Search

Objective: To compare short- and mid-term outcomes of patients with femoropopliteal (FP) occlusive disease treated with a retrograde vs antegrade crossing strategy., Background: Few studies have directly compared procedural details and outcomes after retrograde vs antegrade crossing of FP lesions., Methods: Patients undergoing retrograde approaches to FP lesions were identified from the multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry between 2007 and 2015. These patients were matched 1:1 to patients treated with antegrade crossing strategies based on age, gender, comorbidities, indication for procedure, and lesion characteristics. Technical success, major adverse limb events (MALEs), and overall device cost were compared between retrograde and antegrade-only crossing., Results: A total of 116 patients (58 antegrade and 58 retrograde) were included. The retrograde group had higher prevalence of coronary artery disease and presence of chronic total occlusions. The retrograde approach was associated with significantly longer procedural time (186 ± 70 minutes vs 124.4 ± 60 minutes; P<.001), but similar technical success (91.4% vs 96.6%; P=.24). There was no significant difference in perioperative morbidity. Patients treated with a retrograde approach had a lower total amputation rate (8.6% vs 22.4%; P=.04) and no difference in overall mortality (8.6% vs 5.2%; P=.47). Mean procedural costs were similar in the antegrade and retrograde groups., Conclusion: In patients with similar disease characteristics, a retrograde approach to FP occlusive disease was associated with longer procedural time, but improved limb salvage, without significant difference in procedural cost.

Background: Previous studies have suggested that large preoperative AAA size may impact late survival after elective EVAR. It is unclear, however, whether this association applies to patients with smaller AAA between 5.0-5.5 cm, who constitute a substantial portion of patients undergoing elective EVAR. The purpose of this study was to delineate the effect of AAA size between 5.0 and 5.5 cm on mid-term mortality after EVAR by analyzing a large national cohort, the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database., Methods: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) national database, patients who underwent EVAR for intact AAA between 2003 and 2018 were identified and stratified based on maximal AAA diameter into 3 groups: Group 1 (4.0 cm ≤ AAA <5.0 cm); Group 2 (5.0 cm ≤ AAA < 5.5 cm); and Group 3 (AAA ≥ 5.5 cm). Cox proportional hazard model and propensity score matching method were used to estimate AAA size effect on all-cause mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years after EVAR while adjusting for potential confounders., Results: The study included 32,398 patients, of whom 81% were men with a mean age of 74. The most common group who underwent EVAR was Group 2 (5.0 cm ≤ AAA < 5.5 cm). Larger AAA size was associated with male sex (75% versus 79% versus 84%, for Groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively; P < 0.0001) and with coronary artery disease (27% versus 29% versus 31%, for Groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively, P< 0.0001); but was negatively associated with active smoking (33% versus 31% versus 30%, for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P< 0.001). While 10% of the largest and smallest AAA groups (Groups 3 and 1, respectively) were symptomatic, only 5% of patients in Group 2 were symptomatic (P < 0.01). Adjusted Cox proportional hazard modeling revealed that patients in Group 2 were at significantly lower risk of 5-year mortality when compared to patients in Group 3 (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.61-0.72, P< 0.01), while similar in risk when compared to patients in Group 1 (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.32, P= 0.26)., Conclusion: Our analysis found that over 40% of EVAR in the national VQI cohort were performed for AAA < 5.5 cm, with the greatest number of patients undergoing EVAR at AAA size 