Search

We investigated factors that affected perioperative, postoperative, and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent open emergency surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA). All patients who underwent open emergency surgical repair from 1990 to 2011 were included (463 patients; 374 [81%] male; mean age 74.7 ± 8.7years). Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to explore the association of variables with outcomes. Preoperatively, median (interquartile range) hemoglobin was 11.2 (9.5-12.8) g/dL, and median creatinine level was 140 (112-177) µmol/L. Intraoperatively, the median operative time was 2.25 (2-3) hours, and median estimated blood loss was 1.5 (0.5-3) L; 250 (54%) patients required intraoperative inotropes, and a median of 6 (4-8) units of blood was transfused. Median length of hospital stay was 11 (7-20) days. In-hospital mortality rate was 35.6%, and 5-year mortality was 48%. Age, distance traveled, operation duration, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), and multi-organ failure (MOF) were predictors of in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome. Additionally, postoperative acute renal failure predicted in-hospital mortality. In patients with RAAA undergoing open surgical repair, the strongest predictors of in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome were postoperative MOF and MI and operative duration.

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.

Objective Gender-related differences in outcomes in complex endovascular aortic repair have not been profoundly investigated. Use of low profile abdominal devices as in chimney endovascular repair may be beneficial for female patients with pararenal pathologies. With the chimney technique, there is no need for large introduction sheaths. This could be an advantage in case of smaller in diameter iliac access especially in combination with stenosis or elongation. Aim of the present study was to compare the perioperative and mid-term outcomes between males and females patients treated with the chimney/snorkel technique for pararenal aortic pathologies. Methods The PERICLES registry collected the world wide experience with the chimney technique. According to the gender, patients were classified in two cohorts. Primary endpoints were freedom from occlusion of the chimney grafts and reintervention. Secondary endpoints included access site complications and need for surgical or interventional revision, Endoleak Type I rate, 30-day overall complications and mortality. Univariate comparison P-values were generated using either the likelihood ratio χ2 test, the Fisher exact test, the Wilcoxon rank sum test, or the log rank test. Kaplan–Meier curves estimated the outcomes in the long run. Results A total of 412 patients underwent Ch-EVAR, 71 (17%) females and 341 (83%) males with a mean age for both groups being 74 years were included in the present study. After 36 months of mean follow-up, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two cohorts regarding re-interventions ( P= .44). Freedom from occlusion rates at 36 months did not differed between the two groups (females 84% vs. 80% for males ( P= .033). For patients receiving more than one chimney stent, the odds of having a complication did not differ between males and females (M:F OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 0.6–6.4, P = 0.228); 30-day mortality was 0% in the female group, instead five male patients died within one month. ( P = 0.59). The incidence of acute renal failure was low in both groups without statistical difference: 2 (3.1%) vs. 13 (4.6%) 58 ( P = 1.00). Neither patient received an endoconduit to insert the abdominal device. Conclusions No statistically significant difference regarding the freedom from reintervention and chimney graft patency was observed between the two genders. The results highlight the beneficial use of the chimney technique in female patients who can have potentially higher risk of access complications.

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the performance of the chimney (ch) technique in the treatment of type Ia endoleaks after standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2014, 517 chEVAR procedures were performed in 13 US and European vascular centers (PERICLES registry). Thirty-nine patients (mean age 76.9±7.1 years; 33 men) were treated for persistent type Ia endoleak and had computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography follow-up at >1 month. Endurant abdominal stent-grafts were used in the 20 cases. Single chimney graft placement was performed in 18 (46%) patients and multiple in 21 (54%). Overall, 70 visceral vessels were targeted for revascularization. Results: Technical success was achieved in 35 (89.7%) cases; 3 persistent type Ia endoleaks and 1 chimney graft occlusion were detected within the first 30 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6%. Two other deaths (not aneurysm related) occurred during a mean follow-up of 21.9 months (0.23–71.3). Primary patency of the chimney grafts was 94.3% at 36 months. In a subgroup analysis comparing Endurant to other stent-grafts, no significant differences were observed regarding persistent endoleak [1/20 (5%) vs 2/19 (11%), p=0.6] or reintervention [1/20 (5%) vs 0/19 (0%)]. Conclusion: The present series demonstrates that chEVAR in the treatment of post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks has satisfactory results independent of the abdominal and chimney graft combinations. Midterm results show that chEVAR is an effective method for treating type Ia endoleaks.

