Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Clopidogrel is effective at decreasing cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD); however, its effect on limb outcomes are less known. This study investigated the variability in response to clopidogrel and its relationship with clinical limb outcomes. METHODS: RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization on clopidogrel, higher baseline percent aggregation is associated with increased risk for major adverse limb events.

OBJECTIVE:Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic flow reversal is a hybrid technique for operative management of carotid artery stenosis. Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients undergoing TCAR; however, nonresponders to these medications may be predisposed to perioperative thromboembolic complications. Prevalent in up to 44-66% of patients taking clopidogrel, high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) may thus be responsible for a portion of adverse cerebrovascular events in TCAR. A previous single-institution study has demonstrated the use of ticagrelor as a viable alternative to clopidogrel for antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TCAR; however, large-scale comparisons between clopidogrel and ticagrelor are needed to confirm the safety of ticagrelor outside of highly selected patients and providers. METHODS:Data from patients enrolled in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing TCAR with a perioperative antiplatelet therapy regimen including either clopidogrel or ticagrelor from January 2015 to March 2021 were analyzed and compared. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to evaluate the primary 30-day outcomes of stroke, major bleeding event, and combined stroke/myocardial infarction (MI)/death rate while adjusting for baseline characteristics of the patients. RESULTS:A total of 11973 patients underwent TCAR with a dual antiplatelet therapy regimen that included clopidogrel versus 426 patients with ticagrelor. Compared to clopidogrel, patients on ticagrelor were significantly more likely to have coronary artery disease (51% vs 66% [P = <.001]), particularly unstable angina or MI within 6 months (3% vs 9% [P = <.001]), and more likely to have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (14% vs 19% [P = <.001]). The unadjusted 30-day rates of stroke, major bleeding, and combined stroke/MI/death were not statistically significant among both groups (1.3% vs 0.5% [P = .14], 2.4% vs 1.4% [P = .18], and 1.9% vs 1.6% [P = .71], respectively). After multivariable adjustment and propensity matching, these remained statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS:Despite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR with ticagrelor, 30-day rates of stroke, major bleeding events, and combined stroke/MI/death were similar between patients on ticagrelor and clopidogrel as part of adjunctive antiplatelet therapy. Randomized prospective trials, and studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to better examine the outcome differences in TCAR between these two medications.

