Search

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.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.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.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.

Presence of an endoleak can compromise aneurysm exclusion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Type II endoleaks (T2Es) are most common and may cause sac expansion. We report outcomes of translumbar embolization (TLE) of T2Es following EVAR.We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with T2E after EVAR treated with TLE from 2011 to 2018 at a single academic institution. Treatment indications were the presence of persistent T2E and aneurysm growth ≥5 mm. Sac stabilization was defined as growth ≤5 mm throughout the follow-up period.Thirty consecutive patients were identified. The majority were men (n = 24), with a mean age of 74.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9-77.6 years). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (83.3%) and coronary artery disease (54.0%). The mean maximal sac diameter at T2E discovery was 5.8 cm (95% CI, 5.4-6.2 cm). The mean time to intervention from endoleak discovery was 33.7 ± 28 months with a mean growth of 0.84 cm (95% CI, 0.48-1.2 cm) during that time period. The mean follow-up time after TLE was 19.1 months (95% CI, 11.1-27.2 months). Twenty-eight patients were treated with cyanoacrylate glue (CyG) alone, and two were treated with CyG plus coil embolization (CE). There was immediate complete endoleak resolution as assessed intraoperatively, and sac stabilization in 15 cases (50.0%). Eleven patients (36.7%) had evidence of persistent T2E on initial imaging after the embolization procedure; additional follow-up revealed eventual sac stabilization at a mean of 21.3 ± 7.2 months, and therefore, these patients did not require further intervention. In the remaining four cases (13.3%), there was persistent T2E after the initial TLE, requiring a second intervention. Repeat TLE stabilized growth in three of these four patients after a mean of 17.6 ± 12.9 months. One patient required open sacotomy and ligation of lumbar vessels due to continued persistence of the T2E and continued aneurysm growth. There were no ischemic complications related to the embolization procedures. Factors associated with persistent endoleak after initial embolization were larger aneurysm diameter at the time of initial endoleak identification (P .001) and the use of antiplatelet agents (P .02). The use of anticoagulation was not a significant risk factor for endoleak recurrence or aneurysm growth after TLE.TLE of T2E is a safe and effective treatment option for T2E with aneurysm growth following EVAR. Patients taking antiplatelet medication and those with larger aneurysms at the time of endoleak identification appear to be at increased risk for persistent endoleak and need for subsequent procedures following initial TLE. These patients may require more intensive monitoring and follow-up.

With the exponential increase in the use of endovascular techniques in the treatment of peripheral artery disease, our understanding of factors that affect intervention failures continues to grow. We sought to assess the outcomes of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for isolated de novo superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease based on balloon diameter.The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing percutaneous balloon angioplasty for isolated de novo atherosclerotic SFA disease. Based on the diameter of the angioplasty balloon as a surrogate measure of arterial diameter, patients were stratified into 2 groups: group 1, balloon diameter5 mm (354 patients) and group 2, balloon diameter ≥5 mm (1,550 patients). The primary patency and major adverse limb event (MALE) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test, based on vessel diameter. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with the primary patency.From January 2010 through December 2018, a total of 1,904 patients met criteria for analysis, with a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 4.5 months. The mean balloon diameters were 3.92 ± 0.26 mm and 5.47 ± 0.55 mm in group 1 and 2, respectively (P0.001). The mean length of treatment and distribution of TASC lesions were not statistically different between the groups. Primary patency at 18 months was significantly lower in group 1, compared with group 2 (55% vs. 67%; log-rank P0.001). The MALE rate was higher in group 1 than group 2 (33% vs. 26%; log-rank P0.001). Among patients with claudication, there was no significant difference in the primary patency (61% vs 68%; log-rank P = 0.073) and MALE (27% vs. 22%; log-rank P = 0.176) at 18 months between groups 1 and 2, respectively. However, in patients with CLTI, group 1 had significantly lower 18-month primary patency (47% vs. 64%; log-rank P0.014) and higher MALE rates (41% vs. 35%; log-rank P = 0.012) than group 2. Cox proportional hazard analysis confirmed that balloon diameter5 mm was independently associated with increased risks of primary patency loss (HR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72; P = 0.021) and MALE (HR 1.29; 95% CI, 1-1.67; P = 0.048) at 18-months.In patients undergoing isolated SFA balloon angioplasty for CLTI, smaller SFA (5 mm) was associated with worse primary patency and MALE. Using balloon size as a surrogate, our findings suggest that patients with a smaller SFA diameter appear to be at increased risk for treatment failure and warrant closer surveillance. Furthermore, these patients may also be considered for alternative approaches, including open revascularization.