Context:Over the past decade, a number of endovascular approaches have evolved to treat aortic aneurysms with anatomy that is not amenable to traditional endovascular repair, although the optimal practice and referral patterns remain in question. The Zenith fenestrated (Z-Fen) endograft (Cook Medical) represents the first commercially available fenestrated graft product in the United States.Objective:We aim to quantify practice patterns in Z-Fen use during the first 5 years of commercial availability, and we identify predictors of high and low uptake.Design, Setting, and Patients:This is a retrospective review of complete order records for Z-Fen endografts since June 2012. We performed univariate and multivariate regressions of predictors that surgeons and centers would be in the top and bottom quartiles of annual Z-Fen use.Results:Since June 15, 2012, 744 surgeons have been trained to use Z-Fen, and 4133 cases have been performed at 409 trained centers. The average annual number of cases per trained surgeon was 4.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.58-5.70]; however, many surgeons performed few or no cases following training, and there was a skew toward users with low average annual volumes (25th percentile 1.23, 50th percentile 2.35, 75th percentile 4.93, and 99th percentile 33.29). Predictors of high annual use in the years following training included academic center (aOR 5.87, P = .001) and training within the first 2 years of availability (aOR 46.23, P < .001).Conclusion:While there is literature supporting the safety and efficacy of Z-Fen, adoption has been relatively slow in an era when the vast majority of vascular surgeons have advanced endovascular skills. Given the training and resources required to use fenestrated or branched aortic endovascular devices, referral patterns should be determined and training should be focused on centers with high expected volumes.

Objective: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the impact of TEVAR on mortality, morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status in patients with acute uncomplicated TBAD. Methods: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample from 2009 and 2010. Patients were categorized according to the type of treatment: TEVAR or medical management. Outcomes, including mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), acute renal failure, discharge disposition, and LOS, were compared between the treatment groups. Results: We identified 4706 patients with TBAD. Mean age was 67 years and 55% were male. Treatment options included TEVAR in 504 and medical management in 4202. The overall adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar for both the groups (8.5% for TEVAR vs 10.3% for medical management, P = .224). The TEVAR carried higher risk of stroke (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.14-2.27]; P = .0073). The TEVAR was associated with prolonged LOS (12 vs 5.6 days, P < .0001) and patients were less likely to be discharged home (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99; P = .013). When stratified by age, all outcomes were similar between the 2 groups, with the exception of longer LOS with TEVAR. Conclusions: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute uncomplicated TBAD was associated with similar in-hospital mortality, MI, and renal failure as compared to medical management. The TEVAR had higher rate of stroke up to the age 70 years and longer LOS. Because extending TEVAR to less complicated patients could only decrease TEVAR mortality rates, these findings support the more widespread use of TEVAR to treat patients with uncomplicated TBAD.

Several guidelines recommend carotid endarterectomy for patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis to reduce the risk of a future cerebrovascular event, as long as the perioperative stroke/death rate is

To report a combined ascending aorta and aortic arch hybrid repair, we performed off-pump with no aortic graft replacement. A 65-year-old man, developing progressive recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, underwent a computed tomography (CT) angiography detecting nonpatent residual ductus Botalli aneurysm and ascending aorta aneurysm. Due to severe multimorbidities, a less-invasive alternative was elaborated. In a first step, appropriate proximal landing zone for aortic stent grafting was achieved by ascending aorta diameter reduction, with epiaortic wrapping, and debranching the supra-aortic trunks. In the second step, endovascular stent grafts were deployed from proximal ascending aorta to descending aorta, excluding the ductus Botalli aneurysm. Six-month follow-up CT shows ductus Botalli aneurysm exclusion, stable stent graft position, and ascending diameter and patent and stenosis-free supra-aortic grafts. This case supports this alternative treatment to open aortic repair under circulatory arrest and deep hypothermia, especially in those patients considered unfit for such invasive treatment.

This commentary addresses the issue of optimal contemporary management of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Based on current data, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should be performed in the majority of patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) should be reserved for a minority of these symptomatic patients, in whom CEA is contraindicated. In asymptomatic patients, all should be placed on best medical treatment (BMT). With the use of one or more of the proposed stroke risk stratification models or some as yet undetermined method, the identification of those asymptomatic individuals may be possible in whom stroke risk is higher than usual with BMT. This asymptomatic subgroup, which may be small and is yet to be determined with certainty, could be offered an invasive carotid procedure (either CAS or CEA).

