Faculty Bibliography

Background: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for aortoiliac aneurysms may require sacrifice of the hypogastric artery (HA) or use of iliac branch devices (IBD) to salvage antegrade flow through the HA.
Method(s): We identified all patients who underwent elective EVAR for aortoiliac aneurysms in the Society for Vascular Surgery-Vascular Quality Initiative (2014-2021). Patients were categorized as unilateral/bilateral IBD, bilateral HA sacrifice, or mixed (unilateral HA sacrifice or one-sided IBD/one-sided HA sacrifice). HA sacrifice was defined as coil embolization, Amplatzer plug, or coverage of HA. We compared postoperative outcomes, aneurysm sac remodeling, and late survival across the three groups. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to identify independent effect of HA patency on outcomes of interest.
Result(s): Among 2822 patients undergoing EVAR for aortoiliac aneurysms, after EVAR 29% had bilateral HA patency, 64% had mixed repair, 7% had bilateral HA sacrifice. Patients with bilateral HA patency had smaller aortic diameter (bilateral patency 5.0 cm vs mixed repair 5.2 cm vs bilateral sacrifice 5.2 cm; P <.001) and fewer concomitant iliac artery and HA aneurysms (14% vs 16% vs 23%; P <.001). Unilateral and bilateral HA patency was associated with lower odds of major adverse cardiac events and postoperative renal complications (Table). There was no association between HA patency and postoperative mortality (0.6% vs 1.2% vs 1.1%; P =.35), leg ischemia (1.0% vs 1.0% vs 1.1%; P =.98), or mesenteric ischemia (0.2% vs 0.3% vs 0.5%; P =.80). There were no differences in 1-year sac shrinkage (>=5 mm decrease) (39% vs 40% vs 45%; P =.580) or 5-year survival (92% vs 94% vs 89%; P =.435).
Conclusion(s): In patients with aortoiliac aneurysms, bilateral HA patency was associated with lower postoperative major adverse cardiac events and renal complications. Salvage of the HA is important for quality of life and functional capacity, but future studies with larger sample sizes are needed. [Formula presented]
Copyright

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes of patients with premature cerebrovascular disease (<=55 years) who undergo carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The objective of this study was to analyze demographics, presentation, perioperative, and later outcomes of younger patients undergoing CEA.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for CEA cases (2003-2020). Patients were stratified based on age 55 years or less or greater than 55 years. Primary end points were periprocedural stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and composite outcomes. Secondary end points analyzed included ipsilateral restenosis (>=80%) or occlusion, late ipsilateral neurologic events, and reintervention.
Result(s): Of 144,416 patients undergoing CEA, 8264 (5.7%) were aged 55 years or younger. The mean age was 51.3 years (range, 36 to 55 years). Younger patients were more likely to be female (44.5% vs 39.1%) and to be current smokers (58.8% vs 24.4%) (P <.001). They were less likely than older patients to have hypertension (82.2% vs 89.7%), coronary artery disease (25.6% vs 27.9%), and congestive heart failure (7.6% vs 11.2%; P <.001). Younger patients were less likely than older patients to be on aspirin, statins, or beta-blockers, but were more likely to be on P2Y12 inhibitors (P <.001). Younger patients were more likely to present with symptomatic disease (59% vs 47.2%) and were more likely to undergo nonelective CEA (19.3% vs 12.7%; P <.001). Younger patients had similar rates of perioperative stroke/death (1.8% vs 1.9%) and postoperative neurological events (1.7% vs 1.7%), but had lower rates of overall postoperative complications (3.8% vs 4.8%; P <.001). Sixty percent of patients had recorded follow-up (mean, 13 months). During follow-up, younger patients were significantly more likely than older patients to experience complete occlusion or significant (>=80%) restenosis of the operated artery (2.3% vs 1.6%), and were more likely to experience an ipsilateral neurological event (1.4% vs 0.9%) or any neurological event (3.2% vs 2.2%; P <.001).
Conclusion(s): Young patients undergoing CEA are more likely to be female, active smokers, and symptomatic. Although perioperative outcomes are similar, younger patients are more likely to experience carotid occlusion or restenosis as well as subsequent neurological events, during relatively short follow-up. These data suggest that younger CEA patients require more diligent follow-up, and a continued aggressive approach to medical management of atherosclerosis to prevent future events related to the operated artery.
Copyright

