Search

Aim: To assess the association of Life's Essential 8 (LE8) and the presence of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) with mortality among middle-aged and older individuals., Methods: Participants aged older than 40 years were enrolled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2014. AAC was assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Mortality data were ascertained through linkage with the National Death Index until 31 December 2019. The LE8 score incorporates eight components: diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, sleep health, body mass index, blood lipids, blood glucose and blood pressure. The total LE8 score, an unweighted average of all components, was categorized into low (0-49), medium (50-79) and high (80-100) scores., Results: This study included 2567 individuals, with a mean LE8 score of 67.28 ± 0.48 and an AAC prevalence of 28.28%. Participants with low LE8 scores showed a significantly higher prevalence of AAC (odds ratio = 2.12 [1.12-4.19]) compared with those with high LE8 scores. Over a median 6-year follow-up, there were 222 all-cause deaths, and 55 cardiovascular deaths occurred. Participants with AAC had an increased risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.17 [1.60-2.95]) and cardiovascular (HR = 2.35 [1.40-3.93]) mortality. Moreover, individuals with AAC and low or medium LE8 scores exhibited a 137% (HR = 2.37 [1.58-3.54]) and 119% (HR = 2.19 [1.61-2.99]) higher risk of all-cause mortality, as well as a 224% (HR = 3.24 [1.73-6.04]) and 125% (HR = 2.25 [1.24-4.09]) increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, respectively., Conclusions: The LE8 score correlates with AAC prevalence in middle-aged and older individuals and serves as a valuable tool for evaluating the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in individuals with AAC., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Gupta Perioperative Risk for Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest (MICA) is a validated self-explanatory score applied in cardiac or noncardiac surgeries. This study aims to assess the predictive value of the MICA score for cardiovascular events after aortoiliac revascularization., Methods: This prospective cohort underwent elective aortoiliac revascularization between 2013 and 2021. Patients' demographic, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were registered. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the MICA score using optimal binning. Survival analysis to test for time-dependent variables and multivariate Cox regression analysis for independent predictors were performed., Results: This study included 130 patients with a median follow-up of 55 months. Preoperative MICA score was ≥6.5 in 41 patients. MICA ≥6.5 presented a statistically significant association, with long-term occurrence of acute heart failure (HR = 1.695, 95% CI 1.208-2.379, P = 0.002), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR = 1.222, 95% CI 1.086-1.376, P < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.256, 95% CI 1.107-1.425, P < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed MICA as a significant independent predictor of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (aHR = 1.145 95% CI 1.010-1.298, P = 0.034) and all-cause mortality (aHR = 1.172 95% CI 1.026-1.339, P = 0.020)., Conclusions: The MICA score is a quick, easy-to-obtain, predictive tool in identifying patients with a higher risk of postaortoiliac revascularization cardiovascular events, such as acute heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. Additional research for the validation of the MICA score in the context of aortoiliac revascularization and specific interventions is necessary., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR., Methods: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ 2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR., Results: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes., Conclusions: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques., Competing Interests: Disclosures J.H. is or has been proctor or consultant for W. L. Gore & Associates, Terumo Aortic, and Cook Medical. S.T. is consultant and speaker for Medtronic, W. L. Gore & Associates, and Terumo Aortic., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to analyze early and midterm results of custom-made proximal scallop and fenestrated stent grafts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal landing zone (PLZ) in the aortic arch., Methods: All consecutive patients treated with the custom made proximal scalloped and fenestrated Relay stent grafts (Terumo Aortic Bolton Medical Inc.) in 10 Italian centers between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. The primary end points were technical success, incidence of intraoperative major adverse events, deployment accuracy, and rate of early neurological complications, endoleaks (ELs) and retrograde aortic dissection., Results: During the study period, 49 patients received TEVAR with Relay custom-made endograft in Italy were enrolled. The median patient age was 70.1 years (interquartile range, 23-86 years) and 65.3% were male. The indication for treatment was atherosclerotic aneurysms in 59.2% of cases and penetrating aortic ulcer in 22.4%. The endograft configuration was proximal fenestration in 55.1% and scallop in 44.9%. The proximal landing zone was zone 0 in 25 cases (51%), zone 1 in 14 cases (28.6%), and zone 2 in 10 cases (20.4%). The supra-aortic debranching procedures were 38 (77.5%). Technical success was 97.9% (48/49) owing to one case (2.0%) of inaccurate deployment. Intraoperatively, one (2.0%) type Ia and one (2.0%) type III EL were detected. There were no cases of in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, or retrograde dissection. Three minor strokes (6.1%) (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤4) were observed. At a mean follow-up time of 36.3 ± 21.3 months the rate of types I to III ELs and reintervention was 4.1%, respectively. Four patients (8.2%) died during the follow-up period, one (2.1%) from abdominal aortic rupture and three (6.1%) from nonaortic causes., Conclusions: Our early and midterm outcomes suggest that scalloped and fenestrated TEVAR may provide an acceptable alternative treatment option for aortic arch pathologies. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Adequate proximal and distal seal zones are necessary for successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Often, the achievement of an adequate distal seal zone requires celiac artery (CA) coverage by endograft with or without preservation of CA blood flow. The outcomes of CA coverage without its flow preservation were studied only in small case series. This study aims to determine the difference in outcomes between CA coverage with vs without preservation of CA blood flow during TEVAR using a multi-institutional national database., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for all TEVAR patients distally landing in zone 6. The cohort was divided into TEVAR with vs without CA flow preservation. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative characteristics, as well as postoperative mortality, morbidities, and complications, were compared between the groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed., Results: Of 25,549 reviewed patients, 772 had a distal landing in Zone 6, 212 of which (27.5%) had TEVAR without CA flow preservation, whereas 560 (72.5%) underwent TEVAR with CA flow preservation. Indications for TEVAR were aneurysm in 431 (55.8%), dissection in 247 (32.0%), or other in 94 (12.2%) cases. Patients who underwent TEVAR without CA flow preservation had statistically significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (11.3% vs 5.9%; P = .010), 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (8.0% vs 4.3%; P = .039), as well as a tendency of increased intestinal ischemia requiring intervention (1.9% vs 0.5%; P = .077). After adjusting for potential confounders, CA coverage without flow preservation was associated with more than a two-fold increase in the overall 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-5.92; P = .006) and 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.11-6.72; P = .029). In a sub-group analysis based on disease pathology, these results persisted only in the aneurysm group (30-day mortality [OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.01-5.48; P = .047]; 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.08-7.67; P = .034]), whereas there was no significant association between CA flow preservation status and the endpoints in the dissection subgroup (30-day mortality [OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.22-6.05; P = .856], 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.16-5.19; P = .911])., Conclusions: CA coverage during TEVAR without preservation of its blood flow is associated with significantly higher mortality in patients with aortic aneurysm, but not dissection. In patients with aortic aneurysm, CA flow should be preserved during TEVAR whenever feasible, whereas in patients with dissection, it may be safe to cover CA without preservation of its flow. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these findings and compare the open vs endovascular revascularization techniques on outcomes., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate gender-related outcomes during endovascular treatment of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic diseases (TEVAR)., Methods: Multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study. All TEVARs between January 2005 and April 2023 were identified. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and cumulative survival. Secondary outcomes were vascular access complications, and freedom from TEVAR-related reintervention. Interventions performed in male patients were matched to females on the basis of a one-to-one coarsened exact matching., Results: We identified 151 males who were matched with 151 females. Mortality at 30 days was not statistically different between females and males (11.2% vs 11.2%; P = 1.0). At binary logistic regression analysis, duration of intervention (P = 0.001) and emergency TEVAR (P = 0.001) were associated with mortality at 30 days. Gender did not impact the access vessel complication rate [n = 6 (4.0%) vs n = 5 (3.3%); P = 1.0]. The median follow-up was 46 (interquartile range, 7-84) months with no difference between males and females [median 50 (11-95) vs 37.5 (3.5-71.2); P = 0.153]. Estimated survival was not statistically different between females and males [log-rank χ2 = 0.6, P = 0.442; 95% confidence interval (CI) 110.7-207.3]. At Cox's regression analysis, gender did not impact overall survival (hazard ratio 0.8; 95% CI 0.6-1.3; P = 0.450). Estimated freedom from TEVAR-related reinterventions was not statistically different between females and males (log-rank χ2 = 0.4, P = 0.837; 95% CI 187.8-219.3)., Conclusions: Female gender itself was not associated with worse 30-day mortality and late survival than males with similar access vessel complication as well as TEVAR-related reintervention rate., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: As it remains unclear whether there are sex-based differences in clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate differences in early outcomes and overall survival between female and male patients who underwent TEVAR., Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for eligible studies published through June 10, 2023, that reported sex-based differences in clinical outcomes after TEVAR. The primary outcome was operative mortality; second outcomes included stroke, spinal cord ischemia, acute kidney injury, hospital length of stay, and overall survival. Patient characteristics, operative data, and early outcomes were aggregated using the random-effects model, presenting pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall survival was assessed by reconstructing individual patient data to generate sex-specific pooled Kaplan-Meier curves. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023426069)., Results: Of the 1785 studies retrieved, 14 studies met all eligibility criteria, encompassing a total of 17,374 patients, comprising 5026 female and 12,348 male patients. Female patients were older, had a smaller maximum aortic diameter, had lower rates of smoking and coronary artery disease, and had higher rates of anemia. Intraoperatively, female patients were more likely to use iliac conduits and require blood transfusions. There were no sex-based differences in operative mortality (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; P = .309), stroke (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95-1.38; P = .165), spinal cord ischemia (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.83-2.14; P = .234), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.52-1.17; P = .228), and hospital length of stay (standardized mean difference: 0.09, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.20; P = .141). Pooled Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a worse overall survival in female patients compared with male patients (87.2% vs 89.8% at 2 years, log-rank P = .001)., Conclusions: Among patients treated by TEVAR, female sex was not associated with increased risk of operative mortality or major morbidity. However, female patients exhibited a lower overall survival after TEVAR compared with male patients., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA., Methods: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions., Results: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1)., Conclusions: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA., Competing Interests: Disclosures S.L.Z. reports scientific advising/consulting for W. L. Gore & Associated, Cook Medical, and Terumo Aortic., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been described to be superior to an open surgical approach, and previous studies have found superiority in TEVAR by reducing overall morbidity and mortality rates. This study aimed to describe the outcomes of TEVAR for patients with thoracic aortic disease at a high complexity., Materials and Methods: Descriptive study, developed by a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Patients aged above 18 years who underwent TEVAR between 2012 and 2022 were included. Patient demographics, perioperative data, surgical outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were described. Statistical and multivariate analyses were made. Statistical significance was reached when p values were <0.05., Results: A total of 66 patients were included. Male patients were 60.61% and the mean age was 69.24 years. Associated aortic diseases were aneurysms (68.18%), ulcer-related (4.55%), intramural-related hematoma (7.58%), trauma-related pathology (1.52%), and aortic dissection (30.30%). The mean hospital stay was 18.10 days, and intensive care unit was required for 98.48%. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 10.61% and the reintervention rate was 21.21%. Increased intraoperative blood loss (p=0.001) and male sex (p=0.04) showed statistical relationship with mortality. Underweight patients have 6.7 and 11.4 times more risk of complications and endoleak compared with higher body mass index values (p=0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.82-7.21) and (p=0.02, 95% CI=1.31-12.57), respectively., Conclusion: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair seems to be a feasible option for patients with thoracic aortic pathologies, with adequate rates of mortality and morbidity. Underweight patients seem to have an increased risk of overall morbidity and increased risk for endoleak. Further prospective studies are needed to prove our results., Clinical Impact: Obesity and BMI are widely studied in the surgical literature. According to our study, there is a paradox regarding the outcomes of patients treated with TEVAR in terms of postoperative complications and mortality related to the body mass index. And shouldn't be considered as a high-risk feature in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality in this procedure., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: Total aortic arch replacement (TAR) after previous cardiovascular surgery is technically challenging and is becoming more frequent as outcomes for primary arch repair have improved. primary. We analyzed outcomes of reoperative compared with first-time TAR., Methods: The institutional aortic database was queried to identify consecutive patients undergoing TAR between 1997 and 2022. In total, 426 patients underwent TAR, of whom 150 (35%) had previous cardiovascular surgery (reop TAR) and 276 (65%) underwent their first cardiovascular operation., Results: The reop TAR group was younger (61 ± 13 vs 71 ± 11, P < .001) with more comorbidities such as ischemic heart disease (12% vs 4.3%, P = .006), previous stroke (36% vs 14.5%, P < .001), and renal impairment (24% vs 12.7%, P = .004). Reop TAR had longer cardiac ischemic times (119.3 ± 45.5 minutes vs 98 ± 31.9 minutes, P < .001), a greater operative mortality (3.3% vs 0.4%, P = .040), and incurred a 4-fold increased risk of major adverse event (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-11.49, P = .009). Ten-year survival was also lower in the reop TAR cohort (76% vs 82.2%; hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.12-2.86, P = .015) and there was greater need for late reinterventions, mainly on the downstream aorta (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.62, P = .024)., Conclusions: Reop TAR is a technically challenging operation and is associated with increased operative mortality and adverse events. Gratifying results can be obtained with meticulous surgical planning and focused attention on end-organ protection. Late reinterventions occur in a significantly greater percentage of patients undergoing reop TAR, and future studies should focus attention on identifying those at-risk groups who may benefit from a more aggressive index procedure., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs), limited data support tubular thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a viable treatment option. For treatment of more proximal PAUs, hybrid approaches and-more recently-scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) have been advocated. Outcomes of scTEVAR specifically for PAUs have not yet been reported. This study reports long-term outcomes for tubular and scTEVAR in PAUs and compares the safety profile in both cohorts regarding the significantly more proximal landing zone (LZ) for scTEVAR., Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study includes all nonacute patients treated for complicated PAU with scTEVAR and tubular TEVAR. Patient and PAU characteristics as well as procedural success, complication and reintervention rates, and all-cause and aortic mortality were analyzed., Results: Of 212 TEVAR procedures reviewed, 21 patients with tubular TEVAR and 19 patients with scTEVAR were included. Patient and PAU characteristics were similar, and LZ was significantly more proximal in the scTEVAR cohort (p=0.0001), with similar number and types of supra-aortic revascularization procedures. Clinical success was reached in all 40 patients (100%), and reintervention rate was 2/21 (9.5%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively. Over the mean follow-up of 63 (TEVAR) and 53 (scTEVAR) months, clinical success was stable in all patients with one (abdominal) aortic-related mortality in the scTEVAR cohort., Conclusion: Treatment of complicated PAUs with TEVAR as well as scTEVAR provides excellent and similar clinical success, stability of clinical success, and aortic survival with acceptable complication and reintervention rates. Scalloped TEVAR safely lengthens the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies., Clinical Impact: Treatment of asymptomatic complicated penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) provides excellent clinical success and acceptable complication and reintervention rates. More patients become amenable to endovascular treatment by including scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) as a means to safely lengthen the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine the primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates of the Endologix AFX stent-graft in patients considered high risk for open surgery with complex aorto-iliac occlusive disease. The secondary objective was to determine 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events., Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of clinical records of 38 patients who underwent AFX stent-graft placement for aorto-iliac occlusive disease from 2016 to 2019. Patient data was de-identified and entered into a REDcap secure database. Descriptive statistical analysis (means and standard deviations) and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created to determine the duration of patency of the AFX stent-graft system., Results: Primary patency rates at 6, 12 and 24 months were 92%, 92% and 84%, respectively. Assisted primary patency rates at these times were 100%, 100% and 93% with secondary patency of 100% maintained throughout. The incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 8% and major adverse limb events was 3%. One death unrelated to the AFX device occurred during the study period though outside of the 30-day peri-operative period., Conclusions: Primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates of AFX stent-grafts, when used to treat aorto-iliac occlusive disease, are high. This study supports the use of the AFX stent-graft for the endovascular treatment of complex aorto-iliac occlusive disease as an alternative to other endovascular options as well as a safe alternative to open aorto-iliac or aorto-femoral bypass in patients who are at high risk for open procedures., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome is challenging and associated with high perihospital mortality rates. The study aim was to evaluate current pathways and understand the chronology of acute aortic syndrome patient care., Method: Consecutive patients with acute aortic syndrome imaging diagnosis between 1 January 2018 and 1 June 2021 were identified using a predetermined search strategy and followed up for 6 months through retrospective case note review. The UK National Interventional Radiology Trainee Research and Vascular and Endovascular Research Network co-ordinated the study., Results: From 15 UK sites, 620 patients were enrolled. The median age was 67 (range 25-98) years, 62.0% were male and 92.9% Caucasian. Type-A dissection (41.8%) was most common, followed by type-B (34.5%); 41.2% had complicated acute aortic syndrome. Mode of presentation included emergency ambulance (80.2%), self-presentation (16.2%), and primary care referral (3.6%). Time (median (i.q.r.)) to hospital presentation was 3.1 (1.8-8.6) h and decreased by sudden onset chest pain but increased with migratory pain or hypertension. Time from hospital presentation to imaging diagnosis was 3.2 (1.3-6.5) h and increased by family history of aortic disease and decreased by concurrent ischaemic limb. Time from diagnosis to treatment was 2 (1.0-4.3) h with interhospital transfer causing delay. Management included conservative (60.2%), open surgery (32.2%), endovascular (4.8%), hybrid (1.4%) and palliative (1.4%). Factors associated with a higher mortality rate at 30 days and 6 months were acute aortic syndrome type, complicated disease, no critical care admission and age more than 70 years (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: This study presents a longitudinal data set linking time-based delays to diagnosis and treatment with clinical outcomes. It can be used to prioritize research strategies to streamline patient care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Background: Aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) has traditionally been treated with aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). Unibody endograft (UBE) for AIOD, however, has been increasingly utilized in selected patients. We report outcomes of patients undergoing ABF or UBE for AIOD., Methods: Patients (2016-2021) undergoing elective ABF or UBE with a unibody device for AIOD were identified at an academic institution. Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to evaluate outcomes by group., Results: One hundred thirty-one patients undergoing UBE or ABF were screened, with 82 included. Twenty-one patients underwent UBE (25.6%) and 61 (74.4%) underwent ABF. UBE patients were older (63.8 vs. 58.2 years; P = 0.01), with a higher prevalence of diabetes (52.4 vs. 19.7%; P = 0.004). Significant differences were seen between UBE and ABF including a shorter surgery length (214 vs. 360 min; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (300 vs. 620 mls; P = 0.001), larger minimum aortic diameter (14.6 vs. 12.6; P = 0.0006), larger common iliac artery (9.5 vs. 7.9; P = 0.005) and lower postoperative ankle-brachial index (0.8 vs. 0.9; P = 0.04). There were no differences in TASC C/D iliac lesions in the UBE than ABF group (66.6% vs. 63.9%; P < 0.82) or Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus classification femoropopliteal lesions. Unadjusted analysis revealed no significant differences between UBE and ABF for 30-day mortality (0 vs. 1.6%; P = 1), stroke (0 vs. 3.3%; P = 1), or major adverse cardiac events (4.8 vs. 4.9%; P = 1). There were no significant differences in mid-term surgical outcomes over a mean follow-up period of 23.7 months between UBE and ABF groups; specifically endovascular (0 vs. 8.2%; P = 0.3) or open/hybrid reintervention (9.5 vs. 14.8%; P = 0.7) with similar limb occlusion (4.8 vs. 27.8; P = 0.12). Kaplan-Meier estimated primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency at 36 months were similar with 94%, 100%, and 94% for UBE and 86%, 95%, and 86% for ABF, respectively. Estimated survival at 36 months was 95% for UBE and 97% for ABF (P = 0.8)., Conclusions: Equivalent outcomes were seen between AIOD treated with UBE or ABF in similar patient populations. Mid-term outcomes such as reintervention and patency are similar for UBE and ABF. We still recommend ABF over UBE as a primary modality of treatment in surgically fit patients with greater complexity aortoiliac lesions and with smaller arterial diameters, especially women., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effectiveness of left subclavian artery revascularization compared with non-revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and to summarize the current evidence on its indications., Methods: A computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for studies published up to November 2023. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment (using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were independently conducted by two reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots., Results: In the 76 included studies, left subclavian artery revascularization was associated with reduced risks of stroke (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; n = 15,331), spinal cord ischemia (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99; n = 11,995), and arm ischemia (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; n = 8438). No significant reduction in paraplegia (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.21-1.47; n = 1802) or mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12; n = 11,831) was observed. Moreover, the risk of endoleak was comparable in both groups (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.55-2.84; P = .60; n = 793), whereas the risk of reintervention was significantly higher in the revascularization group (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.83; P = .04; n = 272). Both groups had similar risks of major (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-1.09; P = .08; n = 1113), minor (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-3.45; P = .27; n = 183), renal (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.12-3.06; P = .55; n = 310), and pulmonary (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.16-2.15; P = .42; n = 8083) complications. The most frequent indications for left subclavian artery revascularization were primary prevention of spinal cord ischemia, augmentation of the landing zone, and primary stroke prevention., Conclusions: Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair was associated with reduced neurological complications but was not found to impact mortality. The study highlights important indications for revascularization as well as significant predictors of complications, providing a basis for clinical decision-making and future research., Competing Interests: Disclosures M.A.H. is funded by a Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center Faculty Award and Brigham and Women’s Osteen Award; research grants from Vascular Therapies (ACCESS-2 Trial) and Humacyte, Inc (V-012 Trial); and is a consultant for Humacyte, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multisegment thoracic aortic disease typically requires total aortic arch replacement, affects a heterogenous population, and carries a high risk even at centers of excellence. Risk has been associated with the duration of operation and complexity of repair. A novel branched stented anastomosis frozen elephant trunk repair (B-SAFER) technique has been developed at our center and is currently being studied as a physician-sponsored investigation device exemption (PS-IDE)., Objective: This study aimed to assess the early safety of using this investigational technique to treat the proximal aorta in subjects with aortic disease involving multiple segments., Methods: This prospective, single center, nonrandomized study enrolled patients undergoing B-SAFER for acute aortic syndrome (n = 73), aortic aneurysm with chronic aortic dissection (n = 68), degenerative aortic aneurysm (n = 33), or congenital aortic arch disease (n = 4). Devices are delivered antegrade under hypothermic circulatory arrest, and the arch reconstruction is performed as a single anastomosis single stent (SASS; n = 70), single anastomosis multiple stent (SAMA; n = 68), multiple anastomosis single stent (MASS; n = 21), or multiple anastomosis multiple stent (MAMS; n = 16) reconstruction. The primary safety endpoints were operative mortality, disabling stroke, and paraparesis/paralysis., Results: Between May 27, 2021, and December 31, 2022, 178 patients underwent B-SAFER in the configurations and for the indications as described above. The median patient age was 65 years (range, 21 to 85 years), and 52 (29%) were female. The median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 188 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 155 to 226 minutes), and 97% of the patients underwent repair with antegrade brain perfusion for a median of 46 minutes (IQR, 38 to 61 minutes). Operative mortality occurred in 10 patients (5.6%, including 6 [8.2%] with acute dissection, 2 [2.9%] with chronic dissection, 2 [6.1%] with degenerative aneurysm, and 0 with a congenital disorder), disabling stroke in 5 patients (2.9%), and paraparesis in 1 patient. Other serious complications included respiratory failure (n = 20; 11.4%) and acute kidney injury (n = 18; 10%). Thirty-two patients (18%) had undergone second-stage repairs (28 endovascular and 4 open), with 1 operative mortality after that procedure due to distal rupture. Estimated survival was 95% at 30 days, 88% at 90 days, 84% at 6 months, and 79% at 1 year. One-year survival differed by indication (72% for acute dissection, 91% for chronic dissection, 71% for degenerative aneurysm, and 100% for congenital disorders)., Conclusions: The B-SAFER technique for total arch replacement in a complex cohort of patients with various indications for surgery is a safe and reproducible operation, as demonstrated by the early results from a very inclusive PS-IDE study. Further follow-up and analysis will help refine the technique. Novel devices to perform this procedure should be developed., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement Dr Roselli has served on speakers’ bureaus and as a consultant and investigator for Artivion, Cook, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, and TerumoAortic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the comparative safety and efficacy of covered stents (CS) and bare metal stents (BMS) in the endovascular treatment of aorto-iliac disease in patients with peripheral arterial disease., Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted adhering to the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA for Individual Participant Data 2015 guidelines., Review Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published by December 2023 was performed. The primary endpoint was primary patency. Certainty of evidence was assessed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework., Results: Eleven studies, comprising 1 896 patients and 2 092 lesions, were included. Of these, nine studies reported on patients' clinical status, with 35.5% classified as Rutherford 4 - 6. Overall primary patency for CS and BMS at 48 months was 91.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.1 - 99.0%) (GRADE, moderate) and 83.5% (95% CI 70.9 - 98.3%) (GRADE, low). The one stage individual participant data meta-analyses indicated a significant risk reduction for primary patency loss favouring CS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.95) (GRADE, very low). The 48 month primary patency for CS and BMS when treating TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C and D lesions was 92.4% (95% CI 84.7 - 100%) (GRADE, moderate) and 80.8% (95% CI 64.5 - 100%) (GRADE, low), with CS displaying a decreased risk of patency loss (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.57) (GRADE, moderate). While statistically non-significant differences were identified between CS and BMS regarding technical success, 30 day mortality rate, intra-operative and immediate post-operative procedure related complications, and major amputation, CS displayed a decreased re-intervention risk (risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.87) (GRADE, low)., Conclusion: This review has illustrated the improved patency of CS compared with BMS in the treatment of TASC C and D lesions. Caution is advised in interpreting overall primary patency outcomes given the substantial inclusion of TASC C and D lesions in the analysis. Ultimately, both stent types have demonstrated comparable safety profiles., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study describes aortic growth, survival and events in patients with aortic arch pathology., Methods: Patients with an index diameter ≥4.5 cm or other pathology of the native aortic arch, were followed with longitudinal computed tomography and clinical data collected retrospectively. Aortic growth was estimated using a linear mixed model. Survival and event rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox analysis assessed clinical and radiological predictors with outcomes (death, local or remote aortic events (acute aortic syndromes or intervention)). Results. 186 patients underwent 683 CT scans during 638 of patient years. The estimated annual growth was 0.28 (mm/year). 47 (25%) patients had an event and a 66% five-year event-free survival. 29 patients died, of whom 11 suffered an aortic death. 19 events were local and 25 events were remote, mostly primary events were interventions. In Cox analysis, increasing descending aortic diameter was an independent predictor of all cause of death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.16), aortic death (HR 4.81), and local event (HR 1.71). Conclusions. In patients with aortic arch pathology, growth, and aortic events should be expected. Increasing descending aortic diameter could presage an added risk, but other variables appear needed to identify patients at risk, select them for intervention or surveillance.

Background: By this survey, we aim to gain national-based information regarding trends in endovascular repair (ER) for the treatment of aortic disease in patients with genetically-triggered aortic disease (GTAD) and connective tissue disorder (CTD) over the last two decades., Methods: All Italian vascular surgery centers (N.=80) were invited to participate in an anonymous electronic cross-sectional survey on ER for GTAD/CTD., Results: Overall, 29 institutions completed the survey, thereby yielding a 36% response rate. The percentage of responding institutions rises to 64% if only regional hubs were considered (23/36). The median number of index procedures per center was 6.2, and a steady increase in the overall number of interventions over time was also noted. Most patients were males (73%) with a median age of 48 years. The most common endovascular procedure was TEVAR (N.=101), followed by F/BEVAR (N.=43) and EVAR (N.=37). The overall technical success rate was 83.4% while major adverse events and mortality at thirty days were reported at 18.2% and 9.9%, respectively. An additional 5.0% mortality rate was noted for an overall one-year mortality of 14.9%, while 3.7% of all treated patients were diagnosed with a type 1 endoleak., Conclusions: This national cross-sectional survey, investigating trends in ER of GTADs and CTDs over two decades, highlights a consistent increase in the use of endovascular techniques for their treatment. Early mortality was acceptably low, yet influenced by the urgency of presentation. At one-year follow-up, a 5% additional death rate was noted, and the reintervention rate remained below one in ten.