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains a viable option for treating carotid artery lesions in high surgical risk patients. We retrospectively reviewed our experience in performing CAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy. The ‘‘coronary technique’’ uses an AL1 guiding catheter to engage the origin of the common carotid artery permitting delivery of protection device and stent. In total, 12 patients had complex arch anatomy which precluded access using the standard technique as determined on preoperative imaging. A total of 8 patients with such anatomy underwent femoral artery catheterization with placement of an Amplatz AL1 guide catheter into the common carotid artery. All were able to be successfully treated, with no dissection, neurovascular deficit, or other major complication. Based on this case series, we describe the coronary technique as a safe and viable method for CAS in the setting of complex anatomy which might otherwise preclude CAS.

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this article is to provide an evaluation and critical overview of the trials comparing the early and later results of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed/Medline, and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 1, 2009, to identify trials comparing the long-term outcomes of CAS with CEA. The MeSH terms used were “carotid artery stenting,” “carotid endarterectomy,” “symptomatic carotid artery stenosis,” “treatment,” “clinical trial,” “randomized,” and “long-term results,” in various combinations. One single-center and three multicenter randomized studies reporting their long-term results from the comparison of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis were identified. All four studies independently reached the conclusion that CAS may not provide results equivalent to those of CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid stenosis. A higher incidence of recurrent stenosis and peri- and postprocedural events accounted for the inferior results reported for CAS compared with CEA. Current data from randomized studies indicate that CAS provides inferior long-term results compared with CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, it can be argued that all of these trials were performed when both CAS equipment and CAS operators had not evolved to their current status. Given that current equipment and mature experience are required for CAS before comparing it with the current “gold standard” procedure (CEA), the results of soon-to-be reported trials (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial [CREST], International Carotid Stenting Study [ICSS], or others) may alter the current impression that CAS is inferior to CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Carotid artery interventions can be associated with adverse hemodynamic changes, including bradycardia and hypotension. These hemodynamic changes are believed to be caused by direct stimulation of the carotid sinus baroreceptors, mimicking normal physiological response to rises in blood pressure. During open carotid surgery, these hemodynamic changes can be controlled by direct injection of medications that block fast voltage gated sodium channels in the neuron cell membrane, thus preventing depolarization of the presynaptic neuron in the carotid sinus. This form of control is difficult or impossible during percutaneous carotid interventions because direct access to the carotid artery and carotid sinus is not available. This discussion focuses on the cause, effects, and possible treatments for the hemodynamic changes associated with carotid artery stenting procedures.

The interest in and overall usage of endovascular procedures for the treatment of lower extremity ischemia continues to grow at a rapid pace. An increasing number of centers throughout the world are gaining experience with subintimal angioplasty. Promising results have been reported and the application of the technique has been expanded to include the iliac and crural arteries. The technique of subintimal angioplasty and several variations are discussed. Although primary patency rates compared with bypass are relatively low for patients undergoing subintimal angioplasty, limb salvage rates remain high. When a subintimal angioplasty fails, it frequently does so without the recurrence of symptoms, especially when a gangrenous lesion or ulcer has healed. Given the many advantages of this technique, which include reduced anesthesia requirements, a minimally invasive approach, and potential reductions in length of stay and cost, subintimal angioplasty will continue to have a role in the treatment of lower extremity ischemia. When applied judiciously, bypass options may be preserved. This does not, however, mean that the availability of this technique should be used as justification to lower the threshold for the treatment.

It is widely thought that chronic renal insufficiency substantially increases the risk of endovascular aneurysm repair and is a relative contraindication to the procedure and to the use of intra-arterial contrast agents. We reviewed a 5-year experience with endovascular aneurysm repair to determine whether the procedure and use of intra-arterial contrast agents has a major deleterious effect on renal function in patients with and without preexisting chronic renal insufficiency. Endovascular aneurysm repair, with a variety of endografts, was performed on 200 patients. Intra-arterial contrast agents were used. The patients were retrospectively assigned to three groups based on their preoperative serum creatinine levels (mg/dL); Group I(n = 108), less than 1.5 (normal range); Group II (n = 65), 1.5 to 2.0, and Group III (n = 27), 2.1 to 3.5 without a history of hemodialysis. In Groups II and III, patients were hydrated perioperatively, received mannitol intraoperatively, and did not receive nephrotoxic drugs, other than an nonionic contrast agent, during the procedure. The incidence of postoperative complications between the three study groups was not significantly different. In patients with chronic renal insufficiency who do not require dialysis, endovascular aneurysm repair with intra-arterial contrast agents can be performed with a limited and acceptable morbidity and mortality, similar to that observed with open aneurysm repair. Unlike other reports in which perioperative precautions were not used, our study shows that with endovascular aneurysm repair, the risks of worsening renal failure, dialysis, and death were only slightly, and not significantly, greater in patients with preoperative chronic renal insufficiency than in those with normal renal function. With appropriate precautions, elevated creatinine levels need not be a contraindication to the use of intra-arterial contrast agents in endovascular aneurysm repair.