5.0-5.5cm. Patients with AAA size 5.0-5.5 cm had better 5-year survival outcomes than patients with AAA ≥ 5.5 cm, and similar survival to patients with small AAA between 4.0-5.0 cm., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after lower extremity revascularization in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is unknown because current recommendations are based on extrapolation of data from trials in coronary artery disease and stroke., Methods: We identified all patients undergoing an elective lower extremity revascularization for CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry discharged on a mono antiplatelet agent (MAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)., Results: From 2003 to 2018, 50,890 patients underwent revascularization procedures for CLTI, and were discharged on MAPT or DAPT. Of these, 33,781 patients underwent endovascular therapy (EVT), and 17,109 patients underwent open surgery (OS) procedures. The rate of major amputation at 30 days in the target limb in the EVT group was 0.3% and 0.4% in the OS group (P = .22). On Kaplan-Meier analyses, patients on MAPT at discharge had a higher risk of 1-year major amputation compared with DAPT after EVT but not after OS procedures. Patients on MAPT had lower overall survival and amputation-free survival at 30 days and 1 year compared with DAPT after both EVT and OS. At 1 year, the MAPT group was at higher risk for target lesion reintervention after EVT compared with the DAPT group (15.9% vs 13%; P = .0012). There was no significant difference in thrombosis at 1 year between the MAPT and DAPT groups either after EVT (3.9% vs 3.7%; P = .3048) or OS (3.1% vs 3.2%; P = .2893). On Cox regression analysis, DAPT was associated with improved survival but not major amputation after both EVT and OS., Conclusions: In patients with CLTI, DAPT at the time of discharge has a positive impact on amputation-free survival and overall survival after both EVT and OS as well as target lesion reintervention after EVT. DAPT was not associated with a positive impact on major amputation after either EVT or OS., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To report a propensity score analysis comparing outcomes of the Supera interwoven nitinol stent to bare nitinol stents (BNS) in the femoropopliteal segment. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted utilizing data extracted from the Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01904851) on 871 patients (mean age 65.1 years; 713 men) who underwent femoropopliteal balloon angioplasty with either Supera stent implantation in 118 limbs or other contemporary BNS in 753 limbs between January 2006 and December 2016. All patients in both groups were matched for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in a 1:1 propensity score matching using the nearest neighbor method to create the 118-patient matched BNS cohort. One-year outcomes included all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target limb revascularization (TLR). An additional core laboratory analysis was conducted to measure the deployed length of Supera stents. Results: In unmatched data, the Supera stent group had a numerically lower rate of TVR (7.6% vs 13.4%, p=0.08) and a significantly lower 1-year TLR rate (7.6% vs 16.2%, p=0.02) compared to the BNS group. Both groups had similar 1-year mortality (2.5% vs 2.7%, p=0.9). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the Supera group had a significantly lower risk of TVR (p=0.02) and TLR (p=0.002) than the BNS group. After propensity matching, the 1-year TVR estimate was lower for Supera stents (7.6% vs 12.7%, p=0.08) and significantly lower for TLR (7.6% vs 13.6%, p=0.04) than the BNS group. There was no statistically significant association between Supera stent elongation (>10% of the labeled stent length) and 1-year risk of TLR (p=0.6). Conclusion: Supera stent usage in femoropopliteal intervention was associated with reduced risk of 1-year repeat target limb revascularization compared with BNS treatment in both unmatched and matched cohorts.