Background: Covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) is increasingly used as a first line-treatment in patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent CERAB compared with the gold standard of aortobifemoral bypass (ABF)., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients who underwent ABF or CERAB from 2009 to 2021. Propensity scores were generated using demographics, comorbidities, Rutherford class, and urgency. The two groups were matched using 5-to-1 nearest-neighbor match. Our primary outcomes were 1-year estimates of primary patency, major adverse limb events (MALEs), MALE-free survival, reintervention-free survival, and amputation-free survival. Standard statistical methods were used., Results: A total of 3944 ABF and 281 CERAB cases were identified. Of all patients with AIOD, the proportion of CERAB increased from 0% to 17.9% between 2009 and 2021. Compared with ABF, patients who underwent CERAB were more likely to be older (64.7 vs 60.2; P < .001) and more often had diabetes (40.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and end-stage renal disease (1.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03). In the matched analysis (229 CERAB vs 929 ABF), ABF patients had improved MALE-free survival (93.2% [±0.9%] vs 83.2% [±3%]; P < .001) and lower rates of MALE (5.2% [±0.9%] vs 14.1% [±3%]; P < .001), with comparable primary patency rates (98.3% [±0.3%] vs 96.6% [±1%]; P = .6) and amputation-free survival (99.3% [±0.3%] vs 99.4% [±0.6%]; P = .9). Patients in the CERAB group had significantly lower reintervention-free survival (62.5% [±6%] vs 92.9% [±0.9%]; P < .001). Matched analysis also revealed shorter length of stay (1 vs 7 days; P < .001), as well as lower pulmonary (1.2% vs 6.6%; P = .01), renal (1.8% vs 10%; P < .001), and cardiac (1.8% vs 12.8%; P < .001) complications among CERAB patients., Conclusions: CERAB had lower perioperative morbidity compared with ABF with a similar primary patency 1-year estimates. However, patients who underwent CERAB experienced more major adverse limb events and reinterventions. Although CERAB is an effective treatment for patients with AIOD, further studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of CERAB compared with the established durability of ABF and further define the role of CEARB in the treatment of AIOD., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management., Materials and Methods: A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up., Results: Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected., Conclusions: Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement., Clinical Impact: Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Tilo Kölbel has intellectual property with Cook Medical. Stephan Haulon has intellectual property and is a consultant of Cook Medical. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Objective: The aim of this multicenter national study was to compare the outcomes of primary open surgery by aorto-bifemoral bypass (ABFB) with those performed after a failed endovascular treatment (EVT) by kissing stent technique for complex aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) lesions (TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus [TASC] II C and D)., Methods: All consecutive ABFB cases carried out at 12 vascular surgery centers between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Data included patients' baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, procedural details, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up results (survival, patency, amputation). The study cohort was divided into two groups based on indications for ABFB: primary treatment vs secondary treatment after EVT failure., Results: Overall, 329 patients underwent ABFB during the study period (71% males; mean age, 64 years), of which 285 were primary treatment and 44 were after prior EVT. At baseline, no significant differences were found between study groups in demographics and clinical characteristics. TASC C and D lesions were similarly represented in the study groups (TASC C: 22% vs 78%; TASC D: 16% vs 84%). No major differences were found between study groups in terms of procedural details, early mortality, and perioperative complications. At 5 years, primary patency rates were significantly higher for primary ABFB (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 93.2%-84%) as compared with ABFB after prior EVT (69%; 95% CI 84.9%-55%; log rank P value < .001); however, the 5-year rates of secondary patency (100% vs 95%; 95% CI, 100%-86%) and limb salvage (97%; 95% CI, 99%-96 vs 97%; 95% CI, 100%-94%) were similar between study groups., Conclusions: Surgical treatment of TASC C/D AIOD with ABFB seems to be equally safe and effective when performed after prior EVT, although primary ABFB seemed to have higher primary patency rates. Despite the need for more frequent reinterventions, secondary patency and limb salvage rates were similar. However, future large prospective trials are required to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Thromboembolic events, particularly strokes, remain a major complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Embolic protection devices have failed to show significant clinical benefit in large randomized clinical trials. Aortic wall thrombus (AWT) is often observed on multidetector computed tomography during TAVR work-up, but its prognostic significance is uncertain., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the association between the presence of AWT and the incidence of thromboembolic outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral (TF) TAVR for severe aortic stenosis., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent TF TAVR for severe aortic stenosis between January 2011 and April 2022. A dedicated scale (range: 0-10) was qualitatively used to assess AWT. The primary outcome was a composite of procedural thromboembolic events defined as ischemic stroke, blue toe syndrome, bowel ischemia, or other solid organ infarction. The secondary endpoints were ischemic strokes and procedural death., Results: Of the 641 patients included, severe AWT (score ≥8) was identified in 73 (11.4%). The presence of severe AWT was strongly associated with an increase in the primary outcome (OR: 8.48; 95% CI: 3.36-21.40; P < 0.001). This relationship persisted following multivariable analysis, which adjusted for comorbidities and procedural characteristics. The presence of severe AWT was also found to be associated with an increased incidence of stroke and procedural death (OR: 5.66; 95% CI: 2.00-15.30; P = 0.002 and OR: 4.66; 95% CI: 1.80-11.30; P = 0.002, respectively)., Conclusions: The presence of severe AWT on preprocedural multidetector computed tomography is strongly associated with thromboembolic complications including stroke and mortality after TF TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Juxtarenal aortic occlusion (JRAO), in which the occlusion of the aorta extends to just below the renal artery, is often treated by bypass surgery because of concerns about the risk of procedural failure and fatal embolization to abdominal organs when treated with endovascular treatment (EVT). This study assessed the outcome of EVT for JRAO compared with aorto-biiliac /aorto-bifemoral (AOB) or axillo-bifemoral (AXB) bypass., Methods: A retrospective review of an international database created by 30 centers in Asia (CHronic Abdominal Aortic Occlusion, ASian Multicenter registry) was performed for patients who underwent revascularization for chronic total occlusion of the infrarenal aorta from 2007 to 2017. Of the 436 patients, 130 with JRAO (Forty-seven AOBs, 32 AXBs, and 51 EVTs) from 25 institutions were included in this study., Results: Patients were significantly older in the AXB and EVT groups and more malnourished in the EVT group than the AOB group. EVT was attempted but failed in 1 patient. Seven patients (1 [2.1%] in the AOB group, 1 [3.1%] in the AXB group, and 5 [9.8%] in the EVT group) died during hospitalization, but most of the causes in the EVT group were not related to the revascularization procedure. No visceral embolism was observed, which had been concerned, even though protection was performed only in 2 cases of the EVT group. At the latest follow-up (median duration 3.0 years), the ankle-brachial pressure index was significantly higher in the order of AOB, EVT, and AXB. At 4 years, the estimated primary and secondary patency rates of the AOB group (87.5% and 90.3%, respectively) were significantly higher than the AXB group (66.7% and 68.6%, respectively)., Conclusions: AOB remains the gold standard and should be the first choice for acceptable risk patients. For frail patients, EVT is a good option and likely preferable as a first-line treatment compared to AXB., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) is a rare disease. Thus far, only limited data is available and the indications for conservative and endovascular treatment are not well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical presentation, course, CT imaging features and outcome of patients with type B aortic IMHs., Methods: We included all patients with type B IMHs between 2012 and 2021 in this retrospective monocentric study. Clinical data, localization, thickness of IMHs and the presence of ulcer-like projections (ULPs) was evaluated before and after treatment., Results: Thirty five patients (20 females; 70.3 y ± 11 y) were identified. Almost all IMHs (n = 34) were spontaneous and symptomatic with back pain (n = 34). At the time of diagnosis, TEVAR was deemed indicated in 9 patients, 26 patients were treated primarily conservatively. During the follow-up, in another 16 patients TEVAR was deemed indicated. Endovascularly and conservatively treated patients both showed decrease in thickness after treatment. Patients without ULPs showed more often complete resolution of the IMH than patients with ULPs (endovascularly treated 90.9% (10/11) vs 71.4% (5/7); conservatively treated 71.4% (10/14) vs 33.3% (1/3); P = .207). Complications after TEVAR occurred in 32% and more frequently in patients treated primarily conservatively (37.5% vs 22.2%). No in-hospital mortality was observed during follow-up., Conclusions: Prognosis of IMH seems favourable in both surgically as well as conservatively treated patients. However, it is essential to identify patients at high risk for complications under conservative treatment, who therefore should be treated by TEVAR. In our study, ULPs seem to be an adverse factor for remodeling., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The clinical outcomes and survival of patients with penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU) were evaluated in a tertiary care hospital, comparing those who underwent aortic repair to those treated conservatively. Patients and methods: A retrospective single-centre analysis included all patients that underwent a computed tomography angiography (CT-A) scan with the diagnosis of a PAU between January 2009 and May 2019. "PAU" was identified in 1,493 of 112,506 CT-A scan reports in 576 patients. Clinical and angiomorphological data were collected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), with secondary outcomes focusing on identifying risk factors for poor OS. Survival probabilities were analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test. A Cox hazard model using survival as dependent variable with stepwise backward eliminations based on the likelihood ratios was employed. Results: 315 PAUs were identified in 278 patients. The prevalence in the cohort was 0.8%. The mean age of the patients was 74.4 years, and they were predominantly male (n = 208, 74.8%). The mean ulcer depth was 11.8 mm (range 2-50 mm). Out of the patients, 232 were asymptomatic (83.5%). Among 178 PAUs (56.5%), high-risk factors, such as ulcer depth >10 mm, aortic diameter >40 mm, and ulcer length >20 mm, were observed. Aortic repair was associated with a better mean OS compared to conservatively managed patients (72.6 versus 32.2 months, p = 0.001). The Cox hazard model showed that ulcer depth >1 mm was associated with poor OS (HR 0.67, p = 0.048), while aortic repair was related to a better OS (HR 4.365, p<0.013). Conclusions: Aortic repair is associated with better OS, but this finding should be interpreted with caution because of differences in age and comorbidities between the groups. Further evaluation is warranted through prospective studies with randomized groups. Further assessment for angiomorphological parameters is recommended to identify patients at increased risk for poor OS.

