Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate postapproval outcomes of patients with juxtarenal aortic aneurysms treated with the Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft (Cook Inc, Bloomington, Ind). METHODS: We reviewed clinical data of consecutive patients treated with the Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft in the United States at seven institutions with early commercial access from July 2012 to December 2012. Clinical outcomes and compliance to anatomic guidelines were compared with results of the U.S. fenestrated trial (USFT). RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were treated. There were significantly more (P < .05) patients with coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and preoperative renal insufficiency than in the USFT. Thirty-six patients (63.2%) did not meet the USFT anatomic criteria of a >4-mm infrarenal neck, and there were significantly more mesenteric stents (13 vs 0; P < .05) used in this group than in the USFT, reflecting the higher anatomic complexity of these patients. The total operative time was 250.2 +/- 14.8 minutes, the fluoroscopy time was 68.9 +/- 4.47 minutes, and the average volume of contrast material was 108.6 +/- 5.6 mL. Technical success was 100% in regard to aneurysm exclusion, although the left renal fenestration was not able to be aligned in two patients, and one patient had a kinked renal stent that was successfully restented. During this time period, there were a total of 10 endoleaks, of which two were type III and eight were type II. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher rates of comorbidities and more challenging anatomy, early 30-day outcomes of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms treated postapproval with the Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft compare well with USFT data. Future studies are needed to assess durability of this treatment modality as the technology diffuses and data mature.

We report the case of a 78-year-old man with coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic renal insufficiency with an enlarging 6.7-cm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. He also had a 4-cm right common iliac artery aneurysm, and right external iliac artery occlusion. The patient had a history of an axillobifemoral bypass graft placed 10 years prior for aortoiliac occlusive disease. We describe the use of an infrarenal aorto-uni-iliac graft and subsequent intentional graft occlusion as an endovascular solution to treat aneurysmal disease in this sick patient. He remains asymptomatic after surgery, with demonstrated occlusion of his aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: A 61-year-old man with a previous endovascular repair and stage 5 chronic kidney disease presented with a symptomatic 4.5-cm left internal iliac artery aneurysm. The decision was made to proceed with endovascular repair. METHODS: The preoperative magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scan was linked to on-table rotational imaging using the Artis zeego Fusion program (Siemens AG, Forchheim, Germany). Using the fused image as a road map, we undertook coil embolization of the left internal iliac artery, and a tapered stent graft was extended from the previous graft into the external iliac artery. RESULTS: Completion angiography revealed exclusion of the aneurysm sac. Three milliliters of contrast were used throughout the procedure. A follow-up magnetic resonance angiography scan at 1 month and duplex ultrasonography at 1 year revealed continued exclusion of the aneurysm sac. The patient's renal function remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: This case shows that in a patient with severe chronic kidney disease, fusion of preoperative imaging with intraoperative rotational imaging is feasible and can limit significantly the amount of contrast used during a complex endovascular procedure.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of concomitant carotid artery stenosis and unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has been reported at between 0.5% and 5%. In these patients, treatment strategies must balance the risk of ischemic stroke with the risk of aneurysmal rupture. Several studies have addressed the natural course of UIAs in the setting of carotid revascularization; however, the final recommendations are not uniform. The purpose of this study was to review our institutional experience with concomitant UIAs and carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) at our institution between 2003 and 2010. Only patients with preoperative imaging demonstrating intracranial circulation were included. Charts were reviewed for patients' demographic and clinical data, duration of follow-up, and aneurysm size and location. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: carotid artery stenosis with unruptured intracranial aneurysm (CS/UIA) and carotid artery stenosis without intracranial aneurysm (CS). RESULTS: Three hundred five patients met the inclusion criteria and had a total of 316 carotid procedures (CAS or CEA) performed. Eleven patients were found to have UIAs (3.61%) prior to carotid revascularization. Male and female prevalence was 2.59% and 5.26% (P = 0.22), respectively. Patients' demographics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The average aneurysm size was 3.25 +/- 2.13 mm, and the most common location was the cavernous segment of the internal carotid artery. No patient in the study had aneurysm rupture, and the mean follow-up time was 26.5 months for the CS/UIA group. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant carotid artery stenosis and UIAs is a rare entity. Carotid revascularization does not appear to increase the risk of rupture for small aneurysms (<10 mm) in the midterm. Although not statistically significant, there was a higher incidence of aneurysms found in females in our patient population.

BACKGROUND: Endoleak and sac growth remain unpredictable occurrences after EVAR, necessitating regular surveillance imaging, including CT angiography. This study was designed to identify preoperative CT variables that predict AAA remodeling and sac behavior post-EVAR. METHODS: Pre- and postoperative CT scans from 136 abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with EVAR were analyzed using M2S (West Lebanon, NH) software for size measurements. Preoperative total sac volume and proportion of thrombus and calcium in the sac were assessed. Sac change was defined as a 3-mm difference in diameter and a 10-mm(3) difference in volume when compared with preoperative measurements. Univariate analysis was performed for age, gender, AAA size, relative thrombus/calcium volume, device type, presence of endoleak, and the effects on sac size. RESULTS: Gender, device type, age, AAA size, and percent calcium were not predictive of sac change post-EVAR. Increased proportion of thrombus on pre-EVAR resulted in a greater likelihood of sac shrinkage (P = 0.002). Patients with aneurysms that grew on postoperative CT scan had less sac thrombus on pre-EVAR (mean 27.5%) than patients without evidence of endoleak (mean 41.9%, P < 0.0001). Only 2 of 30 patients with >50% pre-EVAR thrombus developed endoleak. A >50% thrombus burden resulted in endoleak in significantly fewer patients (6.7%) compared with those who had <50% thrombus (43.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of thrombus on preoperative CT may predict sac behavior after EVAR and development of an endoleak. Greater than 50% thrombus appears to predict absence of endoleak after EVAR. Aneurysms with large thrombus burden are less likely to grow and may require less vigilant postoperative surveillance than comparable AAA with relatively little thrombus.

Background: Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention. Results: A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5% TEVAR/BMT vs 4.8% BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4% vs 2.1%, P < .01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6% vs 20.1%, P = .31). Conclusion: The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

The optimal treatment of patients facing imminent amputation after multiple (>/=2) failed prior ipsilateral bypasses is unclear. We analyzed a group of patients undergoing multiple lower extremity bypasses for limb salvage to assess the utility of attempting multiple revascularizations. From 1990 to 2005, 105 revascularization procedures were performed in 55 limbs of 54 patients with imminent limb-threatening lower extremity ischemia after failure of >/=2 prior infrainguinal bypasses in the same leg. Fifty-five operations were the third procedure (Group A) and 50 operations were the fourth or more (Group B). We compared primary/secondary patency and limb salvage rates by Society for Vascular Surgery criteria. Limb salvage rates did not differ between patients undergoing a third bypass and those undergoing four or more bypasses at one year (62 versus 65%, NS) or at three years (58 versus 61%, NS). Secondary patency was not different between groups (76 versus 76%, P = NS) at one and three years (71 versus 70%, NS). Primary patency also did not differ between the two groups, at one year (24 versus 35%, NS), or at three years (11 versus 15%, NS). No differences were observed in morbidity and mortality rates between the groups. In conclusion, the likelihood of success of repetitive limb revascularization was unrelated to the number of previous failures. The expected incremental failure rate with each successive bypass was not found. These results, coupled with the three-year limb salvage rate of over 50% in patients who otherwise would have required amputation, lend support to aggressive use of limb revascularization in selected patients even after two or more failed bypasses.