Objective: Peripheral artery disease is a common comorbidity in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but there is a paucity of data comparing outcomes of different interventions in this group of patients. In this study, we examined perioperative outcomes of lower extremity endovascular revascularization (ER) and open revascularization (OR) in dialysis patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI)., Methods: Patients on dialysis and undergoing ER and OR for CLI from 2011 to 2015 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset. Patient demographics, comorbidities, anatomic features, and perioperative outcomes were compared between ER and OR procedures., Results: From 2011 to 2015, 1021 lower extremity revascularizations were performed in dialysis patients with CLI. In this group, 535 were ER (53%) and 486 were OR (47%) procedures. Although demographic characteristics such as age and gender were similar between the two groups, there was a higher proportion of Caucasians and African Americans in the OR group. Patients undergoing open and endovascular procedures had similar rates of hypertension, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and bleeding disorders. A minority of procedures (4%) were emergencies, which were distributed equally between the two groups. Preoperative aspirin usage was higher in the ER group (84% vs 78%; P = .024), beta-blocker use was higher in the OR group (79% vs 74%; P = .08), and statin use was similar between the two groups (72% in OR and 70% in ER; P = .54). On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, OR was associated with a lower rate of major amputation (5.97% vs 11.78%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.85), but a higher rate of postoperative bleeding (29.6% vs 8.97%; odds ratio, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.8-4.35) and wound complications (15% vs 3%; odds ratio, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.38-8.3). The 30-day mortality and cardiovascular morbidity were similar between the two groups., Conclusions: In patients with ESRD with CLI, OR is associated with a lower risk of major limb amputation but a higher rate of postoperative wound complications and bleeding, compared with ER. Cardiovascular complications, 30-day mortality, reinterventions and readmissions were similar between the two groups. In patients with ESRD with CLI, OR should be considered as an option for limb salvage if feasible. Long-term outcomes comparing the two types of procedures are needed., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To investigate the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size on mid- and long-term survival after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)., Materials and Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 325 consecutive patients (mean age 69.7 ± 8.5 years; 323 men) who underwent EVAR for intact AAA at a single institution between January 2003 and December 2013. The primary endpoint was death at 3, 5, and 10 years after EVAR. Optimal cutoff points for AAA size and age were determined using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Time to event analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models) were employed to determine any differences in all-cause mortality outcomes between AAA size groups. Cox models were adjusted for age and other comorbidities (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, smoking status, symptomatic status, and creatinine); the outcomes are reported as the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: The cohort was dichotomized according to the ROC analysis, which defined an optimal cutoff point of 5.6 cm for AAA size and >70 years for age. The mean follow-up period post EVAR was 45.5±29.2 months. In total, 134 (41.2%) patients died during the 10-year follow-up. Thirty-day mortality was 1.1% (2/184) in the patients with AAA <5.6 cm and 2.1% (3/141) in patients with AAA ≥5.6 cm (p=0.45). All-cause mortality was not significantly affected by comorbidities. However, AAA size ≥5.6 cm was associated with increased 3-year mortality risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.001 to 2.52, p<0.049) but not 5-year (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.10, p=0.062) or 10-year mortality (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.80, p=0.149). After adjusting for comorbidities, AAA size ≥5.6 cm was no longer significantly associated with morality at any time point. Using a larger size cutoff (AAA size ≥6.0 cm) resulted in improved statistical significance in the unadjusted model. In the adjusted Cox model, AAA size ≥6.0 cm was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality at 3 years (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.77, p<0.047), but not at longer time points., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that midterm survival after EVAR is significantly and independently associated with AAA size even after correcting for comorbidities. However, in the long term, preoperative AAA size is not an independent predictor of mortality.

Background: The contemporary limb outcomes and costs of stent-based vs non-stent based strategies in endovascular revascularization of femoropopliteal (FP) peripheral artery disease (PAD) are not well understood., Methods and Results: We present data from the ongoing United States multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease Registry between 2006-2016 to compare stent vs non-stent treatment outcomes and associated costs in FP interventions. A total of 2910 FP interventions were performed in 2162 patients (mean age, 66 years), comprising 1339 stent based (superficial femoral artery, 93%) in 1007 patients and 1571 non-stent interventions (superficial femoral artery, 85%) in 1155 patients. A growing trend for non-stent based interventions and a declining trend in repeat revascularization rate at 1 year were observed across years of registry enrollment. Stent implantation was the prevailing strategy in treating longer FP lesions (mean length, 152 mm vs 105 mm; P<.001) and chronic total occlusions (65% vs 40%; P<.001), while stent implantation was employed less frequently when treating in-stent restenotic lesions (14% vs 20%; P<.001). Stent and non-stent interventions had similar 1-year limb outcomes in all-cause death, target-limb revascularization, target-vessel revascularization, and major or minor amputation. The average procedure costs for the stent group were significantly higher than the non-stent group ($6215 vs $4790; P<.001)., Conclusion: There is a growing trend for non-stent FP artery interventions, with a significant decline in 1-year target-limb revascularization rates over time. One-year limb outcomes in stent-based compared to non-stent interventions are similar; however, at a significantly higher procedural cost.

