Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The long-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) have been associated with improved aorta-specific survival and delayed disease progression compared with medical therapy alone. In 2020, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reported new reporting standards and classification for TBAD. We assessed the effectiveness of TEVAR in the treatment of uTBAD stratified by the updated classification using the Vascular Quality Initiative database. METHODS:, analysis of variance), multivariable logistic regression, and survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression). RESULTS:Of 1476 TEVARs, 121 (8.2%) were for hyperacute, 833 (56.4%) for acute, 316 (21.4%) for subacute, and 206 (14.0%) for chronic uTBAD. The rates of in-hospital stroke for hyperacute and acute uTBAD were significantly higher than was the rate for chronic uTBAD. The rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) was significantly higher for hyperacute and subacute uTBAD than for chronic uTBAD but not for acute vs chronic uTBAD. After multivariable adjustment, no significant difference was found in the 30-day mortality between the four groups. However, the adjusted stroke risk was more than sixfold higher for hyperacute uTBAD than for chronic uTBAD (odds ratio [OR], 6.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-25.17; P = .004) and more than threefold higher for acute than for chronic uTBAD (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.04-11.24; P = .043). The adjusted risk of SCI was also significantly higher for hyperacute and subacute than for chronic uTBAD (OR, 19.17; 95% CI, 2.42-151.90; P = .005; and OR, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.21; P = .039, respectively) but not for acute vs chronic uTBAD (OR, 6.95; 95% CI, 0.93-51.88; P = .059). The risk of postoperative reintervention was threefold higher for hyperacute vs chronic uTBAD (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69; P = .02). The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates revealed that the 1-year survival rate for hyperacute, acute, subacute, and chronic uTBAD was 83.2%, 87.2%, 92.3%, and 92.9%, respectively (P = .010). However, no significant differences were found in the hazard of 1-year mortality after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS:Using the updated SVS/STS chronicity classification, we found an increased risk of perioperative stroke, SCI, and the need for reintervention after TEVAR for uTBAD in the hyperacute periods compared with the chronic period. The updated classification should be incorporated into all future study designs for TEVAR trials. We would recommend avoiding TEVAR for uTBAD in the hyperacute phase.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the association of preoperative functional performance status based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scoring with the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, vascular events, and mortality in patients undergoing EVAR and TEVAR. METHODS: = 6595) for non-ruptured aortic pathologies between 2014 and 2018 were eligible for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association of pre-procedure ECOG functional performance status on risk of in-hospital adverse cardiovascular events, vascular events, and mortality. RESULTS:The number of operations complicated by adverse cardiovascular and vascular events was 480 (2.6%) and 190 (1.0%) for EVAR and 733 (11.1%) and 219 (3.3%) for TEVAR, respectively. There were 118 (0.6%) and 240 (3.6%) in-hospital deaths following EVAR and TEVAR, respectively. Patients with ECOG grades 3 or 4 undergoing EVAR were at increased risk of cardiovascular events (OR = 1.62; 95% CI = 1.09, 2.41) and one-year mortality (HR = 2.62; 95% CI = 1.92, 3.57) compared to those with ECOG grade 0. Patients undergoing TEVAR with ECOG grade 3 or 4 were at increased risk for both inpatient death (OR = 2.77; 95% CI = 1.56, 4.9) and one-year mortality (HR = 3.27, 95% CI = 2.06, 5.21). ECOG status was not associated with an increased risk of adverse vascular events following either EVAR or TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS:Poor preoperative functional status as assessed by ECOG score is associated with an increased risk of adverse postoperative cardiovascular events following EVAR and a higher mortality risk following both EVAR and TEVAR. Functional status assessment may be useful for risk stratification and determining procedural candidacy prior to EVAR and TEVAR.

Patients presenting with hemodynamic instability associated with pelvic fractures continue to have very high mortality and surgeons continue to seek damage control strategies that may improve survival. Strategies usually require massive transfusion, immediate pelvic stabilization and another adjunctive maneuver's such as angioembolization or preperitoneal pelvic packing to prevent hemorrhagic death. One current intervention that has regained some popularity in lieu of resuscitative thoracotomy is the Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA). This requires some manner of femoral arterial access to insert a balloon into the aorta and increase central blood pressure (cardiac and cerebral perfusion) and control active pelvic bleeding. Based on several animal models and an increasing number of publications, many US level I trauma centers have now opted to use REBOA in carefully selected patients showing signs of near cardiac arrest from non-compressible torso hemorrhage. Description of the current advances in aortic occlusion using catheter-based technology in the setting of severe shock for non-compressible torso hemorrhage from pelvic ring fracture is the purpose of this report.

OBJECTIVE:The optimal revascularization modality in secondary aortoenteric fistula (SAEF) remains unclear in the literature. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients with SAEF. METHODS:A retrospective, multi-institutional study of SAEF from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and operative and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS:During the study period, 182 patients at 34 institutions from 11 countries presented with SAEF (median age, 72 years; 79% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in SAEF were 138 surgical grafts (76%) and 42 endografts (23%), with 2 unknown; 102 of the SAEFs (56%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material, followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-soaked prosthetic graft (53), autogenous femoral vein (neoaortoiliac surgery; 17), cryopreserved allograft (28), and untreated prosthetic grafts (4). There were 80 patients (44%) who underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB) with infected graft excision. Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 319 days (interquartile range, 20-2410 days). Stratified by EAB vs ISB, there was no significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated survival (P = .82). In comparing EAB vs ISB, EAB patients were older (74 vs 70 years; P = .01), had less operative hemorrhage (1200 mL vs 2000 mL; P = .04), were more likely to initiate dialysis within 30 days postoperatively (15% vs 5%; P = .02), and were less likely to experience aorta-related hemorrhage within 30 days postoperatively (3% aortic stump dehiscence vs 11% anastomotic rupture; P = .03). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, and intraoperative or postoperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed that the duration of antibiotic use (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.98; P = .01) and rifampin use at time of discharge (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = .03) independently decreased mortality. CONCLUSIONS:These data suggest that ISB does not offer a survival advantage compared with EAB and does not decrease the risk of postoperative aorta-related hemorrhage. After repair, <50% of SAEF patients survive 10 months. Each week of antibiotic use decreases mortality by 8%. Further study with risk modeling is imperative for this population.