Backgroud: The learning curve and midterm results of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) revascularization by robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery may be known., Methods: A prospective single-center study was conducted in the vascular surgery department of Georges Pompidou European Hospital (Paris, France). Patients with AIOD treated by RAL from February 2014 to February 2019 were included. Demographic characteristics, past medical history, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) lesions classifications, mortality, primary and secondary patency, as well as complication rates were collected. Safety was analyzed by the cumulative sum control chart method with a conversion rate of 10%, operative time by cumulative average-time model, and primary and secondary patency by the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Seventy patients were included, 18 (25.7%) with TASC C lesions and 52 (74.3%) with TASC D lesions. Before discharge, 14 (24.3%) patients had surgical complications. Among them, 10 (14.3%) required at least one reintervention. One (1.4%) patient died during the hospitalization. The learning curve in terms of safety (conversion rate) was 13 cases with an operating time of 220 minutes after 35 patients. During follow-up (median 37 months [21; 49]), 63 patients (91.3%) improved their symptoms, 53 (76.8%) became asymptomatic, and 3 graft limb occlusions occurred. The primary patency at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months was 94%, 92%, 92%, and 92%, respectively, while the secondary patency for the same intervals was 100%, 98.1%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, respectively., Conclusions: Robotic surgery in AIOD revascularization seems safe and effective; allowing to treat patients with few comorbidities and severe lesions, in a dedicated center experienced in RAL, with excellent patency. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to confirm safety., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Abdominal aortic calcifications (AAC) are incidentally found on medical imaging and useful cardiovascular burden approximations. The Morphomic Aortic Calcification Score (MAC) leverages automated deep learning methods to quantify and score AACs. While associations of AAC and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have been described, relationships of AAC with other liver diseases and clinical outcome are sparse. This study's purpose was to evaluate AAC and liver-related death in a cohort of Veterans with chronic liver disease (CLD)., Methods: We utilized the VISN 10 CLD cohort, a regional cohort of Veterans with the three forms of CLD: NAFLD, hepatitis C (HCV), alcohol-associated (ETOH), seen between 2008 and 2014, with abdominal CT scans (n = 3604). Associations between MAC and cirrhosis development, liver decompensation, liver-related death, and overall death were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard models., Results: The full cohort demonstrated strong associations of MAC and cirrhosis after adjustment: HR 2.13 (95% CI 1.63, 2.78), decompensation HR 2.19 (95% CI 1.60, 3.02), liver-related death HR 2.13 (95% CI 1.46, 3.11), and overall death HR 1.47 (95% CI 1.27, 1.71). These associations seemed to be driven by the non-NAFLD groups for decompensation and liver-related death [HR 2.80 (95% CI 1.52, 5.17; HR 2.34 (95% CI 1.14, 4.83), respectively]., Discussion: MAC was strongly and independently associated with cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver-related death, and overall death. Surprisingly, stratification results demonstrated comparable or stronger associations among those with non-NAFLD etiology. These findings suggest abdominal aortic calcification may predict liver disease severity and clinical outcomes in patients with CLD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) vary depending on thoracic aortic pathologies, comorbidities. This study presents our comprehensive endovascular experience, focusing on exploring the outcome in long term follow-up., Methods: From 2006 to 2018, we conducted TEVAR on 97 patients presenting with various aortic pathologies. This retrospective cohort study was designed primarily to assess graft durability and secondarily to evaluate mortality causes, complications, reinterventions, and the impact of comorbidities on survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses., Results: The most common indication was thoracic aortic aneurysm (n = 52). Ten patients had aortic arch variations and anomalies, and the bovine arch was observed in eight patients. Endoleaks were the main complications encountered, and 10 of 15 endoleaks were type I endoleaks. There were 18 reinterventions; the most of which was TEVAR (n = 5). The overall mortality was 20 patients, with TEVAR-related causes accounting for 12 of these deaths, including intracranial bleeding in three patients. Multivariant Cox regression revealed chronic renal diseases (OR = 11.73; 95% CI: 2.04-67.2; p = 0.006), previous cardiac operation (OR = 14.26; 95% CI: 1.59-127.36; p = 0.01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (OR = 7.82; 95% CI: 1.43-42.78; p = 0.001) to be independent risk factors for 10-year survival. There was no significant difference in the survival curves of the various aortic pathologies. In the follow-up period, two non-symptomatic intragraft thromboses and one graft infection were found., Conclusion: Comorbidities can increase the risk of TEVAR-related mortality without significantly impacting endoleak rates. TEVAR is effective for severe aortic pathologies, though long-term graft durability may be compromised by its thrombosis and infection., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: We investigated the early and midterm efficacy and safety of covered endovascular reconstruction of the aortic bifurcation (CERAB) in the treatment of aortoiliac disease (AID)., Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published by August 2023 was performed. The primary end points were primary patency and secondary patency., Results: Eleven retrospective case series, involving 579 patients, were incorporated in the review with 88.9% of the included lesions being categorized as Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C or D. The pooled primary patency estimates at 12, 24 and 36 months were 94.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.4-99.7), 84.4% (95% CI, 72.3-98.5) and 83.8% (95% CI, 71.4-98.3) respectively. The mean primary patency time, representing the period during which individuals remained event-free, was 51.9 months (95% CI, 43.6-55.4). The pooled 36 months primary patency for studies with a predominantly claudicant patient population (>75% of patients) was 89.4% (95% CI, 78.5-100.0), compared with 71.5% (95% CI, 45.6-100.0) for studies with a mixed population (50% of patients). The pooled 36 months primary patency for studies with a predominantly TASC D patient population (>82% of patients) was 70.4% (95% CI, 46.4-100.0) compared with 91.0% (95% CI, 79.1-100.0) for studies with a more homogenous cohort. The pooled secondary patency estimates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 98.6% (95% CI, 96.2-100.0), 97% (95% CI, 93.1-100.0), and 97% (95% CI, 93.1-100.0), respectively. The pooled technical success, 30-day mortality and 30-day systemic complications estimates were 95.9% (95% CI, 93.7- 97.4), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.0-3.5), and 6.4% (95% CI, 4.4-9.1), respectively. The pooled intraoperative and postoperative 30-day CERAB-related complications estimates were 7.3% (95% CI, 2.0-23.0) and 4.2% (95% CI, 0.7-21.0), respectively. The pooled major amputation and target lesion reinterventions by the end of follow-up were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.0-3.4) and 13.9% (95% CI, 9.9-19.2), respectively. The pooled access site complication estimate was 11.7% (95% CI, 5.9-21.7)., Conclusions: Although this review has showcased the safety and feasibility of the CERAB technique in treating AID, it has also highlighted the necessity for a close and prolonged follow-up period extending beyond 1 year. Moreover, the favorable secondary patency estimates predominantly attained via endovascular reinterventions emphasize a potentially advantageous characteristic of the CERAB technique, particularly valuable when addressing late-stage AID disease or anatomically complex lesions., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To evaluate the short-term and mid-term safety and efficacy of stent-graft compared with bare stents for treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD)., Methods: One hundred eighty three patients diagnosed with AIOD who received stent implantation at 3 vascular centers in north China between January 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled. Patients were divided into those undergoing stent-graft (Group A; n = 67) or bare stent (Group B; n = 116) implantation for retrospective cohort analysis. Efficacy was assessed as surgical success rate and rate of freedom from clinically driven target lesion reintervention at each follow-up time point. Safety was assessed by the rate of perioperative complication, major limb amputation, and aortoiliac artery-related mortality., Results: There were no preoperative baseline differences between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The surgical success was 91.04% for Group A, significantly higher than that for Group B (79.31%; P < 0.05). Incidence of perioperative complications was 2.98% for Group A, significantly lower than that for Group B (9.48%, P < 0.05), as was the rate of major limb amputation (A: 1.49% vs. B: 5.17%) and aortoiliac artery-related mortality (A: 1.49% vs. B: 4.31%), although these 2 indicators were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Follow-up rates were 91.8% for the total follow-up time of 3 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis gave significantly higher 1-year and 2-year freedom from clinically driven target lesion reintervention for Group A (98.51% and 95.52%) than for Group B (95.69% and 89.66%, P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Stent-graft is more effective and safer than bare stent in the treatment of AIOD., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The outcomes of the best medical treatment (BMT) and intervention treatment (INT) in a single-center experience were reported in type B intramural hematoma (IMH)., Methods: From February 2015 to February 2021, a total of 195 consecutive patients with type B IMH were enrolled in the study. The primary end point was mortality, and the secondary end points included clinical and imaging outcomes. The clinical outcomes were aortic-related death, retrograde type A aortic dissection, stent graft-induced new entry tear, endoleak, and reintervention. The imaging outcome was evaluated through the latest follow-up computed tomography angiography, which included aortic rupture, aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, rapid growth of aortic diameter, newly developed or enlarged penetrating aortic ulcer or ulcer-like projection (ULP) and increased aortic wall thickness. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the association between different treatments., Results: Among the enrolled patients, 115 received BMT, and 80 received INT. There was no significant difference in early (1.7% vs 2.5%; P = 1.00) and midterm all-cause death (8.3% vs 5.2%; P = .42) between the BMT and INT groups. However, patients who underwent INT were at risk of procedure-related complications such as stent graft-induced new entry tear and endoleaks. The INT group was associated with a profound decrease in the risk of ULP, including newly developed ULP (4.3% vs 26.9%; P < .05), ULP enlargement (6.4% vs 31.3%; P < .05), and a lower proportion of high-risk ULP (10.9% vs 45.6%; P < .05). Although there was no significant difference in the incidence of IMH regression between the two groups, the maximum diameter of the descending aorta in patients receiving INT was larger compared with those treated with BMT., Conclusions: Based on our limited experience, patients with type B IMH treated with BMT or INT shared similar midterm clinical outcome. Patients who underwent INT may have a decreased risk of ULPs, but a higher risk of procedure-related events and patients on BMT should be closely monitored for ULP progression., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications after descending thoracic aortic (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) repairs. Patients who develop SCI have a poor prognosis, with mortality rates reaching 75% within the first year after surgery. Many factors have been shown to increase the risk of this complication, including the extent of TAA repair, length of aortic and collateral network coverage, embolization, and reduced spinal cord perfusion pressure. As a result, a variety of treatment strategies have been developed. We aimed to provide an up-to-date review of SCI rates with associated treatment algorithms from open and endovascular DTA and TAA repair., Methods: Using PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines, a literature review with the MeSH (medical subject headings) terms "spinal cord ischemia," "spinal cord ischemia prevention and mitigation strategies," "spinal cord ischemia rates," and "spinal cord infarction" was performed in the Cochrane and PubMed databases to find all peer-reviewed studies of DTA and TAA repair with SCI complications reported. The search was limited to 2012 to 2021 and English-language reports. MeSH subheadings, including diagnosis, complications, physiopathology, surgery, mortality, and therapy, were used to further restrict the included studies. Studies were excluded if they were not of humans, had not pertained to SCI after DTA or TAA operative repair, and if the study had primarily discussed neuromonitoring techniques. Additionally, studies with <40 patients or limited information regarding SCI protection strategies were excluded. Each study was individually reviewed by two of us (S.L. and A.D.) to assess the type and extent of aortic pathology, operative technique, SCI protection or mitigation strategies, rates of overall and permanent SCI symptoms, associations with SCI on multivariate analysis, and mortality., Results: Of the 450 studies returned by the MeSH search strategy, 41 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. For the endovascular DTA repair patients, the overall SCI rates ranged from 0% to 10.6%, with permanent SCI symptoms ranging from 0% to 5.1%. The rate of overall SCI after endovascular and open TAA repair was 0% to 35%. The permanent SCI symptom rate was reported by only one study of open repair at 1.1%. The permanent SCI symptom rate after endovascular TAA repair was 2% to 20.5%., Conclusions: The present review has provided an up-to-date review of the current rates of SCI and the prevention and mitigation strategies used during DTA and TAA repair. We found that a multimodal approach, including a bundled institutional protocol, staging of multiple repairs, preservation of the collateral blood flow network, augmented spinal cord perfusion, selective cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and distal aortic perfusion during open TAA repairs, appears to be important in reducing the risk of SCI., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Vascular surgery patients commonly have several comorbidities that cumulatively lead to a frailty status. The cumulative comorbidities disproportionately increase the risk of adverse events and are also associated with worsened long-term prognosis. In recent years, several tools have been elaborated with the objective of quantifying a patient's frailty. One of them is the modified frailty index-5 (mFI-5), a simplified and easy to use index. There is scarce data regarding its value as a prognostic factor in aortoiliac occlusive disease. The aim of this work is to validate mFI-5 as a potential postoperative prognostic indicator in this population., Methods: From January 2013 to January 2020, 109 patients who underwent elective revascularizations, either endovascular or open surgery, having Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II type D aortoiliac lesions in a tertiary and a regional hospital were selected from a prospective vascular registry. Demographic data was collected including diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arterial hypertension requiring medication and functional status. The 30-d and subsequent long-term surveillance outcomes were also collected including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), major adverse limb events (MALE) and all-cause mortality were assessed in the 30-d post-procedure and in the subsequent long-term surveillance period. The mFI-5 was applied to this population to evaluate the prognostic impact of this frailty marker on mortality and morbidity., Results: In the long-term follow-up, mFI-5 was significantly associated with MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 2.469; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.267-4.811; P = .008) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.585; 95% CI: 1.270-5.260; P = .009). However, there was no significant association with 30-day outcomes. Along with the presence of chronic kidney disease, mFI-5 was the prognostic factor better able of predicting MACE. No prognostic value was found regarding short-term outcomes., Conclusion: The mFI-5 index may have a role in predicting long term outcomes, namely MACE and all-cause mortality, in the subset of patients with extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease. Its ease of use can foster its application in risk stratification and contribute for the decision-making process., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Endovascular therapy for the management of aortic pathology in patients with degenerative connective tissue disorder (DCTD) is controversial. Current guidelines are based on a paucity of literature and registry data are lacking. This study reports on medium term outcomes of patients with diagnosed DCTD compared to those without DCTD who were included in the W.L. Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT)., Methods: Patients included in the GREAT registry who underwent treatment for any thoracic or abdominal aortic pathology were included and grouped according to the presence or absence of a DCTD. Baseline demographic and procedural data were collected as well as data relating to key outcomes within 5 years follow-up, including all-cause mortality, aortic-related mortality, reinterventions and serious adverse events (SAE). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were built to determine if any association existed between the presence of DCTD and any key outcomes., Results: The analysis included 92 (1.9%) with DCTD and 4741 (98.1%) without DCTD. Patients with DCTD were more likely to be female (34.8% vs. 18.5%, P < .0001) and younger (66.8 [15.1] vs. 71.7 [10.3] years, P = .013) than those without DCTD. They were also more likely to have had prior aortic intervention (22.8% vs. 13.9%, P = .015) and an associated branch vessel procedure with the index operation (30.3% vs. 18.6%, P = .005). The majority of reinterventions in both groups occurred within the first 2 years and multivariable models demonstrated that the presence of DCTD was not predictive of all-cause mortality, aortic-related mortality, reinterventions or SAE within 5 years., Conclusions: Within the limitations of registry data, this work demonstrates the medium term safety and durability of endovascular stent-grafts across a spectrum of aortic pathology in some patients with DCTD. More work is required to determine the applicability of these findings to specific sub-types of DCTD and aortic pathology., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest RM is a paid consultant for WL Gore, (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is used frequently in cardiac valve and proximal aortic surgical procedures, but there is a lack of evidence associating TEE use with improved clinical outcomes., Objective: To test the association between intraoperative TEE use and clinical outcomes following cardiac valve or proximal aortic surgery., Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched, retrospective cohort study used national registry data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeon (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) to compare clinical outcomes among patients undergoing cardiac valve or proximal aortic surgery with vs without intraoperative TEE. Statistical analyses used optimal matching within propensity score calipers to conduct multiple matched comparisons including within-hospital and within-surgeon matches, a negative control outcome analysis, and sensitivity analyses. STS ACSD data encompasses more than 90% of all hospitals that perform cardiac surgery in the US. The study cohort consisted of all patients aged at least 18 years undergoing open cardiac valve repair or replacement surgery and/or proximal aortic surgery between 2011 and 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to April 2021., Exposures: The exposure was receipt of intraoperative TEE during the cardiac valve or proximal aortic surgery., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was death within 30 days of surgery. The secondary outcomes were (1) a composite outcome of stroke or 30-day mortality and (2) a composite outcome of reoperation or 30-day mortality., Results: Of the 872 936 patients undergoing valve or aortic surgery, 540 229 (61.89%) were male; 63 565 (7.28%) were Black and 742 384 (85.04%) were White; 711 326 (81.5%) received TEE and 161 610 (18.5%) did not receive TEE; the mean (SD) age was 65.61 years (13.17) years. After matching, intraoperative TEE was significantly associated with a lower 30-day mortality rate compared with no TEE: 3.81% vs 5.27% (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.72]; P < .001), a lower incidence of stroke or 30-day mortality: 5.56% vs 7.01% (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74-0.79]; P < .001), and a lower incidence of reoperation or 30-day mortality: 7.18% vs 8.87% (OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76-0.80]; P < .001). Results were similar across all matched comparisons (including within-hospital, within-surgeon matched analyses) and were robust to a negative control and sensitivity analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing cardiac valve or proximal aortic surgery, intraoperative TEE use was associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort study. These findings support routine use of TEE in these procedures.