Background: Although long-term durability and improved perioperative outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been demonstrated, some studies have suggested an increased rate of secondary interventions compared with open AAA repair. More recent data suggest that rates between the two modalities may be similar. We investigated the rate of secondary intervention in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open AAA repair for intact AAA and the effect of secondary intervention on long-term mortality in these two groups of patients., Methods: A retrospective, single-institution review was conducted between January 2003 and December 2012. Secondary intervention was defined as any intervention within 30 d of the procedure or an AAA repair-related procedure after 30 d, which included repair of endoleaks and incisional hernia repair. Group differences in demographic and baseline characteristics were examined using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively., Results: A total of 342 patients underwent operative repair of intact AAA. Two hundred seventy four patients underwent EVAR and 68 patients underwent open AAA repair. The mean age overall was 68.6 y and was not significantly different between the two repair groups. The overall rate of secondary intervention was significantly lower in the EVAR group compared with the open AAA repair group (11% versus 27%, P = 0.001). In the EVAR group, 30 patients underwent 37 secondary interventions. In the open repair group, 18 patients underwent 20 reinterventions. The most common secondary intervention was repair of type 2 endoleak (n = 13, 4.7% of patients) after EVAR and incisional hernia repair (n = 4, 5.9% of patients) after open AAA repair. Most secondary interventions (15/20) after open AAA repair occurred within 30 d, whereas most secondary intervention (33/37) after EVAR occurred after 30 d. Comparison of late (>30 d) reintervention between the two groups revealed a significantly lower rate of secondary intervention after open AAA repair (27.8% of all reinterventions after open versus 86.7% of all reinterventions after EVAR, P < 0.001). The overall 10-y mortality rate was 39.1%, and not statistically different between the two repair groups. Estimated survival analysis demonstrated no significant effect of secondary intervention on mortality after EVAR (logrank P = 0.45). Secondary intervention after open repair did not significantly affect long-term survival (logrank P = 0.05)., Conclusions: This study highlights the dramatic change in practice pattern in AAA repair over time. In this study, patients treated with EVAR had a significantly lower overall rate of secondary intervention compared with patients treated with open AAA repair. This was likely secondary to increased perioperative morbidity and mortality and a bias toward more complex patients in the open repair group. In the long term, however, there were significantly fewer reinterventions after open AAA repair. Secondary interventions did not affect long-term survival after EVAR., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Paclitaxel drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to improve primary patency of femoropopliteal lesions compared to plain balloon angioplasty with provisional bare-metal stents (BMSs) in randomized controlled studies. However, data are lacking on patency outcomes of real-world DES use relative to BMS use. This study compared clinically driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and target-limb revascularization outcomes at 1 year between DES and BMS treatments in a real-world setting., Methods: The study identified 174 DES (Zilver PTX; Cook Medical) and 784 BMS femoropopliteal interventions from the available 969 Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry patients between October 2013 and December 2016. We analyzed both unmatched (174 DES and 784 BMS) and propensity score (PS)-matched datasets (174 for each)., Results: This study found that patients who underwent DES femoropopliteal endovascular revascularization had significantly lower TLR rates in both unmatched (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.91; P=.02) and matched data (HR, 0.50 95% CI, 0.27-0.91; P=.02). The DES group had a 43% lower TVR risk than the BMS group in the PS matched cohort (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.98; P=.04). Mortality rate in the DES group (5%) was significantly higher than the BMS group in both unmatched (2%; P=.04) and matched groups (1%; P=.046) at 1 year., Conclusions: Patients treated with DES had higher lesion and vessel patency than BMS after adjusting for confounding, which included complexity of lesion characteristics and operators' clinical decision-making regarding selection of treatment modalities, in femoropopliteal endovascular interventions in a real-world registry.