Background: Preoperative renal function is a predictor of morbidity and mortality after endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. However, the impact of postoperative renal complication on outcomes after repair are poorly understood. Therefore, our objective was to assess the impact of postoperative renal dysfunction on midterm outcomes following endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.
Method(s): We identified all endovascular repairs of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2011 to 2018 with linkage to Medicare claims data. Juxtarenal aortic aneurysm repair was defined as repair with at least one scallop, fenestration, branch, or parallel grafting into a renal vessel. Postoperative renal complication was defined as acute kidney injury (AKI; >=0.5 mg/dL serum creatinine increase) or new renal replacement therapy (RRT). We excluded any patients on preoperative hemodialysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression were used to determine the effect of AKI/RRT on midterm mortality, rupture, and reintervention.
Result(s): Of 931 endovascular repairs, 17% experienced postoperative AKI/RRT. Repairs with postoperative AKI/RRT more often had coverage/occlusion of renal vessels (AKI/RRT: 17% vs stable function: 4.5%; P <.001) or parallel grafting of renal vessels (24% vs 16%; P <.001). Furthermore, repairs with postoperative AKI/RRT had higher rates of postoperative mortality (18% vs 1.2%; P <.001). Postoperative AKI/RRT was independently associated with a higher risk of 5-year mortality (42% vs 16%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.8; P <.001) (Figure) and 3-year late rupture (17% vs 5.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.8; P =.001). Meanwhile, postoperative AKI/RRT trended toward a higher risk of 3-year reinterventions (28% vs 20%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.5; P =.105).
Conclusion(s): Postoperative renal complications adversely impacted late mortality, rupture, and reintervention. Future studies with longer follow-up may likely demonstrate even worse outcomes in this cohort. Our study calls for optimization of preoperative renal status and the use of protective adjuncts to reduce the risk of postoperative renal complications and its negative long-term sequala. [Formula presented]
Copyright

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly used to treat aortic dissections and aneurysms. Access-related complications remain a common source of morbidity and mortality following TEVAR. Therefore, this study aims to determine major risk factors predicting postoperative access complications and 3-year survival in patients with access complications.
Method(s): We identified all patients undergoing TEVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from July 2010 to August 2021, excluding those converted to open repair. We defined access complication as postoperative occlusion, wound infection, hematoma, or unplanned conversion to open cutdown. The primary outcome was 3-year survival and the secondary outcome was postoperative mortality. Mixed effects logistic regression modelling with physician level clustering was used to identify factors associated with access complications and postoperative mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models were used for analysis of three-year survival.
Result(s): Of 18,172 patients, 1584 (8.7%) had access complications. Bilateral percutaneous access was obtained in 68% of patients, one percutaneous and one open in 14%, and bilateral open access in 13%. Patients with access complications were older (70 +/- 0.6 years vs 66 +/- 0.2 years; P <.01) and female (50% vs 34%; P <.01). Patients with access complications experienced higher postoperative mortality (12% vs 4.6%; P <.01), major adverse cardiac event (17% vs 6.6%; P <.01), reintervention (22% vs 10%; P <.01), and spinal ischemia (7.0% vs 2.1%; P <.01). After adjustment, factors associated with access complication include female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.6; P <.01) and obesity (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P =.02). Access complication was independently associated with postoperative mortality (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.0-3.0; P <.01). Bilateral cutdown was associated with lower mortality in male patients (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.90; P =.02), but not in female patients (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.3; P =.03). Last, access complications were associated with higher 3 -year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8; P <.01).
Conclusion(s): Access complications when unexpected are associated with adverse postoperative and three-year outcomes. Female sex is associated with higher rates of access complications, suggesting the need for devices tailored to female anatomy.
Copyright