The recent explosion of interest in morbid obesity surgery and its associated complications (deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) has inadvertently captured the attention of many vascular specialists. This article will focus on the indications and techniques used at Jack D. Weiler Hospital of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine for inferior vena cava filter placement prior to open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures.

Purpose: To evaluate the patency rates of femorofemoral grafts performed in conjunction with aortomonoiliac or aortomonofemoral (AMI/F) endografts. Methods: Over the past 8 years, 110 patients (98 men; mean age 77 ± 7 years, range 57–90) underwent aortoiliac aneurysm repair with an AMI/F endograft. Follow-up data in these patients were prospectively collected for a mean 2.3 years (range 1–68 months). Results: There were 2 early (Conclusions: Femorofemoral bypasses with AMI/F endografts for aneurysmal disease are durable procedures and have better patency than femorofemoral grafts used to treat occlusive disease. Femorofemoral bypass patency rates alone are not a disadvantage of aortomonoiliac endografts.

Purpose: To evaluate the degree of difficulty in surgically removing 2 different stent models placed in the canine carotid artery. Methods: In 5 dogs, each carotid artery was stented with a braided Elgiloy self-expanding stent (BESES) on one side and a surface-spanning micro stent (SSMS) on the other. After 4 weeks, an arteriogram was obtained, and the stents were removed via direct surgical exposure. The minimum lengths of the skin incisions and arteriotomies, the ease of stent removal, and the presence of a distal intimal flap were recorded. Results: Stent deployment and removal were successful in each animal, but there was a substantial difference in the ease of removal. The BESES could be removed in a strand-by-strand fashion via a more proximal, smaller arteriotomy compared to the SSMS (8.8±1.3 versus 37.2±4.7 mm, pConclusions: Although rare, restenosis after stenting occurs, and surgical repair may become necessary in some patients. Each stent has inherent advantages and disadvantages, but the braided Elgiloy self-expanding stent lends itself to easier surgical removal, which may have important clinical implications, especially when used in the carotid artery.

Internal iliac artery (IIA) occlusion during aortic aneurysm repair has been associated with considerable morbidity. We analyzed the consequences of interrupting one or both IIAs in the standard surgical or endovascular treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms (AIAs). From 1992 to 2000, 158 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (n = 66), iliac aneurysms (n = 28), or AIAs (n = 64) required interruption of one (n = 134) or both (n = 24) IIAs as part of their endovascular (n = 110 ) or open repair (n = 48). Endovascular treatment was performed with a variety of industry- or surgeon-made grafts in combination with coil embolization of the IIAs. The standard surgical techniques included oversewing or excluding the origins of the IIAs, and extending the prosthetic graft to the external iliac or femoral artery. There were no cases of buttock necrosis, ischemic colitis requiring laparotomy, or death when one or both IIAs were interrupted. Persistent buttock claudication occurred after 16 (12%) of the unilateral and 3...