OBJECTIVE:Autologous great saphenous vein (GSV) is considered the conduit of choice for lower extremity bypass (LEB). However, the optimal configuration remains the source of debate. We compared outcomes of patients undergoing LEB using in-situ and reversed techniques. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing LEB with a single-segment GSV in in-situ (ISGSV) and reversed (RGSV) configurations for symptomatic occlusive disease from 2003 to 2021. Patient demographics, procedural detail, and in-hospital and follow-up outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measures included primary patency at discharge or 30 days and one year. Secondary outcomes were secondary patency, and reinterventions at discharge or 30 days and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were created to determine the association between bypass techniques and outcomes of interest. RESULTS:= 0.985) at follow-up, compared to reversed bypass. A subgroup analysis of bypasses to crural targets showed that in-situ and reversed bypasses had similar rates of primary patency loss and reinterventions at 1 year. Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, in-situ bypass was associated with a decreased risk of reinterventions but similar rates of primary and secondary patency and major amputations at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing LEBs using the GSV, in-situ configuration was associated with more perioperative reinterventions and lower primary patency rate. However, this was offset by decreased risks of loss of primary patency and reinterventions at 1 year. A thorough intraoperative graft assessment with adjunctive imaging may be performed to detect abnormalities in patients undergoing in-situ bypasses to prevent early failures. Furthermore, closer surveillance of reversed bypass grafts is warranted given the higher rates of reinterventions.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Patients with prior infrarenal aortic intervention represent an increasing demographic of patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and/or complex EVAR. Studies have suggested that prior abdominal aortic surgery is a risk factor for spinal cord ischemia (SCI). However, these results are largely based on single-center experiences with limited multi-institutional and national data assessing clinical outcomes in these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of prior infrarenal aortic surgery on SCI. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients ≥18 years old undergoing TEVAR/complex EVAR from January 2012 to June 2020. Patients with previous thoracic or suprarenal aortic repairs were excluded. Baseline and procedural characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared by group: TEVAR/complex EVAR with or without previous infrarenal aortic repair. The primary outcome was postoperative SCI. Secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), bowel ischemia, renal ischemia, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate regression was used to determine independent predictors of postoperative SCI. Additional analysis was performed for patients undergoing isolated TEVAR. RESULTS:A total of 9506 patients met the inclusion criteria: 8691 (91.4%) had no history of infrarenal aortic repair and 815 (8.6%) had previous infrarenal aortic repair. Patients with previous infrarenal repair were older with an increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p=0.001) and cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking history (p<0.001). These patients presented with larger maximal aortic diameters (6.06±1.47 cm versus 5.15±1.76 cm; p<0.001) and required more stent grafts (p<0.001) with increased intraoperative blood transfusion requirements (p<0.001), and longer procedure times (p<0.001). Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in postoperative SCI, postoperative hospital LOS, bowel ischemia, or renal ischemia between the two groups. Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with prior infrarenal repair (p=0.001). On multivariate regression, prior infrarenal aortic repair was not a predictor of postoperative SCI, while aortic dissection (odds ratio [OR] 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.16, p<0.001), number of stent grafts deployed (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.30-1.62, p<0.001), and units of packed red blood cells transfused intraoperatively (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.73, p=0.032) were independent predictors of SCI. CONCLUSIONS:Although TEVAR/complex EVAR patients with prior infrarenal aortic repair constituted a sicker cohort with higher 30-day mortality, the rate of SCI was comparable to patients without prior repair. Previous infrarenal repair was not associated with risk of SCI.

BACKGROUND:Isolated iliac artery aneurysms (IAAs), accounting for 2% to 7% of all abdominal aneurysms, are often treated with the use of iliac branched endografts. Although outside the manufacturer's instructions for use, iliac branched devices can be used solely, without the adjunctive placement of an endovascular aneurysm repair device, for the treatment of an isolated IAA. In the present study, we have described the outcomes of the use of the Gore iliac branched endoprosthesis (IBE; W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), without the support of an infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair device, for the exclusion of an isolated IAA. The present study was an international multicenter retrospective cohort analysis. METHODS:All the patients who had undergone treatment with a solitary IBE for IAA exclusion from January 11, 2013 to December 31, 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was technical success. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and reintervention. RESULTS:A total of 18 European and American centers participated, with a total of 51 patients in whom 54 IAAs were excluded. The technical success rate was 94.1%, with an assisted technical success rate of 96.1%. No 30-day mortality occurred, with 98.1% patency of the internal and external iliac artery found at 24 months of follow-up. At 24 months of follow-up, 81.5% of the patients were free of complications and 90% were free of a secondary intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Treatment with a solitary IBE is a safe and, at midterm, an effective treatment strategy for selected patients with a solitary IAA.