Objective: To examine whether there is an association between prehospital transfer distance and surgical mortality in emergency thoracic aortic surgery., Methods: A retrospective cohort study using a national clinical database in Japan was conducted. Patients who underwent emergency thoracic aortic surgery from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, were included. Patients with type B dissection were excluded. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between prehospital transfer distance and surgical mortality. In addition, an instrumental variable analysis was performed to address unmeasured confounding., Results: A total of 12,004 patients underwent emergency thoracic aortic surgeries at 495 hospitals. Surgical mortality was 13.8%. The risk-adjusted mortality odds ratio for standardized distance (mean 12.8 km, standard deviation 15.2 km) was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.01; P = .09). Instrumental variable analysis did not reveal a significant association between transfer distance and surgical mortality as well., Conclusions: No significant association was found between surgical mortality and prehospital transfer distance in emergency thoracic aortic surgery cases. Suspected cases of acute thoracic aortic syndrome may be transferred safely to distant high-volume hospitals., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute abdominal aortic occlusion (AAO) is a rare vascular emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. In the present study, we analyzed the clinical management and outcomes for a consecutive patient series during a 16-year period., Methods: We included all patients with an acute AAO and bilateral acute limb ischemia who had been treated between 2004 and 2019. Patients with dissection, aneurysm rupture, or chronic occlusive disease were excluded. The patient characteristics, surgical procedures, and outcomes were extracted retrospectively from a prospective aortic database, electronic patient files, and outpatient examination records. The extent of ischemia was classified according to the TASC II (Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease) section on acute limb ischemia. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality (safety endpoint) and the combined 6-month amputation and/or death rate (efficacy endpoint). The follow-up outcomes, amputation rates, and 30-day complications were evaluated as secondary endpoints. The patient cohort was divided into four 4-year groups (2004-2007, 2008-2011, 2012-2015, 2016-2019) to assess the outcome changes over time. Statistical analysis included χ 2 tests and univariate and linear regression analyses., Results: A total of 74 patients (57% male; median age, 64.5 years) with an acute AAO were identified. Arterial thrombosis was the most common etiology (66%). The extent of ischemia was TASC I, IIa, IIb, and III in 7%, 39%, 40%, and 14%, respectively. The patient numbers had increased significantly over time (P = .016). Of the patients, 42% had undergone open transfemoral recanalization (including hybrid procedures), 35% open aortic surgery, 15% extra-anatomic bypass surgery, and 5% (four patients) endovascular therapy alone. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 23%, and the 6-month amputation and/or death rate was 43%. The 30-day mortality rate had declined significantly from 54% for 2004 to 2007 to 10% for 2011 to 2015 (odds ratio [OR], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.001-0.52) and 20% for 2016 to 2019 (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05-0.90), a statistically nonsignificant trend showing that the relative decline in the use of open aortic procedures was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (P = .06). Univariate analysis indicated that elevated serum lactate on admission (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.06-10.48) and an advanced stage of limb ischemia (OR, 4.33), were strongly associated with an increased 30-day mortality rate. The incidence of severe postoperative systemic complications also indicated a greater incidence of both primary endpoints. The 6-month amputation and/or mortality rates were also affected by the presence of atrial fibrillation (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.34-9.79) and increased patient age (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 1.49-10.53)., Conclusions: Acute AAO remains a life-threatening emergency. Immediate transfemoral open or endovascular techniques should be preferred, if technically possible and proper intraoperative imaging is available., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Since the outbreak of the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19), vascular specialists have faced dramatic changes in clinical and surgical practice. Although COVID-19 pulmonary signs and symptoms were the most pertinent problems initially, in the long term, cardiovascular complications became the most fearsome, with poor outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality. Algorithms and decision-making procedures have been modified, not only to treat new clinical findings in COVID-19 positive patients, but also to avoid complications related to pulmonary and systemic infections. Additionally, COVID-19-negative patients experienced challenging management, due to hospital crowding, the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, and pandemic emergencies. In this context, aortic interventions were subject to several difficulties. First, in COVID-19-positive patients, there was the onset of new pathological scenarios including thrombotic manifestations and the subsequent complications. Second, in both COVID-19-negative and positive patients, there was a need to deliver optimal treatment with acceptable perioperative risks, forcing a rethinking of decision-making especially in terms of indications for treatments. The aim of this systematic review is to present evidence published on COVID-19 and aortic-related issues, highlighting some challenging aspects regarding management, treatment and outcomes., Evidence Acquisition: Data search was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, using as time range "January 1 st , 2000 - May 1 st , 2021." Only articles in English language were included. Key words used for the query were "Aorta" AND "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2." Furthermore, the NCBI database of "SARS-CoV-2 Resources" was interrogated to find further relevant studies., Evidence Synthesis: The search retrieved 416 papers; among these, 46 studies were eligible and reviewed in depth. The published literature suggests the existence of a hypercoagulable state in patients with COVID-19 disease occurring via direct and indirect mechanisms. COVID-19 infection seems to promote a prothrombotic status that aggravates vascular disease. Regardless of clinical laboratory or status, active COVID-19 infection is considered a risk factor for poor vascular surgery outcomes. Specifically, it is associated with a fourfold increased risk of death and a threefold increased risk of major adverse events. Prognosis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 disease is often determined by the extent of pulmonary disease, although vascular complications also greatly affect outcomes. Nevertheless, although COVID‑19 is highly morbid, in high‑risk operations good outcomes can still be achieved even in elderly patients with COVID‑19., Conclusions: In the case of aortic disease during active COVID-19 infection, poor outcomes are associated with COVID-19 vascular and non-vascular complications, while for COVID-19-negative patients not much changed in terms of outcomes, despite the difficulties in management. Endovascular repair, when possible, minimized the impact of treatment, reducing the risk of COVID-related postoperative complications or acquired infection in negative patients.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine whether there were independent associations between abdominal aortic diameter, size index, and height index and the risk of major adverse events in patients referred for treatment of various types of aortic and peripheral occlusive and aneurysmal disease (APOAD)., Methods: In total, 1 752 participants with a variety of APOADs were prospectively recruited between 2002 and 2020 and had a maximum abdominal aortic diameter, aortic size index (aortic diameter relative to body surface area), and aortic height index (aortic diameter relative to height) measured by ultrasound at recruitment. Participants were followed for a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range 2.0 - 8.0 years) to record outcome events, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), peripheral artery surgery, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) events (rupture or repair), and all cause mortality. The association between aortic size and events was assessed using Cox proportional hazard analysis. The ability of aortic size to improve risk of events classification was assessed using the net reclassification index (NRI)., Results: After adjusting for other risk factors, larger aortic diameter was associated with an increased risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 - 1.31), requirement for peripheral artery surgery (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.90 - 2.22), AAA events (HR 3.01, 95% CI 2.77 - 3.26), and all cause mortality (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 - 1.32). Findings were similar for aortic size and aortic height indices. According to the NRI, all three aortic size measures significantly improved classification of risk of peripheral artery surgery and AAA events but not MACE. Aortic size index, but not aortic diameter or aortic height index, significantly improved the classification of all cause mortality risk., Conclusion: Larger abdominal aortic diameter, size index, and height index are all independently associated with an increased risk of major adverse events in patients with established vascular disease., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Statin use is associated with higher long-term survival after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, the association between statin use and survival after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has not been established., Methods: We performed a review of prospectively collected data of all patients who had undergone TEVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2020. We excluded patients aged <18 years, those who had presented with trauma, and those who had received custom-manufactured or physician-modified devices. We evaluated the association between preoperative statin therapy and in-hospital mortality and complications and 5-year mortality. We also analyzed the trend of preoperative statin use in elective cases for the previous 7 years. To account for nonrandom assignment to treatment, we used propensity score matching of patient characteristics, comorbidities, pathology, and urgency for preoperative statin use. We used logistic regression and Cox regression for the short-term and 5-year outcomes, respectively., Results: Of 6266 patients who had undergone TEVAR and met the inclusion criteria, 3331 (53%) patients had been taking a statin preoperatively, including 1148 of 2267 (64%) treated for aneurysmal disease. After propensity score matching, 1875 patients were in each cohort. Preoperative statin use was associated with lower rates of any perioperative complication (16.7% vs 19.6%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.97; P = .022). Overall, preoperative statin use was also associated with lower 5-year mortality (18.8% vs 24.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89; P = .001). When stratified by urgency, preoperative statin use was associated with lower 5-year mortality after elective TEVAR (14.9% vs 22.4%; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.79; P < .001) but not after urgent or emergent TEVAR (27.4% vs 29.1%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.14; P = .37). When stratified by pathology, preoperative statin use was associated with significantly lower 5-year mortality for patients with aneurysms (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83; P = .001). Although the mortality was also lower for patients with dissection and "other" pathology, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Between 2014 and 2019, a significant increase had occurred in statin use among patients undergoing elective TEVAR, from 56% in 2014 to 64% in 2019 (P = .007)., Conclusions: Preoperative statin therapy is associated with lower perioperative complication rates and 5-year mortality for patients undergoing TEVAR. All patients with known thoracic aortic pathology should receive statin therapy unless contraindications for the drug are present. For patients undergoing elective TEVAR, the statin prescription percentage should be considered a quality metric, and further implementation research should occur to improve preoperative statin use., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers (PAUs) in aortic branch vessels are rare. There is a paucity of data regarding their long-term natural history and associated management. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and natural history of aortic branch PAUs., Methods: Institutional data on all patients with an aortic branch PAU from 2005 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Branch PAUs were defined as any PAU in the iliac, mesenteric, or arch vessels. End points included symptoms, end-organ events, and interventions. All computed tomography angiographies (CTAs) for each patient were reviewed, and total diameter, ulcer width, and ulcer depth were recorded on each computed tomography scan for the branch PAUs. Rate of change was compared between groups (iliac vs arch and visceral vessels) using a linear mixed-effects model., Results: Among 58,800 patients who underwent a CTA, 367 patients had an aortic PAU (prevalence: 0.6%) and 58 patients had a branch PAU (prevalence: 0.1%). Among those 58 patients, there were 66 ulcerated branches. There were 50 iliac (42 common iliac, 7 internal, and 1 external), 11 arch (8 left subclavian, 3 innominate), and 5 visceral ulcers (3 superior mesenteric artery, 1 celiac, and 1 renal). Mean age was 74.0 ± 8.8 years, and 86% of patients were male; 74% had hypertension, 79% had hyperlipidemia, and 59% had a concomitant aortic aneurysm. There were 45 PAU vessels with >1 CTA (total of 167 CTAs) with a median follow-up of 4.0 years (interquartile range: 2.0-6.2 years). Total vessel diameter increased in size by 0.27 mm/y but did not differ between groups (iliac vs visceral/arch vessels). PAU width and depth also did not significantly change over time, nor did it differ between groups. No branch PAUs caused symptoms, end-organ events, or rupture, nor required intervention due to symptoms and/or progression. Four PAUs spontaneously resolved (2 iliac, 2 other), and 1 iliac PAU progressed to a saccular aneurysm., Conclusions: This is one of the largest studies evaluating the natural history of branched PAUs objectively via CTA. Branch PAUs are rare-the prevalence was one-sixth that of aortic PAUs. There was minimal growth noted in a median follow-up of 4 years, and no PAUs required intervention for symptoms or progression. Asymptomatic branch PAUs may be safely observed., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this retrospective single centre study was to determine whether different enteric reconstruction methods and adjuncts confer a benefit after in situ reconstructions (ISRs) of graft aorto-enteric erosion (AEnE) and fistula (AEnF)., Methods: Primary endpoints were in hospital mortality and AEnE/F recurrence. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and explanatory factors were searched for using uni- ± multivariable Cox regression analysis. In 2013, a multidisciplinary team meeting was convened and since then the primary operator has always been a senior surgeon., Results: Sixty-six patients were treated for AEnE (n = 38) and AEnF (n = 28, 42%) from 2004 to 2020. All patients with AEnF presented with gastrointestinal bleeding (vs. 0 for AEnE; p < .001). Signs of infection were seen in 50 patients (76% [37 for AEnE vs. 13 for AEnF]; p < .001). Referrals for endograft infection increased over time (n = 15, 23%; one before 2013 vs. 14 after; p = .002). Most patients underwent complete graft excision (n = 52, 79%) with increasing suprarenal cross clamping (n = 21, 32%; four before 2013 vs. 17 after; p = .015). Complex visceral reconstructions decreased over time (n = 31, 47%; 17 before 2013 vs. 14 after; p = .055), while "open abdomens" (OAs) increased (one before 2013 vs. 22 after; p < .001), reducing operating time (p = .012). In hospital mortality reached 42% (n = 28). Estimated survival reached 47.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.0 - 59.1) at one year and 45.6% (95% CI 33.0 - 57.3) at three years and was higher for AEnE than for AEnF (log rank p = .029). AEnE/F recurrence was noted in 12 patients (18%). Older age predicted in hospital mortality in multivariable analysis (p = .034). AEnE/F recurrence decreased with the presence of a primary senior surgeon (vs. junior; p = .003) and OA (1 [4.4%] vs. 11 [26%] for primary fascial closure; p = .045) in univariable analysis., Conclusion: Mortality and recurrence rates remain high after ISR of AEnE/F. Older age predicted in hospital mortality. Primary closure of enteric defects ≤ 2 cm in diameter reduced operating time without increasing the recurrence of AEnF., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the clinical outcomes of intentional coverage of the celiac artery (CA) during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR)., Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies reporting coverage of CA during TEVAR. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using the Moga score and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A random effects model was used to pool the estimates. A meta-analysis was performed with investigation of the following outcomes: visceral ischemia, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), stroke, endoleak, reintervention, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality., Results: A total of 10 studies with 171 patients were included. The summary estimate rate of visceral ischemia events was 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-8.9%; I 2  = 4.1%). The incidence of stroke and SCI was 0.2% (95% CI, 0%-3.4%; I 2  = 0%) and 3% (95% CI, 0.3%-7.4%; I 2  = 6.1%). The rate of endoleak during the follow-up period was 24.1% (95% CI, 14.3%-35.1%; I 2  = 20.0%). The reintervention rate was 13.6% (95% CI, 4.4%-25.7%; I 2  = 66.0%). The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 2.9% (95% CI, 0.3%-7.2%; I 2  = 6.2%) and 15.2% (95% CI, 7.8%-23.9%; I 2  = 0%)., Conclusions: Among the patients with complex thoracic aortic pathologies deemed at high risk for open reconstruction, TEVAR with intentional coverage of the CA is a safe and feasible option to extend the distal sealing zone with acceptable rates of visceral ischemia, SCI, type II endoleak from the CA, and 30-day mortality., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the outcome of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch pathologies with surgeon modified fenestrated stent grafts., Methods: A multicentre, retrospective study consisting of consecutive patients from seven centres treated with surgeon modified fenestrated stent grafts for aortic arch pathologies was conducted. A technique to align fenestrations and supra-aortic vessels was applied. Rates of technical success, mortality, complications, and re-interventions were evaluated., Results: Between February 2016 and January 2020, 513 consecutive patients with aortic arch pathologies received TEVAR with surgeon modified fenestrated stent grafts. The technical success rate was 98.6% (n = 506). In total, 626 fenestrations were created to revascularise 684 branch arteries of the aortic arch. There were 13 deaths and 15 re-interventions within 30 days of the operation. The estimated clinical success rate at 30 days was 94.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92.4 - 96.4), the estimated survival at 30 days was 97.5% (95% CI 96.1 - 98.9), and the estimated freedom from re-intervention at 30 days was 97.1% (95% CI 95.7 - 98.5). The median follow up was 27 (interquartile range 13 - 31) months. During follow up, there were five aortic related deaths, three non-aortic related deaths, and four deaths of unknown cause. Eighteen patients underwent re-intervention. The estimated clinical success rate at 24 months was 88.2% (95% CI 85.5 - 91.0), the estimated survival at 24 months was 94.9% (95% CI 92.7 - 97.1), and the estimated freedom from re-intervention at 24 months was 93.1% (95% CI 91.0 - 95.3). In total, 18 cases of stroke were recorded, including 12 within 30 days and six during follow up; six cases of retrograde type A aortic dissection were recorded, including five within 30 days and one during the follow up., Conclusion: TEVAR with surgeon modified fenestrated stent grafts for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies provides acceptable outcomes. Further follow up is required to confirm the benefits of this approach., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) are an entity within acute aortic syndrome. They often remain undiagnosed and are found incidentally or when they become symptomatic. Management is currently guided by clinical judgment. This review aims to identify indications for treatment and inform management., Methods: We searched PubMed for studies on the management of PAUs. The outcome measures were mortality, progression and resolution of symptoms., Results: This review incorporates 27 studies involving 1356 patients with PAU. Data was available regarding symptoms for 1213 patients (494 symptomatic, 719 asymptomatic). Overall late mortality for PAUs was found to be higher than 30-day mortality. Early mortality was higher for symptomatic patients as compared to those with asymptomatic PAUs. Early mortality was lowest for PAUs treated with endovascular interventions (5%), followed by PAUs managed medically and highest following open surgical management. Indications for treatment included symptoms, progression/instability, aortic diameter >5 cm, concomitant aortic pathology or pleural effusion. 13% of patients managed conservatively at initial presentation demonstrated progression and were considered for intervention subsequently. 9% of patients required reintervention after initial endovascular surgery., Conclusion: Endovascular treatment, if anatomically suitable, should be considered as first line treatment for symptomatic PAUs. Patients with asymptomatic PAUs, if associated with high-risk features such as PAU diameter >20 mm, PAU depth >10 mm, aortic diameter >42 mm, concomitant pathology, morphological change or an infective etiology, should also be considered for intervention. Small asymptomatic PAUs with no high-risk features may be managed conservatively but must undergo regular surveillance.

Background: Laser in situ fenestration (LISF) is an expanding technique for arch vessel revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We present a single center's early and midterm outcomes using adjunctive LISF with TEVAR for treatment of various arch pathologies., Methods: 24 patients underwent TEVAR with LISF (2017-2020). Patients were evaluated by an Aortic Team consisting of cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons and were deemed unfit for open surgical repair. Informed consent emphasized the procedure's off-label nature. Thoracic stent-grafts were sized by preoperative Computed Tomography Angiogram and intraoperative Intravascular Ultrasound, with oversizing determined by pathology. Extra-anatomic debranching was performed in staged or concurrent fashion based on urgency of repair and access site options for branch fenestration. A 2.3 mm Spectranetics laser was used, with access site determined at surgeon discretion. Covered balloon expandable stent-grafts were deployed with 0-10% oversizing., Results: In 24 patients, a total of 30 fenestrations were created (LSA N = 19, LCCA N = 3, Innominate N = 7, RSA N = 1) with 1 (N = 18) or 2 (N = 6) fenestrations/patient. Indications included aneurysm (8), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (8), acute dissection (4), intramural hematoma (2), and pseudoaneurysm (2). 13 cases were elective, and 11 were emergent. Technical success was 100%. 12 patients underwent concurrent (N = 8) or staged (N = 4) extra-anatomic bypass. The major complication rate was 21%, including stroke (N = 3) and 30-day mortality (N = 2). The overall complication rate was 58%. Over a mean follow up of 261 days (15-864 days), 7 patients (32%) have required reinterventions., Conclusions: LISF for branch revascularization in TEVAR is technically feasible for treating various aortic arch pathologies, demonstrating practicality in both elective and emergent settings. With a morbidity and mortality profile that is favorable compared to that of open repair, LISF with TEVAR is a promising potential option for patients with complex arch pathology and prohibitive open surgical risk., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide determining dramatic impacts on healthcare systems. Early identification of high-risk parameters is required in order to provide the best therapeutic approach. Coronary, thoracic aorta and aortic valve calcium can be measured from a non-gated chest computer tomography (CT) and are validated predictors of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. However, their prognostic role in acute systemic inflammatory diseases, such as COVID-19, has not been investigated., Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the association of coronary artery calcium and total thoracic calcium on in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients., Methods: 1093 consecutive patients from 16 Italian hospitals with a positive swab for COVID-19 and an admission chest CT for pneumonia severity assessment were included. At CT, coronary, aortic valve and thoracic aorta calcium were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated separately and combined together (total thoracic calcium) by a central Core-lab blinded to patients' outcomes., Results: Non-survivors compared to survivors had higher coronary artery [Agatston (467.76 ​± ​570.92 vs 206.80 ​± ​424.13 ​mm 2 , p ​< ​0.001); Volume (487.79 ​± ​565.34 vs 207.77 ​± ​406.81, p ​< ​0.001)], aortic valve [Volume (322.45 ​± ​390.90 vs 98.27 ​± ​250.74 mm 2 , p ​< ​0.001; Agatston 337.38 ​± ​414.97 vs 111.70 ​± ​282.15, p ​< ​0.001)] and thoracic aorta [Volume (3786.71 ​± ​4225.57 vs 1487.63 ​± ​2973.19 mm 2 , p ​< ​0.001); Agatston (4688.82 ​± ​5363.72 vs 1834.90 ​± ​3761.25, p ​< ​0.001)] calcium values. Coronary artery calcium (HR 1.308; 95% CI, 1.046-1.637, p ​= ​0.019) and total thoracic calcium (HR 1.975; 95% CI, 1.200-3.251, p ​= ​0.007) resulted to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality., Conclusion: Coronary, aortic valve and thoracic aortic calcium assessment on admission non-gated CT permits to stratify the COVID-19 patients in-hospital mortality risk., (Copyright © 2021 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)