Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The optimal medical management strategy in the periprocedural period for patients undergoing carotid artery interventions is not well described. Renin-angiotensin-system blocking (RASB) agents are considered to be among the first line anti-hypertensive agents; however, their role in the perioperative period is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of RASB agents on periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing carotid interventions-carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS), and transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHOD/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 upon their use of RASB agents in the periprocedural period. The primary endpoint was periprocedural neurologic events (including both strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs)). The secondary endpoints were peri-procedural mortality and significant cardiac events, including myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, and congestive heart failure. RESULTS:= 0.461). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The use of peri-procedural RASB agents was associated with a significantly decreased rate of neurologic events in patients undergoing both CEA and TCAR. This effect was not observed in patients undergoing CAS. As carotid interventions warrant absolute minimization of perioperative complications in order to provide maximum efficacy with regard to stroke protection, the potential neuro-protective effect associated with RASB agents use following CEA and TCAR warrants further examination.

BACKGROUND:Potential complications of pelvic flow disruption during aortic aneurysm repair include buttock ischemia and mesenteric ischemia. Unilateral or bilateral hypogastric artery flow interruption, either from atherosclerosis or intentionally to facilitate aneurysm repair, is considered problematic in endovascular repair; however, it has not been well studied in open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OAR). We sought to examine the effect of interruption of flow to one or both hypogastric arteries on outcomes after OAR. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing elective open AAA repair between 2003 and 2020. (redundant) Patients with appropriate data on their hypogastric arteries postoperatively were stratified into two groups-patent bilaterally (normal pelvic perfusion, NPP) and unilateral or bilateral occlusion or ligation (compromised pelvic perfusion, CPP). Primary endpoints were 30-day major morbidity (myocardial infarction, respiratory complications, renal injury, and lower extremity or intestinal ischemia) and mortality. RESULTS:During the study period, 9.492 patients underwent elective open AAA repair-860 (9.1%) with compromised pelvic perfusion and 8,632 (90.9%) with patent bilateral hypogastric arteries. The groups had similar cardiac risk factors, including a history of coronary artery disease, prior coronary intervention, and the use of P2Y12 inhibitors and statins. A majority of patients in the CPP cohort had concurrent iliac aneurysms (63.3% vs. 24.8%; P < 0.001). The perioperative mortality was significantly higher in patients with compromised pelvic perfusion (5.5% vs. 3.1%; P < 0.001). Bilateral flow interruption had a trend toward higher perioperative mortality compared to unilateral interruption (7.1% vs. 4.7%; P < 0.147). The CPP group also had increased rates of myocardial injury (6.7% vs. 4.7%; P = 0.012), renal complications (18.9% vs. 15.9%; P = 0.024), leg and bowel ischemia (3.5% vs. 2.1%; P = 0.008; and 5.7% vs. 3.4%; P < 0.001, respectively). On multivariable analysis, CPP was associated with increased perioperative mortality (OR 1.47, CI 1.14-1.88, P = 0.003). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no difference in survival at 2 years postdischarge between the NPP and CPP cohorts (86.1% vs. 87.5%, log-rank P = 0.275). CONCLUSIONS:Compromised pelvic perfusion is associated with increased perioperative complications and higher mortality in patients undergoing OAR. The sequelae of losing pelvic perfusion, in addition to the presence of more complex atherosclerotic and aneurysmal disease resulting in more difficult dissection, likely contribute to these findings. Thus, patients considered for OAR who have occluded hypogastric arteries or aneurysmal involvement of the hypogastric artery preoperatively may be candidates for more conservative management beyond traditional size criteria.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE:Transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS) after renal transplantation is a common cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Endovascular intervention in the form of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting has rapidly become the dominant treatment modality for the TRAS. There is a paucity of clinical data on use of drug-eluting stent (DES) for TRAS. We investigated the outcomes of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing DES placement. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing PTA with DES placement from June 2014 to April 2021 was conducted. Patients treated for TRAS exhibited uncontrolled hypertension and/or unexplained allograft dysfunction. Patient demographics, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes were collected. Primary endpoints were the in-stent primary patency and graft survival. Secondary endpoints were freedom from reintervention, primary-assisted patency and access-related complications. RESULTS:Thirteen TRAS in twelve patients with graft function alteration were treated with DES. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR), 48-63 years), and nine (70%) patients were male (Table). The median follow-up was 9 months (IQR, 4-52 months). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (100%), coronary artery disease (83%) and diabetes. The median time from deceased donor transplant to intervention was 5.8 months (IQR, 3.5-6.7 months). TRAS was most commonly found at the juxta-ostial segment (77%). The procedure was performed with carbon dioxide angiography with minimal amount of iodinated contrast (median, 3 mL) under local anesthesia in nine (69%) and general anesthesia in four (31%) patients. The median stent diameter was 4.5 mm (IQR, 4-5 mm), and the median stent length was 15 mm (IQR, 15-18 mm). No intraoperative complications occurred. The rates of stenosis-free primary patency of the DES and graft survival were 76% and 100%, respectively. All three reinterventions for restenosis resulted from the kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the DES, which were treated by extending the stent more proximally 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery. There were no access-related complications. The median time to reintervention was 0.9 months (range, 0.23-2 months). Freedom from reintervention and primary-assisted patency were 76% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that DES is a safe and effective treatment modality in patients with TRAS at short to mid-term follow-up. As all reinterventions after DES were performed due to kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the stent, bridging of the DES 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery is recommended.

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.

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.

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.