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 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 Over 150,000 patients were included in the analysis: 13,666 patients underwent TCAR, 13,811 underwent CAS, and 125,429 underwent CEA for carotid artery stenosis. Overall, 52.2% of patients were maintained on RASB agents. Among patients undergoing CEA, patients on RASB agents had a significantly lower rate of periprocedural neurologic events (1.7% versus 2.0%, p =0.001). The peri-procedural neurological event rate in the TCAR cohort was similarly reduced in those treated with RASB agents, but did not reach statistical significance (2.0% vs 2.4%, p = 0.162). Among patients undergoing CAS, there was no difference in perioperative neurologic events between the RASB treated and untreated cohorts (3.4% vs 3.2%, p = 0.234); however, the use of RASB agents was significantly associated with lower mortality (1.2% vs 1.7%, p =0.001) with CAS. The use of preoperative RAS-blocking agents did not appear to affect the overall rates of adverse cardiac events with any of the three carotid intervention types, or periprocedural mortality following CEA or TCAR. On multivariable analysis, the use of RAS-blocking agents was independently associated with lower rates of post-procedural neurologic events in patients undergoing CEA (OR 0.819, CI 0.747–0.898; p = 0.01) and TCAR (OR 0.869, CI 0.768–0.984; p = 0.026), but not in those undergoing CAS (OR 0.967, CI 0.884–1.057; p = 0.461). Conclusion 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.

International guidelines strongly recommend statins alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels for patients with asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS/SCS). Lowering LDL-C levels is associated with significant reductions in transient ischemic attack, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) event and death rates. The aim of this multi-disciplinary overview is to summarize the benefits and risks associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin medications for Asx/SCS patients. The cerebrovascular and CV beneficial effects associated with statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and other non-statin lipid-lowering agents (e.g. fibrates, ezetimibe) are reviewed. The use of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors is associated with several beneficial effects for Asx/SCS patients, including carotid plaque stabilization and reduction of stroke rates. Ezetimibe and fibrates are associated with smaller reductions in stroke rates. The side-effects resulting from statin and PCSK9 inhibitor use are also highlighted. The benefits associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin lipid lowering agents (e.g. PCSK9 inhibitors) outweigh the risks and potential side-effects. Irrespective of their LDL-C levels, all Asx/SCS patients should receive high-dose statin treatment±ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors for reduction not only of LDL-C levels, but also of stroke, cardiovascular mortality and coronary event rates.

Beta-blockers (BBs) are first-line anti-impulse therapy for patients presenting with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD). However, little is understood about their effects after aortic repair. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of postoperative BB use on the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in TBAD.The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD from 2012 to 2020. Aortic-related reintervention, all-cause mortality, and the effects of TEVAR on false lumen thrombosis of the treated aortic segment were assessed and compared between patients treated with and without BBs postoperatively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of BB therapy on the outcomes.A total of 1114 patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD with a mean follow-up of 18 ± 12 months were identified. The mean age was 61.1 ± 11.9 years, and 791 (71%) were men. Of the 1114 patients, 935 (84%) continued BB therapy at discharge and follow-up. The patients taking BBs were more likely to have had an entry tear originating in zones 1 to 2 (22% vs 13%; P = .022). The prevalence of acute, elective, and symptomatic aortic dissection, prevalence of concurrent aneurysms, number of endografts used, distribution of proximal and distal zones of dissection, and operative times were comparable between the two cohorts. At 18 months, significantly more complete false lumen thrombosis (58% vs 47%; log-rank P = .018) was observed for patients taking BBs, and 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 for patients taking and not taking BBs, respectively. Even after adjusting for clinical and anatomic factors, postoperative BB 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 mortality or aortic-related reintervention. A secondary analysis of BB use for those with acute vs chronic TBAD showed a higher rate of complete false lumen thrombosis for patients with chronic TBAD and taking BBs (59% vs 38%; log-rank P = .038). In contrast, no difference was found in the rate of complete false lumen thrombosis for those with acute TBAD between the two cohorts (58% vs 51%; log-rank P = .158). When analyzed separately, postoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use did not affect the rates of complete false lumen thrombosis, mortality, and aortic-related reintervention.BB use was associated with promotion of complete false lumen thrombosis for patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD. In addition to its role in the acute setting, anti-impulse control with BBs appears to confer favorable aortic remodeling and might improve patient outcomes after TEVAR, especially for those with chronic TBAD.