This study compares procedural complications and clinical outcomes between subintimal crossing versus intraluminal crossing during endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery chronic total occlusions (CTO). We identified 1335 CTO interventions in 1001 patients from the multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry from January 2005 to October 2015. Outcomes included 30-day and 12-month all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke, peripheral artery stent, or vessel, thrombosis (ST), need for any target limb endovascular or surgical revascularization, target limb major amputation and procedural complications. A subintimal crossing technique was necessary in 388 lesions (27% overall in 1335 lesions; 34% ( n=351) in 1023 femoropopliteal lesions, and 12% ( n=37) in 312 infrapopliteal lesions, p<0.01) with a lower procedural ( p<0.01) and technical ( p<0.01) success than the intraluminal in both femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal interventions. There were no significant differences in procedural complications, major adverse cardiac events, or clinically driven target limb revascularization at 1 year between the two groups, except a higher residual dissection rate in the subintimal crossing group than the intraluminal group in femoropopliteal target vessels ( p = 0.04).

Purpose: To determine whether diabetes mellitus has an independent impact on major limb outcomes at 1 year after endovascular treatment of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD)., Methods: The study involved 1906 consecutive patients (mean age 66 years; 1469 men) enrolled in the observational Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01904851) between January 2005 and October 2015 after undergoing index endovascular procedures in 2426 limbs for arterial occlusive disease. Patient outcomes included 12-month target limb amputation (above ankle) and target limb revascularization as well as all-cause death. Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used for time-to-event analysis of outcomes for the entire study sample as well as for the critical limb ischemia (CLI) and claudication subgroups. Results of the Cox regression models are reported as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Diabetics undergoing endovascular procedures had higher rates of comorbid conditions (p<0.001), CLI (p<0.001), heavily calcified lesions (p=0.002), multivessel disease (p=0.030), and fewer infrapopliteal runoff vessels (p<0.001). Regression analysis after adjusting for confounders revealed significantly higher target limb major amputation in diabetics compared with nondiabetics (HR 5.02, 95% CI 1.44 to 17.56, p=0.011). However, repeat revascularization rates were similar. When considering CLI and claudication subgroups, diabetes was associated with a nonsignificant increased risk of 12-month major amputation only for patients presenting with CLI (HR 3.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 12.51, p=0.056). Diabetes was also associated with an increased risk of 12-month all-cause mortality in the overall study sample (HR 4.64, 95% CI 2.01 to 10.70, p<0.001) and in the CLI subgroup (HR 14.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 63.32, p<0.001) but not in the claudication subgroup (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.54, p=0.552)., Conclusion: Diabetes increases the risk of major amputation and all-cause death at 12 months following endovascular revascularization in patients with symptomatic PAD. These risks are especially heightened in patients presenting with CLI.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess actual procedural costs and outcomes comparing wire-catheter and dedicated chronic total occlusion (CTO) device strategies to cross peripheral artery CTOs., Background: Peripheral artery CTO interventions are frequently performed, but there are limited data on actual procedural costs and outcomes comparing wire-catheter and dedicated CTO devices., Methods: The XLPAD (Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease Intervention) registry (NCT01904851) was accessed to retrospectively compare cost and 30-day and 12-month outcomes of wire-catheter and crossing device strategies for treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery CTO., Results: Of all 3,234 treated lesions, 42% (n = 1,362) were CTOs in 1,006 unique patients. Wire-catheter approaches were used in 82% of CTOs, whereas dedicated CTO devices were used in 18% (p < 0.0001). CTO crossing device use was associated with significantly higher technical success (74% vs. 65%; p < 0.0001) and mean procedure cost ($7,800.09 vs. $4,973.24; p < 0.0001). Because 12-month repeat revascularization (11.3% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.02) and amputation rates (2.8% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.002) in the CTO crossing device arm were lower compared with the wire-catheter group, the net cost for an initial CTO crossing device strategy was $423.80 per procedure., Conclusions: An initial wire-catheter approach to cross a peripheral artery CTO is most frequently adopted. The use of dedicated CTO crossing devices provides significantly higher technical success and lower reintervention and amputation rates, at a net cost of $423.80 per procedure at 12 months., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)