Background: Interventions for carotid occlusions are infrequently undertaken and the outcomes are poorly defined. We sought to study patients undergoing urgent carotid revascularization for symptomatic occlusions.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003 to 2020 to identify patients with carotid occlusions undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Only symptomatic patients undergoing urgent interventions, defined within 24 hours of presentation, were included in this analysis. This cohort was compared to patients undergoing urgent intervention for severe stenosis (>=80%). Patients were identified based on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, only. The primary end points were perioperative stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite outcomes.
Result(s): A total of 390 patients were identified who underwent urgent carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic occlusions. The mean age was 67.4 +/- 10.2 years with a range from 39 to 90 years. The cohort was predominantly male (60%), and had significant risk factors for cerebrovascular disease, including hypertension (87.4%), diabetes (34.4%), coronary artery disease (21.6%), current smoking (38.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.6%), and congestive heart failure (10.3%). Medications included statin therapy (78.6%), P2Y12 inhibitors (32.0%), aspirin (77.9%) and renin-angiotensin inhibitor use (43.7%). The perioperative rate of neurologic events was 4.9%%, associated mortality was 2.8% and rate of MI was 1.0%. The composite end point of stroke/death/MI was 7.7%. When compared to patients undergoing urgent endarterectomy for severe stenosis (>=80%), the two cohorts were well matched with regards to risk factors, but the severe stenosis cohort appeared to be better medically managed based on reported medications. In the severe stenosis group, the perioperative rate of neurologic events was 3.3%, associated mortality was 0.9% and rate of MI was 1.2%. The perioperative outcomes were significantly worse for the carotid occlusion cohort, primarily driven by the perioperative mortality, which was nearly threefold, 2.8% versus 0.9% (P <.001). The composite end point of stroke/death/MI was also significantly worse in the occlusion cohort (7.7% vs 4.9%; P =.014).
Conclusion(s): Revascularization for symptomatic carotid occlusion constitutes approximately 2% of carotid interventions captured in the Vascular Quality Initiative, affirming the rarity of this undertaking. These patients have acceptable rates of perioperative neurologic events but are at an elevated risk of overall perioperative adverse events, primarily driven by a significantly higher mortality. While intervention for a symptomatic carotid occlusion may be performed with acceptable rate of perioperative complications, judicious patient selection is warranted in this high-risk cohort.
Copyright