E vidence founded on well-designed and wellconducted randomized controlled trials is the ‘‘Holy Grail’’ on which to base medical practice. The recent Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST) is one such trial that compares the outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS; n 5 1,262 patients) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA; n 5 1,240). CREST has attracted a great deal of attention and should contribute to determining medical practice. However, like all trials, CREST has intrinsic limitations and other issues that need to be considered when interpreting the results. The primary end point for CREST included the incidence rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. It was concluded that ‘‘for 2,502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] with stenting 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.51; p 5 .51).’’ Further analysis showed that CAS was associated with a more than twofold higher risk for periprocedural death (nine vs four deaths for patients undergoing CAS and CEA, respectively; HR 2.25; 95% CI 0.69–7.30). Owing to the small number of deaths, however, this difference was not significant (p 5 .18), with a big CI. CREST was, therefore, underpowered to show significance with regard to this important parameter. In addition, CAS was associated with an almost twofold increased risk for any periprocedural stroke (52 versus 29 strokes for patients undergoing CAS and CEA, respectively; HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.14–2.82). This difference was significant (p 5 .01). In more detail, CAS was associated with a . 2.5-fold increased risk for major ipsilateral stroke (11 versus 4 events for patients undergoing CAS and CEA, respectively; HR 2.67; 95% CI 0.85– 8.4; p 5 .09). Again, because of small numbers, this difference was not significant. However, there was a highly significant more than twofold increased risk for minor ipsilateral stroke (37 versus 17 episodes for patients undergoing CAS and CEA, respectively; HR 2.16; 95% CI 1.22–3.83; p 5 .009). Finally, the 4-year rate of stroke and death was significantly higher with CAS compared to CEA (6.4% versus 4.7%, respectively; HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.05– 2.15; p 5 .03). In contrast, CREST patients undergoing CAS suffered significantly fewer myocardial infarctions compared to those undergoing CEA (14 versus 28, respectively; HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.26–0.94; p 5 .03). This difference balanced the difference in strokes and produced the apparent equivalence in the overall primary end point. These CREST results may be interpreted differently depending on one’s bias. Those with a bias toward CEA focus on the lower stroke and death rate for CEA and conclude that CEA should be used preferentially to treat patients requiring an invasive procedure for carotid stenosis. On the other hand, many with a bias toward CAS regard the CREST findings as definitive and conclude that the equivalent and low overall adverse event rates for the two procedures justifies the widespread and increased use of CAS to treat patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Some believe that no further trials comparing CAS to CEA are needed. Neither of these extreme views is justified. To place CREST in perspective and use its findings appropriately, its flaws must be considered. Some of these are intrinsic to large randomized trials no matter how well designed and flawlessly conducted. Others are specific for CREST. *Department of Vascular Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Athens, Greece; Department of Clinical Biochemistry (Vascular Disease Prevention Clinics), Royal Free Hospital Campus, University College Medical School, University College London, London, UK; Academic Department of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College, London, UK; Divisions of Vascular Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY, and The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.

The superior mesenteric artery (SMA) is an uncommon location for spontaneous peripheral arterial dissections. In the past, most symptomatic SMA dissections were treated surgically. However, the authors recently treated a healthy 40-year-old man who experienced a symptomatic SMA dissection with anticoagulation therapy alone. The patient had bilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) dissections in the past that were also managed in a conservative fashion. To their knowledge, this is the first patient reported in the literature with both ICA and SMA dissections. In addition, he is one of only a few patients with an SMA dissection who was successfully treated without surgical intervention. From our experience with this patient and a review of the literature, we believe that a trial of anticoagulation therapy is warranted in all patients with uncomplicated, symptomatic SMA dissections.

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) are associated infrequently with visceral artery occlusive disease and rarely with aortoiliac occlusion. The presence of occlusion of the infrarenal abdominal aorta limits the options for visceral artery perfusion and spinal cord protection by means of distal aortic perfusion and, consequently, increases the risk for postoperative complications and mortality. Significant stenoses of the visceral arteries further add to the complexity of the repair. We describe a one-stage repair of a type I TAAA associated with infrarenal aortic occlusion and significant stenoses of all visceral arteries using a modified distal perfusion technique.

Chronic lower extremity ischemia is due to progressive atherosclerosis of the aortoiliac and/or infrainguinal arteries. This disease process is of great importance as millions of patients are affected by lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. Most of these patients are asymptomatic but a growing number of them are symptomatic, with complaints ranging from mild claudication to gangrene. The increasing number of patients affected by lower extremity atherosclerosis is, in part, due to the `graying' of the general population and to the medical improvements of the past three decades that have allowed patients with generalized atherosclerosis to survive longer. Fortunately, the diagnosis and management of peripheral arterial occlusive disease has also significantly progressed leading to improved graft patency, limb salvage rates, and quality of life for patients.

New endovascular procedures are increasing the options available to the vascular surgeon for the treatment of arterial disease. These techniques, alone or in combination with conventional surgical techniques, may allow the safer treatment of complex aortoiliac pathology, particularly in patients with comorbid medical illnesses who have high morbidity and mortality rates associated with open surgical repair. The authors describe the successful treatment of two noninfected aortoiliac false aneurysms eight years after the original arterial reconstruction with a bifurcated graft. The pseudoaneurysms were treated by use of a combination of endovascular and standard surgical techniques in a patient with significant comorbid medical conditions that limited standard surgical repair.