OBJECTIVE:Revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) maintains collateral circulation to decrease ischemic complications, including stroke, spinal cord ischemia, and upper extremity ischemia. Both open surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization techniques have been described, each with unique risks and benefits. We describe our "periscope sandwich" technique for the LSA during zone 2 TEVAR, which maintains antegrade access to the distal abdominal aorta if subsequent interventions are necessary. Technical results and short-term outcomes are compared with LSA open surgical debranching. METHODS:A single-institution retrospective review was performed for patients requiring zone 2 TEVAR with LSA revascularization by periscope sandwich technique or open surgical debranching with subclavian to carotid transposition (SCT) or carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB). The presenting aortic disease and perioperative details were recorded. Intraoperative angiography and postoperative computed tomography images were reviewed for occurrence of endoleak and branch patency. RESULTS:Between January 2013 and December 2018, the LSA was revascularized by periscope sandwich in 18 patients, SCT in 22 patients, and CSB in 13 patients. Compared with open surgical debranching, periscope sandwich had a lower median estimated blood loss (100 mL vs 200 mL for pooled SCT and CSB; P = .03) and lower median case duration (133.5 minutes vs 226 minutes; P < .001). Contrast material volume (120 mL vs 120 mL; P = .98) and fluoroscopy time (13.1 minutes vs 13.3 minutes; P = .92) did not differ significantly between the groups. There was no difference in aorta-related mortality (P = .14), and LSA patency was 100%. Median follow-up for the periscope sandwich group was 11 months, with an overall estimated 91% freedom from gutter leak at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS:LSA periscope sandwich technique provides safe and effective LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. LSA periscope sandwich can be used emergently with off-the-shelf endovascular components and facilitates future branched-fenestrated endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic diseases.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:There have been increasing number of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair performed in hostile necks using newer generation technology including polymer-based proximal sealing devices such as the Ovation system. Unique design features of the device can pose challenges during endovascular salvage of type 1A endoleak. We describe two cases of successful application of physician-modified fenestrated endografting, in order to repair type 1A endoleaks following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with ovation system. TECHNIQUE/METHODS:In both cases, multi-fenestrated endografts were custom-modified using preloaded wire technique on Cook Zenith Alpha thoracic stent grafts at the back table. Under general anesthesia, left brachial cut down and a single percutaneous femoral access were performed. Staggered deployment of fenestrated endograft, accompanied by sequential catheterization of target vessels, facilitated correct alignment of fenestrated endograft. Infolding of fenestrated endograft inside the Ovation main body resulted in leg claudication, and repaired with balloon expandable covered tent. Prophylactic deployment of balloon expandable covered stent was performed in the second case. Both cases showed resolution of type 1A endoleak. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Fenestrated endovascular repair is feasible for proximal failure of Ovation endografts. Careful planning and advanced skill set in complex endovascular aortic repair are required, as well as detailed knowledge of the failed endografts.

OBJECTIVE:Recent studies have suggested that the low risk of stroke and death associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is partially attributable to a robust dynamic flow reversal system and the avoidance of the atherosclerotic aortic arch during stenting. However, the benefits of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection (DEP) in reducing stroke or death in TCAR have not been studied. METHODS:All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) via the transcarotid route with either dynamic flow reversal (TCAR) or DEP (TCAS-DEP) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to November 2019 were analyzed. Both multivariable logistic regression and nearest neighbor propensity score-matched analysis were performed to explore the differences in outcomes between the two procedures. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. The secondary outcomes were stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite of stroke, death, and MI. A secondary analysis was performed to compare transcarotid stenting with DEP vs transfemoral CAS with DEP to evaluate the effects of crossing the aortic arch. RESULTS:A total of 8426 patients were identified (TCAS-DEP, n = 287; 3.4%). TCAR was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 5.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.64; P = .001), stroke (1.4% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P = .002), and stroke/death/MI (2.0% vs 5.2%; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.71; P = .001) compared with TCAS-DEP. Among the 274 pairs of patients identified with propensity score matching, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of stroke/death (1.1% vs 4.7%; risk ratio [RR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .021) and stroke (0.4% vs 4.0%; RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70; P = .006) compared with TCAS-DEP but no differences in stroke/death/MI (1.8% vs 4.7%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-1.02; P = .077). The secondary analysis found no differences in stroke between TCAS-DEP and transfemoral CAS with DEP (4.9% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.36-1.63; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with TCAS-DEP, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke or death and stroke. This finding implies that dynamic flow reversal might provide better neuroprotection than does a distal embolic filter in reducing the perioperative risk of stroke. Avoiding the aortic arch did not confer any reduction in the stroke rate. The present findings serve to separate the clinical benefit of dynamic flow reversal from that of avoiding the aortic arch during TCAR.