BACKGROUND:Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature. The goal of this study was to assess experts' opinions on the available literature on lymphedema while following the Delphi methodology. METHODS:In December of 2019, the American Venous Forum created a working group tasked to develop a consensus statement regarding current practices for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. A panel of experts was identified by the working group. The working group then compiled a list of clinical questions, risk factors, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment of lymphedema. Fifteen questions that met the criteria for consensus were included in the list. Using a modified Delphi methodology, six questions that received between 60% and 80% of the votes were included in the list for the second round of analysis. Consensus was reached whenever >70% agreement was achieved. RESULTS:The panel of experts reached consensus that cancer, infection, chronic venous disease, and surgery are risk factors for secondary lymphedema. Consensus was also reached that clinical examination is adequate for diagnosing lymphedema and that all patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) should be treated as lymphedema patients. No consensus was reached regarding routine clinical practice use of radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy as a mandatory diagnostic tool. However, the panel came to consensus regarding the importance of quantifying edema in all patients (93.6% in favor). In terms of treatment, consensus was reached favoring the regular use of compression garments to reduce lymphedema progression (89.4% in favor, 10.6% against; mean score of 79), but the use of Velcro devices as the first line of compression therapy did not reach consensus (59.6% in favor vs 40.4% against; total score of 15). There was agreement that sequential pneumatic compression should be considered as adjuvant therapy in the maintenance phase of treatment (91.5% in favor vs. 8.5% against; mean score of 85), but less so in its initial phases (61.7% in favor vs. 38.3% against; mean score of 27). Most of the panel agreed that manual lymphatic drainage should be a mandatory treatment modality (70.2% in favor), but the panel was split in half regarding the proposal that reductive surgery should be considered for patients with failed conservative treatment. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This consensus process demonstrated that lymphedema experts agree on the majority of the statements related to risk factors for lymphedema, and the diagnostic workup for lymphedema patients. Less agreement was demonstrated on statements related to treatment of lymphedema. This consensus suggests that variability in lymphedema care is high even among the experts. Developers of future practice guidelines for lymphedema should consider this information, especially in cases of low-level evidence that supports practice patterns with which the majority of experts disagree.

Objective: The continuation of antiplatelet agents in the periprocedural period around carotid stenting (transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TF-CAS] and transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]) procedures is believed to be mandatory to minimize the risk of periprocedural stroke.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried from 2007 to 2020. All TCAR and TF-CAS procedures were included. The patients were stratified by preoperative use of P2Y12 inhibitors. The primary endpoints were perioperative neurologic events (ie, stroke, transient ischemic attack). The secondary endpoints were mortality and myocardial infarction. The P2Y12 inhibitors included in the analysis were clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor.
Result(s): A total of 31,036 carotid stent procedures were included for analysis (49.8% TCAR and 50.2% TF-CAS; 63.8% of the patients were men). Overall, 82.3% of the patients were taking a P2Y12 inhibitor. P2Y12 inhibitor use was significantly more common for men, asymptomatic patients, those aged >70 years, and those with concurrent statin use (Table I). P2Y12 inhibitors were significantly more likely to be used with TCAR cases than with TF-CAS cases (87.3% vs 76.8%; P <.001). The rate of periprocedural neurologic events in the whole cohort was 2.6%. Patients taking P2Y12 inhibitors were significantly less likely to experience a periprocedural neurologic event (2.3% vs 3.9%; P <.001) and periprocedural mortality (0.6% vs 2.1%; P <.001) than were those not taking a P2Y12 inhibitor. No effect was seen on the rates of myocardial infarction. On multivariate analysis, the use of P2Y12 inhibitors demonstrated an independent significant effect in reducing of the rate of perioperative stroke (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.33; Table II). Finally, additional analysis of the types of P2Y12 inhibitors used revealed that all appeared to be equally effective in reducing the periprocedural neurologic event rate.
Conclusion(s): Continuation of P2Y12 inhibitors in the periprocedural period appears to markedly reduce the perioperative neurologic event rate with TCAR and TF-CAS and should be considered mandatory. Patients with contraindications to P2Y12 inhibitors might not be appropriate candidates for any carotid stenting procedure. Additionally, alternative types of P2Y12 inhibitors appear to be equally effective as clopidogrel. Finally, analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative demonstrated that even for TCAR cases, only 87.3% of patients were receiving P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in the periprocedural period, leaving room for significant improvement. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: Celiac artery aneurysms (CAAs) are unusual. The reported literature is skewed toward those treated by operative or endovascular intervention. The goal of the present study was to investigate the natural history of untreated CAAs.
Method(s): We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients with CAAs diagnosed by computed tomography from 2015 to 2019. The patients were identified by searching our institutional radiology database. The radiologic, demographic, and follow-up clinical and imaging data were obtained from the electronic medical records.
Result(s): The analyzed cohort consisted of 76 patients (86.8% were men). The mean age was 69.8 years (range, 29-93 years). The medical comorbidities included hypertension (64.5%), diabetes (9.2%), coronary disease (18.4%), and hypercholesterolemia (46.1%). Concomitant vascular disease was noted and included AAA in 13.2%, an additional visceral aneurysm in 10.5%, and a visceral artery anomaly in 11.8%. The mean CAA diameter at the index study was 15.4 mm (range, 7-30 mm). Most (97.3%) were believed to be true aneurysms. Additional characteristics included thrombus (9.2%), calcification (26.3%), and dissection (11.8%). Of the 76 patients, 45 (59.2%) had had follow-up imaging data available for analysis. The mean clinical follow-up time was 31.2 months. The follow-up time for only those with subsequent imaging studies available was 25.2 months. During this period, 16 CAAs (21.1%) had enlarged in size and 29 (79.9%) had remained stable. No patient had developed symptoms or rupture. One patient (1.3%) had undergone intervention for an increasing size in the setting of chronic dissection. On univariate analysis, the only factor that was significantly associated with an increased risk of growth was younger age (mean age at diagnosis, 63.4 years vs 74.3 years; P =.005). We could not identify any other factor that was significantly predictive of, or protective against, aneurysm growth. For patients with follow-up imaging studies available, the freedom from aneurysm growth or intervention was 63% at 37 months. For the entire cohort, the freedom from aneurysm rupture or the need for intervention was 90% at 59 months.
Conclusion(s): The results from the present large study of patients with untreated CAAs revealed that very few lesions either enlarged to a clinically meaningful degree, became symptomatic, or required intervention during a 31.2-month follow-up period. Guidelines that suggest repair of CAAs >=2 cm in diameter might be overly aggressive. Close follow-up with serial imaging studies, especially for patients who are younger at diagnosis, might be preferred for most patients with an incidentally noted true CAA.
Copyright