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in the modern era. While numerous devices exist for standard infrarenal AAA repair, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open repair in patients with short infrarenal necks. Over time, aortic neck dilation can occur leading to loss of proximal seal, endoleaks, and AAA sac growth. This study analyzes aortic remodeling following EVAR versus fEVAR and further evaluates whether fEVAR confers a benefit in terms of sac shrinkage. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 120 patients undergoing EVAR was performed: 30 patients were treated with fEVAR (Cook Zenith© Fenestrated) and 90 patients were treated with EVAR devices (30 with each Medtronic Endurant ©, Gore Excluder ©, and Cook Zenith ©). Demographic data were recorded, and anatomic measurements were taken for each patient pre-operatively, 30 days post-operatively, and at the longest point of follow-up using three-dimensional reconstruction software. RESULTS:There were no significant differences in demographics data between the 4 groups. fEVAR was used more often in aortas with large necks and irregular morphology (p= 0.004). At the time of longest follow up, the suprarenal aorta encompassing 5, 10, and 15mm above the lowest renal artery (ALRA) dilated the most for fEVAR versus all EVAR groups. Despite this, the infrarenal segment tended to increase by the least, or even regress, for fEVAR compared to all EVAR groups, and was associated with the overall greatest proportion of sac shrinkage for the fEVAR group compared to Medtronic, Gore, and Cook devices, respectively (-13.90% vs. -5.75% vs. -2.31% vs. -4.68%, p=0.025). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to EVAR, patients treated with fEVAR had greater suprarenal dilation over time, consistent with an overall greater burden of disease in the proximal native aorta. However, the infrarenal segment dilated significantly less over time in the fEVAR group compared to all EVAR groups, suggesting that fEVAR may stabilize the infrarenal neck, promoting positive sac remodeling, as evidenced by the greatest degree of decrease in largest AAA diameter in the fEVAR group.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The proportion of open aneurysm repairs requiring at least a suprarenal clamp has increased in the past few decades, partly due to preferred endovascular approaches for most patients with infrarenal aneurysms, suggesting that the management of aortic clamp placement has become even more relevant. This study evaluated the association between proximal clamp site and intraoperative ischemia times with postoperative renal dysfunction and mortality. METHODS:We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to identify all patients undergoing open repairs of elective or symptomatic juxtarenal AAAs from 2004-2018 and compared outcomes by clamp site: above one renal artery, above both renal arteries (supra-renal), or above the celiac trunk (supra-celiac). Outcomes evaluated included acute kidney injury (AKI), new-onset renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT), 30-day mortality, and one-year mortality. We used multilevel logistic regressions and cox-proportional hazards models, clustered at the hospital level, to adjust for confounding. RESULTS:We identified 3976 patients (median age 71 years, 70% male, 8.2% non-Caucasian), with a median aneurysm diameter of 5.9cm (IQR 5.4-6.8cm). Proximal clamp sites were: above one renal artery (31%), supra-renal (52%), and supra-celiac (17%). Rates of unadjusted outcomes were 20.5% for AKI, 4.1% for new-onset RRT, 4.9% for 30-day mortality, and 8.3% for one-year mortality. On adjusted analyses, independent of ischemia time, supra-renal clamping relative to clamping above a single renal artery had higher odds of postoperative AKI (aOR 1.50 [95%-CI 1.28-1.75]) but similar odds for new-onset RRT (aOR 1.27 [0.79-2.06]) and 30-day mortality (aOR 1.12 [0.79-1.58]) and hazards for one-year mortality (aHR 1.12 [0.86-1.45]). However, every ten minutes of prolonged intraoperative ischemia time was associated with an increase in odds or hazards ratio of postoperative AKI by +7% (IQR 3-11%), new-onset RRT by +11% (IQR 4-17%), 30-day mortality by +11% (IQR 6-17%), and one-year mortality by +7% (IQR 2-13%). Patients with greater than 40 minutes of ischemia time had notably higher rates of all four outcomes. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Supra-renal clamping relative to clamping above a single renal artery was associated with AKI but not new-onset RRT or 30-day mortality. However, intraoperative renal ischemia time was independently associated with all four postoperative outcomes. While further studies are warranted, our findings suggest that an expeditious proximal anastomosis creation is more important than trying to maintain clamp position below one renal artery, suggesting that suprarenal clamping may be the best strategy for open AAA repair when needed to efficiently perform the proximal anastomosis.

OBJECTIVE:Type II endoleaks (T2Es), often identified after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), have been associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. The number and size of the patent aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels (ie, the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries) have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2Es. Given the technical challenges associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic embolization of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels has been advocated to prevent T2Es; however, the evidence available at present is limited. We sought to examine the effects of concomitant prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization in patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS:Patients aged ≥18 years included in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included in the present study. Patients with a history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. The patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR alone vs EVAR with prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization (emboEVAR). The outcomes of interest were the in-hospital postoperative complication rates, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (≥5 mm) and T2Es, and reintervention rates during follow-up. RESULTS:A total of 15,060 patients were included. Of these patients, 272 had undergone emboEVAR and 14,788 had undergone EVAR alone. No significant differences were found between the two groups in age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics, including the mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs 5.6 cm; P = .48). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs 124 minutes; P < .0001), prolonged fluoroscopy times (32 vs 23 minutes; P < .0001), increased contrast use (105 vs 91 mL; P < .0001), without a significant reduction in T2Es at case completion (17.7% vs 16.3%; P = .54). The incidence 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 = 1.00) were similar between the two groups. At mid-term follow-up (14.6 ± 6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significantly greater mean reduction in the maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs 0.54 cm; P = .006), with a greater proportion experiencing sac regression of ≥5 mm (53.5% vs 48.7%). The reintervention rates were similar between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.74; P = .024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression. CONCLUSIONS:Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR was associated with significant sac regression compared with EVAR alone at mid-term follow-up. Although no decrease was found in the incidence of T2Es, this technique shows promise, and future efforts should focus on identifying a subset of aneurysm and outflow branch characteristics that will benefit from concomitant selective vs complete prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization.

