Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The existing renal artery aneurysm (RAA) literature is largely composed of reports of patients who underwent intervention. The objective of this study was to review the natural history of RAA. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective analysis studied all patients with RAA diagnosed by computed tomography imaging between 2015 and 2019, identified by our institutional radiology database. Imaging, demographic, and clinical data were obtained via the electronic medical record. He growth rate was calculated for all patients with radiological follow-up. RESULTS:The cohort consists of 331 patients with 338 RAAs. Most patients were female (61.3%), with 11 (3.3%) of childbearing age. The mean age at diagnosis was 71.5 years (range, 24-99 years). Medical comorbidities included hypertension (73.7%), prior smoking (34.4%), and connective tissue disease (3.9%). Imaging indications included abdominal pain (33.5%), unrelated follow-up (29.6%), and follow-up of an RAA initially diagnosed before the study period (10.7%). Right RAA (61.9%) was more common than left (35.1%); 3% of patients had bilateral RAA. The mean diameter at diagnosis was 12.9 ± 5.9 mm. Size distribution included lesions measuring less than <15 mm (69.9%), 15 to 25 mm (27.1%), and more than 25 mm (3.0%). Anatomic locations included the distal RA (26.7%), renal hilum (42.4%), and mid-RA (13.1%). The majority were true aneurysms (98%); of these, 72.3% were fusiform and 27.7% were saccular. Additional characteristics included calcification (82.2%), thrombus (15.9%), and dissection (0.9%). Associated findings included aortic atherosclerosis (65.6%), additional visceral aneurysms (7.3%), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (5.7%). The mean clinical follow-up among 281 patients was 41.0 ± 24.0 months. The mean radiological follow-up among 137 patients was 26.0 ± 21.4 months. Of these, 43 patients (31.4%) experienced growth, with mean growth rate of 0.23 ± 4.7 mm/year; the remainder remained stable in size. Eight patients eventually underwent intervention (5 endovascular), with the most common indications including size criteria (4/8) and symptom development (3/8). No patient developed rupture. On multivariate analysis, obesity (P = .04) was significantly associated with growth. An initial diameter of more than 25 mm was significantly associated with subsequent intervention (P = .006), but was not significantly associated with growth. Four of five RAAs with an initial diameter 30 mm or greater did not undergo intervention. The mean clinical follow-up for these patients was 24 months; none developed rupture and two remained stable in size. CONCLUSIONS:This large institutional cohort found that the majority of RAAs remained stable in size, with few patients meeting indications for repair based on societal guidelines. Current guidelines recommending intervention for asymptomatic aneurysms more than 30 mm seem to be appropriate given their slow progression.

BACKGROUND:There is a paucity of literature on the natural history of extracranial carotid artery occlusion (CAO). This study reviews the natural history of this patient cohort. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective analysis studied patients with CAO diagnosed by duplex ultrasound between 2010 and 2021. Patients were identified by searching our office-based Intersocietal Accreditation Commission accredited vascular laboratory database. Imaging and clinical data were obtained via our institutional electronic medical record. Outcomes of interest included ipsilateral stroke, attributable neurologic symptoms, and ipsilateral intervention after diagnosis. RESULTS:The full duplex database consisted of 5,523 patients who underwent carotid artery duplex examination during the study period. The CAO cohort consisted of 139 patients; incidence of CAO was 2.5%. Mean age at diagnosis was 69.7 years; 31.4% were female. Hypertension (72.7%), hyperlipidemia (64.7%), and prior smoking (43.9%) were the most common comorbid conditions. Of the CAO cohort, 61.3% (n = 85) of patients were asymptomatic at diagnosis; 38.8% (n = 54) were diagnosed after a stroke or transient ischemic attack occurring within 6 months prior to diagnosis, with 21.6% occurring ipsilateral to the CAO and 10.1% occurring contralateral to the CAO. 7.2% (n = 10) had unclear symptoms or laterality at presentation. Of the CAO cohort, 95 patients (68.3%) had duplex imaging follow-up (mean 42.7 ± 31.3 months). Of those with follow-up studies, 7 patients (5.0%) developed subsequent stroke ipsilateral to the CAO with mean occurrence 27.8 ± 39.0 months postdiagnosis. In addition, 5 patients (3.6%) developed other related symptoms, including global hypoperfusion (2.4%) and transient ischemic attack (1.2%). Of those, 95 patients with follow-up duplex ultrasound imaging, 6 (4.3%) underwent eventual ipsilateral intervention, including carotid endarterectomy (n = 4), transfemoral carotid artery stent (n = 1), and carotid bypass (n = 1), with mean occurrence 17.7 ± 23.7 months postdiagnosis. The aggregate rate of ipsilateral cerebrovascular accident, attributable neurologic symptoms, or ipsilateral intervention was 11.5%. Of 95 patients with follow-up duplex ultrasound imaging, 5 underwent subsequent duplex studies demonstrating ipsilateral patency, resulting in a 5.3% discrepancy rate between sequential duplex studies. All 6 patients undergoing intervention received periprocedural cross-sectional imaging (magnetic resonance angiography or computed tomography angiography). In 5 of these 6 patients, cross-sectional demonstrated severe stenosis rather than CAO, disputing prior duplex ultrasound findings. CONCLUSIONS:In this large, institutional cohort of patients with a CAO diagnosis on duplex ultrasound, a clinically meaningful subset of patients experienced cerebrovascular accident, related symptoms, or intervention. We also found a notable rate of temporal duplex discrepancies among patients with CAO diagnoses and discrepancies between CAO diagnosis per duplex ultrasound and findings on cross-sectional imaging for those patients who underwent intervention. These results suggest that use of a single duplex ultrasound as a sole diagnostic tool in CAO may not be sufficient and that physicians should consider close duplex ultrasound surveillance of these patients, potentially in conjunction with additional confirmatory imaging modalities. Further investigation into optimal workup and surveillance protocols for CAO is needed.

OBJECTIVE:Severe presentations of chronic venous insufficiency can result from reflux or obstruction at the deep venous, perforator, or superficial venous levels. Iliofemoral venous stenting can be used to address central venous obstruction; however, its effects on deep venous reflux (DVR) have remained unclear. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of iliac vein stenting on femoropopliteal DVR with the hypothesis that ultrasound evidence of DVR would remain absent or would have improved after iliac vein stenting. METHODS:The present study was a retrospective review of patients who had undergone iliofemoral venous stenting from 2013 to 2018. The patients were divided into two cohorts according to the preprocedural presence (group A) or absence (group B) of femoropopliteal DVR. Baseline patient variables were collected, including age, gender, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) class, presence of concomitant superficial or perforator reflux, deep vein thrombosis history, and additional venous interventions. The primary outcome evaluated was the persistent absence or resolution of DVR on the latest venous duplex ultrasound at follow-up. Other outcomes included the follow-up CEAP classification and the need for secondary deep venous interventions. RESULTS:A total of 275 consecutive patients had undergone iliofemoral venous stenting. Of the 275 patients, 58 had presented with DVR (group A). A comparison of groups A and B revealed that group A had had a greater likelihood of prior deep vein thrombosis (P = .0001) and a higher frequency of superficial venous ablation. The remaining demographic variables did not differ significantly between the two groups. Of the 58 patients in group A, DVR had resolved at follow-up in 17 (P = .0001). When stratified by level, 7 of these 17 patients had had isolated popliteal reflux. In group B, DVR had developed at follow-up in 6 of the 217 patients. The CEAP class had improved from before intervention (C0, 1.1%; C1, 0.4%; C2, 1.8%; C3, 41.4%; C4, 24.9%; C5, 5.9%; C6, 24.5%) to the latest follow up (C0, 4.9%; C1, 1.9%; C2, 5.7%; C3, 34.2%; C4, 22.8%; C5, 17.1%; C6, 13.3%). Significant improvement had occurred in C6 disease within both groups (group A, 16 of 58 [27.6%; P = .0078]; group B, 19 of 217 [8.8%; P = .0203]). CONCLUSIONS:For patients who undergo iliofemoral venous stenting, DVR could improve if present initially and is unlikely to develop if not present before stenting. A cohort of patients had experienced persistent DVR and warranted further evaluation. Prospective studies are required to corroborate the safety, efficacy, and durability of iliofemoral venous stenting for patients with DVR.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The finding of concurrent deep venous reflux (DVR) when interrogating superficial venous reflux is common and might be a marker for more severe chronic venous insufficiency. However, the safety, clinical and patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing superficial venous treatment in the presence of DVR remains underreported. Moreover, factors associated with persistence and disappearance of DVR after superficial vein treatments have not been evaluated. This study sought to address these questions. METHODS:This study was a review of the institutional vascular quality initiative (VQI) database from June 2016 to June 2021. Consecutive patient-limbs were identified who underwent a superficial venous intervention and had duplex evaluation. These patients were then divided into those with and without DVR. Those with DVR were further reviewed for anatomical details and persistence or resolution of DVR following the procedure. The primary outcome was the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) at follow-up greater than 3 months. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of any postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT), differences in patient-reported outcomes, rate of resolution of DVR, and factors associated with DVR persistence. Both univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were applied. RESULTS:In patients who underwent superficial venous treatments 644 patient-limbs had DVR and 7812 did not, for a prevalence of 7.6%. The former group was associated with a higher burden of chronic venous insufficiency. On univariate analysis, patient-limbs, both with and without DVR, improved significantly in VCSS at less than 3 months follow-up, and were not significantly different. At greater than 3 months follow-up, the VCSS score again improved significantly compared to less than 3 months follow-up, but the two groups differed significantly at the longer interval. The magnitude of improvement in VCSS between the two groups at the longer follow-up were statistically similar (3.17±3.11 vs 3.03±2.93, P =0.739). HASTI score similarly improved significantly in both groups, but remained significantly higher in the DVR group on follow-up. On multivariate logistic regression, DVR was not associated with an increased VCSS at greater than 3 months follow-up. There was no intergroup difference in postoperative DVT or EHIT. 40.8% of limbs with DVR no longer had evidence of detectable DVR at the latest follow-up venous duplex, and DVR limited to single segment were more likely to be no longer detectable versus multi-segments. CONCLUSIONS:Superficial venous procedures are safe and effective in patients with DVR, leading to improvements in clinical and patient reported outcomes as they would for those without DVR. In a large proportion of the treated limbs, especially in those with DVR in a single segment, there is no longer evidence of DVR following superficial venous intervention. Although patients with DVR have a higher burden of chronic venous insufficiency, they appear to still derive significant benefit from superficial venous treatments.

OBJECTIVE:inhibitors for CAS. METHODS:inhibitors as well as symptomatic status. Primary endpoints were perioperative neurologic events (strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs)). Secondary endpoints were mortality and myocardial infarction. RESULTS:inhibitors used revealed that all appeared to be equally effective in reducing the periprocedural neurological event rate. CONCLUSIONS:inhibitors in the periprocedural period, leaving room for significant improvement.

OBJECTIVE:Studies assessing the effect of anticoagulants on endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) are limited to patients on warfarin. As such, the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ETA in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We hypothesized that the outcome of ETA in patients taking DOAC is not superior to the outcome in patients taking DOAC. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed to identify patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with 1470 nm diode laser fibers for symptomatic great or small saphenous venous reflux from 2018 to 2020. Patients were dichotomized into those receiving therapeutic dose of DOACs peri-procedurally and those not receiving anticoagulants (control). Outcomes of interest included the rates of treated vein closure at 7-days and 9-months, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and bleeding peri-procedurally. RESULTS:There were 87 procedures performed in 69 patients receiving DOACs and 295 procedures in 232 control patients. Patients receiving DOACs were more often older (mean, 65 years vs 55 years; P<.001) and male (70% vs 37%; P<.001), with higher prevalence of venous thromboembolism and more severe CEAP classification (5 or 6), compared to control patients. Those receiving DOAC were more likely to have history of DVT (44% vs 6%; P<.001), PE (13% vs 0%; P<.001) and phlebitis (32% vs 15%; P<.001). Procedurally, RFA was used more frequently in the control group (92% vs 84%; P=.029), with longer segments of vein treated (mean 38 mm vs 35 mm, respectively; P=.028). No major or minor bleeding events nor any EHITs occurred in either group. Two patients (0.7%) in the control group developed DVT whereas no DVT was observed in the those receiving DOAC (P=.441). At 9-months, the treated vein remained ablated after 94.4% of procedures performed in patients receiving DOACs and 98.4% of controls (P=.163). On multivariable analysis, DOAC was not associated with an increased risk of vein recanalization (hazard ratio, 5.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-58.64; P=.139). An increased pre-procedural vein diameter and EVLA were associated with an increased risk of recanalization. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study of patients undergoing ETA for symptomatic saphenous venous reflux, peri-procedural use of DOAC did not adversely affect the efficacy of endovenous ablation to at least 9-months. Furthermore, it did not confer additional risk of bleeding, DVT and EHIT peri-procedurally. As such, the early outcome of ETA in patients not taking DOAC may not be superior to the outcome in patients taking DOAC.

OBJECTIVE:Beta-blockers are first-line anti-impulse therapy in patients presenting with acute 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 outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in TBAD. METHODS: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 effect of TEVAR on false lumen thrombosis of the treated aortic segment were assessed and compared between patients treated with and without beta-blocker postoperatively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of beta-blocker therapies on outcomes. RESULTS:1,114 patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD were identified with a mean follow-up of 18±12 months. The mean age was 61.1±11.9 years, and 791 (71%) were male. 935 (84%) patients were maintained on beta-blocker at discharge and follow-up. Patients on beta-blocker were more likely to have an entry tear originating in zones 1-2 (22% vs 13%; P=.022). The prevalence of acute, elective and symptomatic AD, concurrent aneurysm, number of endografts used, distribution of the proximal and distal zones of dissection and operative time were comparable between the two cohorts. At 18-months, significantly more complete false lumen thrombosis (58 vs 47%; log-rank P=.018) was observed in patients on beta-blocker while the rates of aortic-related reinterventions (13% vs 9%; log-rank P=.396) and mortality (0.2% vs 0.7%; log-rank P=.401) were similar in patients with and without beta-blocker, respectively. Even after adjusting for clinical and anatomic factors, postoperative beta-blocker use was associated with increased complete false lumen thrombosis (HR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.10-2.21; P=.012) but did not affect mortality or aortic-related reintervention. A secondary analysis of beta-blocker use in acute versus chronic TBAD showed a higher rate of complete false lumen thrombosis in patients on beta-blocker in chronic TBAD (59% vs 38%; log-rank P=.038). In contrast, there was no difference in the rate of complete false lumen thrombosis in acute TBAD between the two cohorts (58% vs 51%; log-rank P=.158). When analyzed separately, postoperative ACE inhibitor use did not affect the rates of complete false lumen thrombosis, mortality and aortic-related reintervention. CONCLUSIONS:Beta-blocker use was associated with promotion of complete false lumen in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. In addition to its role in acute setting, anti-impulse control with beta-blocker appears to confer favorable aortic remodeling and may improve outcomes after TEVAR, particularly for chronic TBAD.

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: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.

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.