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The treatment of a refluxing perforator is indicated in the setting of severe chronic venous insufficiency, but there are limited data on the presence of multilevel disease in these patients. This study sought to evaluate whether the presence of a pathologic perforator is predictive of the presence of central venous pathology. METHODS:This study was a retrospective review of the institutional vascular quality initiative (VQI) database. Consecutive patient-limbs were identified who underwent intervention of refluxing perforators. The patients who underwent imaging, including MRI or CT (Group A) were compared to those who did not undergo imaging (Group B). The treated limbs in Group A were also compared to the contralateral limbs as an internal control. Anatomical findings on imaging were analyzed by two independent investigators. The primary outcome was the presence and degree of central venous stenosis as measured by an orthogonal diameter reduction of > 50% by axial imaging. Secondary outcomes included demographic and clinical differences between the two groups, frequency of central venous intervention, and duration of ulcer healing. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS:Ninety-three patient-limbs underwent treatment of a pathologic perforator, with 30 in Group A and 63 in Group B. The following demographic and clinical variables were higher in Group A compared to Group B: Male gender, BMI, deep venous thrombosis history, recent or active anticoagulation use, perforator diameter, Clinical Etiology Anatomy Pathophysiology class 4, 5 or 6, and Venous Clinical Severity Score. Radiographic analysis of Group A revealed concordance of a treated pathological perforator with an ipsilateral central venous stenosis in 53.3% of patients, and a higher frequency of common iliac vein stenosis (50% vs 21.4%, P = 0.024) and external iliac vein stenosis (20% vs 0%, P = 0.012) compared to the contralateral limbs. When separated by left or right limb, the left limbs exhibited a greater degree of common iliac vein stenosis as compared to the contralateral limbs (50.7±20.9% vs 16.3±16.5%, P < 0.001) as well as a greater frequency of >50% common iliac vein stenosis (46.7% vs 13.3%, P = 0.046). The right limbs exhibited a greater frequency of > 50% external iliac vein stenosis as compared to contralateral limbs (33.3% vs 0%, P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that patients with severe chronic venous insufficiency who undergo treatment for a pathologic perforator may have additional ipsilateral central venous pathology, supporting the presence of multilevel disease. Additional axial imaging might unmask central venous pathology and provide another option for treatment.

OBJECTIVE:Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts. RESULTS:Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P < .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P < .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P < .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention.