been performed. This study aims to analyze AND in the infrarenal and suprarenal aortic segments, including seal zone, and quantify sac regression following fEVAR implantation compared to sEVAR. METHOD/METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 20 consecutive fEVAR patients (Cook Zenith® Fenestrated) and 20 sEVAR (Cook Zenith®) patients was performed. Demographic data, anatomic characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcome were analyzed. Pre-operative, post-operative (1 month), and longest follow-up CT scan at an average of 29.3 months for fEVAR and 29.8 months for sEVAR were analyzed using a dedicated 3D workstation (iNtuition, TeraRecon Inc, Foster City, California). Abdominal aortic aneurysm neck diameter was measured in 5 mm increments, ranging from 20 mm above to 20 mm below the lowest renal artery. Sub-analysis comparing the fEVAR to the sEVAR group at 12 months and at greater than 30 months was performed. Standard statistical analysis was done. RESULTS:Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. The fEVAR group had a larger mean aortic diameter at the lowest renal artery, shorter infrarenal aortic neck length, increased prevalence of nonparallel neck shape, and longer AAA length. On follow-up imaging, the suprarenal aortic segment dilated significantly more at all locations in the fEVAR cohort, whereas the infrarenal aortic neck segment dilated significantly less compared to the sEVAR group. Compared to the sEVAR cohort, the fEVAR patients demonstrated significantly greater positive sac remodeling as evident by more sac diameter regression, and elongation of distance measured from the celiac axis to the most cephalad margin of the sac. Device migration, endoleak occurrence, re-intervention rate, and mortalities were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared to sEVAR, patients undergoing fEVAR had greater extent of suprarenal AND, consistent with a more diseased native proximal aorta. However, the infrarenal neck, which is shorter and also more diseased in fEVAR patients, appears more stable in the post-operative period as compared to sEVAR. Moreover, the fEVAR cohort had significantly greater sac shrinkage and improved aortic remodeling. The suprarenal seal zone in fEVAR may result in a previously undescribed increased level of protection against infrarenal neck dilatation. We hypothesize that the resultant decreased endotension conferred by better seal zone may be responsible for a more dramatic sac shrinkage in fEVAR.

Arteriovenous fistula is a rare and often unrecognized complication of aneurysms, with a varied and frequently inconsistent presentation. We present the case of an ilio-iliac arteriovenous fistula formation in a 71-year-old man associated with a type III endoleak after endovascular iliac branch repair. Because of rapidly progressing congestive heart failure and hepatorenal syndrome, we performed urgent endovascular repair with successful endoleak exclusion. After the procedure, the patient demonstrated a remarkably rapid and complete recovery.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Presence of an endoleak can compromise aneurysm exclusion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair(EVAR). Type II endoleaks(T2Es) are most common and may cause sac expansion. We report outcomes of translumbar embolization(TLE) of T2Es following EVAR. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with T2E after EVAR treated with TLE from 2011-2018 at a single academic institution. Treatment indications were the presence of persistent T2E and aneurysm growth ≥5mm. Sac stabilization was defined as growth ≤5mm throughout the follow-up period. RESULTS:Thirty consecutive patients were identified. The majority were men (n=24) with a mean age of 74.3 years (70.9-77.6, 95% CI). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (83.3%) and coronary artery disease (54.0%). The mean maximal sac diameter at T2E discovery was 5.8 cm (5.4-6.2, 95% CI). The mean time to intervention from endoleak discovery was 33.7±28 months with a mean growth of 0.84 cm (0.48-1.2, 95% CI) during that time period. The mean follow-up time after TLE was 19.1 months (11.1-27.2, 95% CI). Twenty-eight patients were treated with cyanoacrylate glue(CyG) alone, and 2 were treated with CyG plus coil embolization(CE). There was immediate complete endoleak resolution as assessed intraoperatively, and sac stabilization in 15 cases (50.0%). Eleven (36.7%) patients had evidence of persistent T2E on initial imaging after the embolization procedure; additional follow-up revealed eventual sac stabilization at a mean of 21.3±7.2 months and therefore these patients did not require further intervention. In the remaining four cases (13.3%) there was persistent T2E after the initial TLE requiring a second intervention. Repeat TLE stabilized growth in three of these four patients after a mean of 17.6±12.9 months. One patient required open sacotomy and ligation of lumbar vessels due to continued persistence of the T2E and continued aneurysm growth. There were no ischemic complications related to the embolization procedures. Factors associated with persistent endoleak after initial embolization were: larger aneurysm diameter at the time of initial endoleak identification (p<0.001), and the use of antiplatelet agents (p<0.02). The use of anticoagulation was not a significant risk factor for endoleak recurrence or aneurysm growth after TLE. CONCLUSIONS:TLE of T2E is a safe and effective treatment option for T2E with aneurysm growth following EVAR. Patients taking antiplatelet medication and those with larger aneurysms at the time of endoleak identification appear to be at increased risk for persistent endoleak and need for subsequent procedures following initial TLE. These patients may require more intensive monitoring and follow-up.

OBJECTIVE:There is a lack of evidence regarding the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications on aortic remodeling for aortic dissection after endovascular repair. We investigated whether anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications affect aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS:Records of the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR registry (2012-2020) were reviewed. Procedures performed for TBAD were included. Aortic reintervention, false lumen thrombosis of the treated aorta and all-cause mortality at follow-up were compared between patients treated with and without anticoagulation medications. A secondary analysis was performed to assess the effect of antiplatelet therapy in patients not on anticoagulation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies on outcomes. RESULTS:1,210 patients (mean age, 60.7±12.2 years; 825 (68%) males) were identified with a mean follow-up of 21.2±15.7 months (range 1-94 months). 166 (14%) patients were on anticoagulation medications at discharge and at follow-up. Patients on anticoagulation were more likely to be older (mean age, 65.5 vs 60 years; P<.001) and Caucasian (69% vs 55%; P=.003), with higher proportions of coronary artery disease (10% vs 3%; P<.001), congestive heart failure (10% vs 2%; P<.001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15% vs 9%; P=.017). There were no differences in the mean preoperative thoracic aortic diameter or the number of endografts used. At 18-month, the rates of aortic reinterventions (8% vs 9% log-rank P=.873), complete false lumen thrombosis (52% vs 45%; P=.175) and mortality (2.5% vs 2.7%; P=.209) were similar in patients with and without anticoagulation, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the Cox regression method, anticoagulation use was not independently associated with a decreased rates of complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-1.1; P=.132), increased need for aortic reinterventions (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.62-1.68; P=.934), and mortality (HR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.47; P=.514). On a secondary analysis, antiplatelet medications did not affect the rates of aortic reintervention, complete false lumen thrombosis and mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not appear to negatively influence the midterm endpoints of aortic reintervention or death in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. Moreover, it did not impair complete false lumen thrombosis. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not adversely affect aortic remodeling and survival in this population at midterm.

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.