Purpose Chimney endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (CHEVAR) has predominantly been described as an alternative technique for the management of urgent presentations of degenerative pararenal aortic aneurysms (dPAAs). However, the role of CHEVAR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients remains unknown. The aim of current multinational study was to evaluate the outcomes of elective CHEVAR of dPAAs. Material and Methods Retrospective analysis of 267 consecutive dPAA patients treated with elective CHEVAR at 13 European and US centers from 2008 to 2014. Primary endpoints were 30 days and out of hospital CHEVAR-related mortality. Secondary endpoints included persistent type Ia endoleak or endotension, angiographically confirmed occlusion and/or high-grade chimney graft (CG) or involved splanchnic vessel stenosis identified at index procedure and/or during follow-up, as well as CHEVAR-related re-intervention. Results Mean follow-up time was 25.5±13.3 months. The 442 visceral vessels were involved and mean number of CGs per patient was 1.63±0.7. 436 targeted vessels were successfully cannulated. The aortic graft intentionally covered 6 renal arteries and immediate technical success was 98.6%. The 30 days mortality was 1.9% (n=5), while the in-hospital complication rate was 10.1% (n=27) including 3 strokes, 1 permanent dialysis, and 1 intestinal ischemia. No 30 day type Ia endoleaks were detected and 3.2% of CGs (n=14, including the intentionally covered) had evidence of occlusion and/or stenosis. The overall CHEVAR-related mortality was 2.2% (n=6). Freedom from primary and secondary type Ia endoleak/endotension rates at 3 years was 93.0% and 98.0%, respectively. Primary and secondary CG patency was 87.0% and 89.0%. Primary and secondary endovascular freedom from any endpoint at 3 years was 81.0% and 94.0% respectively. Conclusion Elective use of CHEVAR in the management of dPAAs seems to be durable. These results are comparable to published outcomes with other total endovascular strategies, which justifies an expanded role for CHEVAR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients presenting with dPAAs.

The carotid artery plaque burden, indirectly measured by the degree of stenosis, quantifies a patient's future embolic risk. In natural history studies, patients with moderate degrees of stenosis have had a lower stroke risk than those with severe stenosis. However, patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who have experienced transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke were found to have both moderate and severe degrees of stenosis. We examined the association of carotid artery stenosis severity with the outcomes for symptomatic patients who had undergone carotid intervention, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR).The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone TFCAS, CEA, or TCAR between 2003 and 2020. The patients were stratified into two groups according to stenosis severity-nonsevere (0%-69%) and severe (≥70%). The primary end point was periprocedural neurologic events (stroke and TIA). The secondary end points were periprocedural death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite outcomes of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI in accordance with the reporting standards for carotid intervention.Of the 29,614 included symptomatic patients, 5296 (17.9%) had undergone TCAR, 7844 (26.5%) TFCAS, and 16,474 (55.6%) CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. In the CEA cohort, the neurologic event rate was significantly lower for the patients with severe stenosis than for those with nonsevere stenosis (2.6% vs 3.2%; P = .024). In the TCAR cohort, the periprocedural neurologic even rate was lower for those with severe stenosis than for those with nonsevere stenosis (3% vs 4.3%; P = .033). No similar difference was noted for the TFCAS cohort, with a periprocedural neurologic event rate of 3.8% in the severe group vs 3.5% in the nonsevere group (P = .518). On multivariable analysis, severe stenosis was associated with significantly decreased odds of postprocedural neurologic events after CEA (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.92; P = .007) and TCAR (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.99; P = .039) but not after TFCAS.Severe carotid stenosis, in contrast to more moderate stenosis degrees, was associated with decreased rates of periprocedural stroke and TIA in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR and CEA but not TFCAS. 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.

ObjectiveAutologous 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOf 8234 patients undergoing LEBs, in-situ and reversed techniques were used in 3546 and 4688 patients, respectively. The indication for LEBs was similar between the two cohorts. ISGSV was performed more frequently from the common femoral artery and to more distal targets. RGSV bypass was associated with higher intraoperative blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperatively, ISGSV cohort had higher rates of reinterventions (13.2 vs 11.1%; p = 0.004), surgical site infection (4.2 vs 3%; p = 0.003), and lower primary patency (93.5 vs 95%; p = 0.004) but a comparable rate of secondary patency (99 vs 99.1%; p = 0.675). At 1 year, in-situ bypasses had a lower rate of reinterventions (19.4% vs 21.6%; p=0.02), with similar rates of primary (82.6 vs 81.8%; p = 0.237) and secondary patency (88.7 vs 88.9%; p = 0.625). After adjusting for significant baseline differences and potential confounders, in-situ bypass was independently associated with decreased risks of primary patency loss (HR 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82–0.98; p = 0.016) and reinterventions (HR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.8–0.97; p = 0.014) but a similar risk of secondary patency loss (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86–1.16; p = 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Patients with prior infrarenal aortic intervention represent an increasing demographic of patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and/or complex EVAR. Studies have suggested that prior abdominal aortic surgery is a risk factor for spinal cord ischemia (SCI). However, these results were largely based on single-center experiences with limited multi-institutional and national data that had assessed the clinical outcomes for these patients. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of prior infrarenal aortic surgery on the occurrence of SCI.The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients aged ≥18 years who had undergone TEVAR and/or complex EVAR from January 2012 to June 2020. Patients with previous thoracic or suprarenal aortic repair were excluded. The baseline and procedural characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared between TEVAR and/or complex EVAR with and without previous infrarenal aortic repair. The primary outcome was postoperative SCI. The secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital length of stay, bowel ischemia, renal ischemia, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent predictors of postoperative SCI. Additional analysis was performed of the patients who had undergone isolated TEVAR.A total of 9506 patients met the inclusion criteria: 8691 (91.4%) had not undergone prior infrarenal aortic repair and 815 (8.6%) had undergone previous infrarenal aortic repair. Patients with previous infrarenal repair were older with an increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease (P = .001) and cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and positive smoking history (P .001). These patients also presented with a larger maximal aortic diameter (6.06 ± 1.47 cm vs 5.15 ± 1.76 cm; P .001) and required more stent-grafts (P .001) with increased intraoperative blood transfusion requirements (P .001), and longer procedure times (P .001). Univariate analysis demonstrated no differences in postoperative SCI, postoperative hospital length of stay, bowel ischemia, or renal ischemia between the two groups. The 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with prior infrarenal repair (P = .001). On multivariate regression, prior infrarenal aortic repair was not a predictor of postoperative SCI. In contrast, aortic dissection (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.16; P .001), number of stent-grafts deployed (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.62; P .001), and units of packed red blood cells transfused intraoperatively (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73; P = .032) were independent predictors of postoperative SCI.Although the patients in the TEVAR and/or complex EVAR group with prior infrarenal aortic repair constituted a sicker cohort with higher 30-day mortality, the rate of SCI was comparable to that of the patients without prior repair. Previous infrarenal repair was not associated with the risk of SCI.

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA.The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts.Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019).Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention.

During the past two decades, the treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has undergone a transformation. Although open surgical repair (OR) has remained the reference standard for treatment, endovascular repair (ER) has become an attractive alternative for select patient populations. The objective of the present study was to compare the outcomes of OR vs ER of PAAs at a single institution.We performed a retrospective review of the medical records for all patients who had undergone repair for PAAs from 1998 to 2017. The baseline patient, anatomic, and operative characteristics and outcomes were compared between the OR and ER cohorts. Intervention and treatment were at the discretion of the surgeon.From 1998 to 2017, 64 patients had undergone repair of 73 PAAs at our tertiary care center. Of the 69 patients (73 PAAs), 29 (33 PAAs) had undergone OR and 35 (40 PAAs) had undergone ER. When comparing the two cohorts, no statistically significant differences were found in the demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or number of runoff vessels. Significantly more patients in the ER group (n = 21; 53%) than in the OR group (n = 7; 21%) had had hyperlipidemia (P = .008) and a previous carotid intervention (6% vs 0%; P = .029). Overall, the presence of symptoms was similar between the two groups. However, the OR group had a significantly higher number of patients who had presented with acute ischemia (P = .01). The length of stay was significantly shorter for the ER cohort (mean, 1.8 days; range, 1-11 days) than for the OR group (mean, 5.4 days; range, 2-13 days; P .0001). No significant difference was found in the primary or secondary patency rates between the two groups. In the ER group, good runoff (two or more vessels) was a positive predictor for primary patency at 1 year (odds ratio, 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-11.25). However, it was not in the OR group. Postoperative single and/or dual antiplatelet therapy did not affect primary patency in either cohort.The results of our study have demonstrated that ER of PAAs is a safe and durable option with patency rates comparable to those with OR and a decreased length of stay, with good runoff a positive predictor for primary patency in the ER cohort.