OBJECTIVE:Data on the efficacy of non-reversed and reversed great saphenous vein bypass (NRGSV and RGSV) techniques are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing open infrainguinal revascularisation using NRGSV and RGSV from a multi-institutional database. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing infrainguinal bypasses using NRGSV and RGSV for symptomatic occlusive disease from January 2003 to February 2021. The primary outcome measures included primary and secondary patency at discharge and one year. Secondary outcomes were re-interventions at discharge and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the impact of graft configuration on outcomes of interest. RESULTS:Of 7 123 patients, 4 662 and 2 461 patients underwent RGSV and NRGSV, respectively. At one year, the rates of primary patency (78% vs. 78%; p = .83), secondary patency (90% vs. 89%; p = .26), and re-intervention (16% vs. 16%; p = .95) were similar between the RGSV and NRGSV cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on outflow bypass target and indication for revascularisation did not show differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. Multivariable analysis confirmed that RGSV (NRGSV as the reference) configuration was not independently associated with increased risk of primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 - 1.13; p = .80), secondary patency loss (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81 - 1.10; p = .44), and re-intervention (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 - 1.16; p = .67) at follow up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The study shows that RGSV and NRGSV grafting techniques have comparable peri-operative and one year primary and secondary patency and re-intervention rates. This effect persisted when stratified by outflow targets and indication for revascularisation. Therefore, optimal selection of vein grafting technique should be guided by the patient's anatomy, vein conduit availability, and surgeon's experience.

Objectives: Beta-blockers are first-line anti-impulse therapy for patients presenting with type B aortic dissection (TBAD); however, little is understood about their impact after aortic repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of postoperative beta-blocker use on the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for TBAD.
Method(s): The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD from 2012 to 2020. Aortic-related reintervention, all-cause mortality, and success of TEVAR measured by complete false lumen thrombosis of the treated aortic segment were assessed and compared between patients treated with and without beta-blocker use postoperatively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of beta-blocker therapy on outcomes.
Result(s): A total of 1147 patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD were identified, with a mean follow-up of 18 +/- 12 months (median, 14 months). The mean age was 61.3 +/- 11.8 years, and 791 (71%) were men. Of the 1147 patients, 935 (84%) continued beta-blocker therapy at discharge and follow-up. Patients receiving beta-blocker therapy were more likely to have an entry tear originating in zones 1 to 2 (22% vs 13%; P =.022). The prevalence of acute, elective, and symptomatic TBAD, concurrent aneurysms, number of endografts used, distribution of the proximal and distal zones of dissection, and operative time were comparable between the two groups. At 18 months, significantly more complete false lumen thrombosis (58.4% vs 47.4%; P =.018; Fig) was observed in the patients with beta-blocker use. However, the rates of aortic-related reintervention (12.8% vs 8.8%; log-rank P =.396) and mortality (0.7% vs 0.1%; log-rank P =.401) were similar in those with and without beta-blocker therapy. Even after adjusting for clinical and operative factors, continuous postoperative beta-blocker use was associated with increased complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.21; P =.012) but did not affect all-cause mortality or aortic-related reintervention (Table). When analyzed separately, postoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use did not affect the rates of aortic-related reintervention, complete false lumen thrombosis, or mortality.
Conclusion(s): Beta-blocker use was associated with the promotion of complete false lumen in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. In addition to its role in acute TBAD, anti-impulse control appears to confer favorable aortic remodeling after TEVAR. Beta-blocker therapy might improve the outcomes after TEVAR for TBAD. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright