Search

Despite the progressive advancement of devices for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), endografts continue to fail, requiring explant. We present a single-institutional experience of EVAR explants, characterizing modern failure modes, presentation, and outcomes for partial and complete EVAR explantation.A retrospective analysis was performed of all EVARs explanted at an urban quaternary center from 2001 to 2020, with one infected endograft excluded. Patient and graft characteristics, indications, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Partial versus complete explants were performed per surgeon discretion without a predefined protocol. This process was informed by patient risk factors; asymptomatic, symptomatic, or ruptured aneurysm presentation; and anatomical or intraoperative factors, including endoleak type.From 2001 to 2020, 52 explants met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. More than one-half (57.7%) were explants of EVAR devices placed at outside institutions, designated nonindex explants. Most patients were male (86.5%), the median age was 74 years (interquartile range, 70-78 years). More than one-half (61.5%) were performed in the second decade of the study period. The most commonly explanted grafts were Gore Excluder (n = 9 grafts), Cook Zenith (n = 8), Endologix AFX (n = 7), Medtronic Endurant (n = 5), and Medtronic Talent (n = 5). Most grafts (78.8%) were explanted for neck degeneration or sac expansion. Five were explanted for initial seal failure, five for symptomatic expansion, and seven for rupture. The median implant duration was 4.2 years, although ranging widely (interquartile range, 2.6-5.1 years), but similar between index and nonindex explants (4.2 years vs 4.1 years). Partial explantation was performed in 61.5%, with implant duration slightly lower, 3.2 years versus 4.4 years for complete explants. Partial explantation was more frequent in index explants (68.2% vs 56.7%). The median length of stay was 8 days. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 3 days, without significant differences in nonindex explants (4 days vs 3 days) and partial explants (4 days vs 3 days). Thirty-day mortality occurred in two nonindex explants (one partial and one complete explant). Thirty-day readmission was similar between partial and complete explants (9.7% vs 5.0%), without accounting for nonindex readmissions. Long-term survival was comparable between partial and complete explants in Cox regression (hazard ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-7.56; P = .12).Explants of EVAR devices have increased over time at our institution. Partial explant was performed in more than one-half of cases, per operating surgeon discretion, demonstrating higher blood loss, more frequent acute kidney injury, and longer intensive care unit stays, however with comparable short-term mortality and long-term survival.

Evolution of aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) over time may range from resolution to degeneration and is difficult to predict. We sought to measure differences in contrast attenuation between arterial and delayed phase computed tomography angiography (CTA) images within the IMH as a surrogate of hematoma blood flow to predict resolution versus aortic growth and/or adverse outcomes.IMH institutional data were gathered from 2005-2020. Hounsfield unit ratio (HUR) was measured as hematoma Hounsfield unit (HU), on delayed phase images divided by HU on arterial phase images on CTA. Aortic growth and effect of HUR was determined using a linear mixed effects model. Freedom from adverse aortic event, defined as the composite of intervention, recurrence of symptoms, radiographic progression, and rupture, was determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis.IMH occurred in 73 patients, of which 27 met the inclusion criteria. HUR ranged from 0.38-1.92 (mean: 0.98). Baseline aortic diameter growth independent of HUR measurement was 0.49 mm/year (95% confidence interval CI: -1.23 to 2.2). With the HUR was introduced into the model, the beta coefficient for time was -5.83 mm/year (95% CI: -10.4 to -1.28 mm/year) and the beta coefficient for the HUR was 5.05 mm/year per one-unit HUR (95% CI: 0.56 to 9.56 mm/year). Thus, an HUR1.15 would correspond to aortic growth while an HUR1.15 would correspond to reduction in aortic diameter, consistent with IMH resolution. Aortic adverse events occurred in 13 (48%) patients, 7 (26%) patients had recurrence of symptoms, 8 (30%) required intervention, 5 (18%) progressed to dissection, and 1(4%) had aortic rupture. There was a trend towards an association between higher HUR and composite adverse aortic events (HR 3.2 per 1-unit HUR; 95% CI: 0.6-17.3; P = 0.18).Increased HUR is associated with increased aortic growth and a trend toward adverse aortic events. Diminished delayed phase enhancement may predict partial or complete IMH resolution. HUR can be used to guide IMH surveillance and treatment.

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACoS) is a devastating complication after endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rEVAR). This study sought to develop a risk score for ACoS to identify patients who would benefit from early decompressive laparotomy.Model derivation was performed with Vascular Quality Initiative data for rEVAR from 2013 to 2020. The primary outcome was evacuation of abdominal hematoma. A multivariable logistic regression was used to create and validate a scoring system to predict ACoS. The model was validated using institutional data for rEVAR from 1998 to 2019.The derivation cohort included 2,310 patients with rEVAR. Abdominal hematoma evacuation occurred in 265 patients (11.5%). Factors associated with abdominal hematoma evacuation on a multivariable analysis included transfer from an outside hospital, preoperative creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dL, preoperative systolic blood pressure ≤85 mmHg, preoperative altered mental status, ≥3.0 liters intraoperative crystalloid, and ≥4 units of red blood cells transfused intraoperatively. The validation cohort consisted of 67 rEVAR; ACoS occurred in 8 patients (11.9%). The c-statistic was 0.84 in the derivation and 0.87 in the validation cohort, whereas Hosmer-Lemeshow was P = 0.15 in the derivation and 0.84 in the validation cohorts, suggesting good model discrimination and calibration. Points were applied based on β-coefficients to produce a risk score ranging from -1 to 13. A cutoff of risk score ≥8 resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 87.5% and 83.1% for detecting patients with ACoS, respectively. ACoS conveyed a significantly higher mortality in both the derivation (ACoS: 49.8% vs. No ACoS: 17.8%; P0.001) and validation cohorts (ACoS: 75.0% vs. No ACoS: 15.2%; P0.001).In patients with equivocal signs/symptoms of ACoS, this scoring system can be used to guide surgeons on when to perform decompressive laparotomy prior to leaving the operating room for rEVAR. Patients with a risk score ≥8 would benefit from decompressive laparotomy at index rEVAR.

Objective: Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers’ consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.Results: Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.Conclusion: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.

There have been significant advancements in endovascular technology over the past decade. Increasingly complex disease processes are being addressed in a less invasive fashion, while still relying on standard 2-dimensional greyscale fluoroscopy imaging to guide the procedures. With the advent of flat-panel detectors as standard on fluoroscopy units and the use of fluoroscopy cone-beam computed tomography, the development of improved imaging tools has occurred that will help improve the imaging modalities used to perform these endovascular procedures. Fusion imaging, the overlay of preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomographic images, helps interventionalists perform endovascular procedures. Building on this technology, improvements in its function and use have occurred with the additional application of artificial intelligence and machine learning, allowing the images to independently accommodate to changes in the visualised anatomy. Corresponding development of navigation systems, allowing for the tracking of endovascular tools within these images by means of either fibre optics or electromagnetic field generators, are looking to improve the accuracy of the procedures while reducing the need for radiation and contrast agents. These tools are making a dramatic change in our ability to perform complex endovascular procedures, and are the future gold standard. Ultimately, these will allow procedures to occur more quickly and more safely.

Endovascular aneurysm repair has become a primary treatment modality for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms due to its less invasive nature and improved peri-operative mortality rates compared with conventional open surgery. Long-term, endovascular aneurysm repair is hindered by the need for reintervention due to a variety of reasons. Device improvements are directed toward improving these long-term outcomes. The current manuscript highlights some of the details of the Terumo Aortic TREO abdominal aortic stent-graft, which was approved in 2020 for clinical use by the US FDA. A brief review of the available clinical outcomes from the US trial, as well as experience in the rest of the world, are provided demonstrating its excellent performance.

OBJECTIVE Although the transabdominal approach (TAA) and lateral approach (LA) to open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) are both acceptable and widely used, a paucity of data evaluating subsequent postoperative laparotomy-associated complications (LCs) is available. The aim of the present study was to establish the incidence of LCs after OAR and determine which approach was associated with an increase in long-term LCs. METHODS An institutional database for OAR (2010-2019) was queried, excluding urgent and emergent cases. The primary endpoint was long-term LCs, defined as any complication related to entry into the abdomen. The LA included retroperitoneal and thoracoabdominal approaches and the TAA included all patients with midline incisions. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the freedom from LCs, and the Fine-Gray method was used to determine the predictors of LCs, with death as a competing risk. RESULTS A total of 241 patients (mean age, 70.0 ± 9.1 years; 71.7% men) had undergone OAR, 91 via a TAA and 150 via a LA. The patients in the TAA group were significantly younger (age, 66.7 ± 8.9 vs 72.1 ± 8.7 years; P < .001), more likely to be male (83.5% vs 64.7%; P = .002), and more likely to have a history of small bowel obstruction (SBO; 3.3% vs 0%; P = .025). Patients in the LA group were more likely to have required a supraceliac clamp (20.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001). No difference was found in the incidence of perioperative complications or long-term mortality. The most common LCs were hernia (TAA, 26.4%; LA, 11.3%; P = .003), SBO (TAA, 8.8%, LA, 1.3%; P = .005), and other (TAA, 13.2%; LA, 2.0%; P = .001), which included evisceration, bowel ischemia, splenic injuries requiring reintervention, enterocutaneous fistula, internal hernia, and retrograde ejaculation. Operative LCs were more common in the TAA group (17.6% vs 2.7%; P < .001). The unadjusted 1-, 3-, and 5-year freedom from LCs was 77.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.0%-85.8%), 60.5% (95% CI, 46.5%-71.9%), and 54.0% (95% CI, 38.8%-67.0%) for TAA and 94.8% (95% CI, 88.8%-97.7%), 82.2% (95% CI, 72.2%-88.9%), and 79.1% (95% CI, 68.4%-86.5%) for LA, respectively (log-rank P < .001). The predictors for LCs were a history of SBO (P = .001), increasing body mass index (P = .005), and the use of the TAA (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Use of the TAA was an independent predictor of long-term LCs after OAR, along with an increasing body mass index and a history of SBO. In patients with amenable anatomy, the LA is favorable for preventing long-term LCs, especially in high-risk patients.

Although percutaneous brachial access has been used more often for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), previous studies have suggested that open brachial artery exposure for access is associated with fewer complications than percutaneous access. The present study sought to determine the incidence of complications for each access method and identify the predictors of access site complications after brachial access.The Vascular Quality Initiative national database was queried for all patients who had undergone PVI with brachial artery access from 2016 to 2019. Procedures with simultaneous thrombolysis or open procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was any perioperative brachial artery access complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify any associated predictors.A total of 1400 procedures had been performed for 1242 patients; 189 procedures (13.5%) had used an open exposure. The mean patient age was 67.3 ± 9.5 years, and 55.7% of the procedures were on men. No significant demographic differences were found between the open and percutaneous groups. Open exposure procedures were more likely to have used sheaths5F (79.4% vs 59.0%; P .001) and treated more arteries (2.0 ± 1.8 vs 1.7 ± 0.9; P .001) but less likely to have used multiple access sites (8.5% vs 20.1%; P .001). Access complications occurred in 7.5% of the percutaneous procedures and 1.6% of the open exposures (P = .003). Percutaneous access was independently associated with the occurrence of brachial access complications (odds ratio [OR], 5.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-19.9; P = .004). Other associated factors included female sex (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.44-3.44; P .001), congestive heart failure (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.26-3.24; P = .003), and increasing sheath size (OR, 1.36 per each 1F increase in size; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72; P = .011); diabetes was protective (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83; P = .006).Open exposure might be advantageous compared with percutaneous access for preventing complications after brachial access. However, the difference in complications was driven by hematomas that were managed nonoperatively. Operative complications were more common in the percutaneous group, although this did not reach statistical significance. Percutaneous access should be used cautiously in women, patients with a history of congestive heart failure, those without diabetes, and interventions in which larger sheaths are required.

The endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms has evolved during the last 2 decades, making fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair the preferred method to repair thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in high-risk patients. Single-center publications have given vascular specialists a significant amount of data, but patient numbers and clinical event rates remain limited. Statistical power to answer important clinical questions is often limited in the single-center studies published to date. In 2018, the principal investigators at the 10 physician-sponsored Investigational Device Exemption centers in the United States decided to coordinate and collect their data in a similar fashion. This effort would allow for the development of the largest cohort of patients in the world treated with complex endovascular devices. By combining efforts and resources, a much larger dataset was compiled to help resolve some of the unanswered questions about patients with complex aortic pathology. To date, the US Aortic Research Consortium has collected data from 2,281 patients and 9,124 target vessel treatment with complex aortic aneurysms treated with custom-manufactured fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair devices. These data have resulted in the publication of seven peer-reviewed articles describing various aspects and outcomes of complex endovascular aortic treatment.

The use of upper extremity (UE) access is an accepted and often implemented approach for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR). The advent of steerable sheaths has enabled the performance of F-BEVAR using a total transfemoral (TF) approach without UE access, potentially decreasing the risks of cerebral embolic events. The purpose of the present study was to assess the outcomes of F-BEVAR using UE vs TF access.Prospectively collected data from nine physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at U.S. centers were analyzed using a standardized database. All patients were treated for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using industry-manufactured fenestrated and branched stent grafts between 2005 and 2020. The outcomes were compared between patients who had undergone UE vs total TF access. The primary composite outcome was stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) and 30-day or in-patient mortality during the perioperative period. The secondary outcomes included technical success, local access-related complications, and perioperative mortality.Among 1681 patients (71% men; mean age, 73.43 ± 7.8 years) who had undergone F-BEVAR, 502 had had CAAAs (30%), 535 had had extent IV TAAAs (32%), and 644 had had extent I to III TAAAs (38%). UE access was used for 1103 patients (67%). The right side was used for 395 patients (24%) and the left side for 705 patients (42%). UE access was preferentially used for TAAAs (74% vs 47%; P .001). In contrast, TF access was used more frequently for CAAAs (53% vs 26%; P .01). A total of 38 perioperative cerebrovascular events (2.5%), including 32 strokes (1.9%) and 6 TIAs (0.4%), had occurred. Perioperative cerebrovascular events had occurred more frequently with UE access than with TF access (2.8% vs 1.2%; P = .036). An individual component analysis of the primary composite outcome revealed a trend for more frequent strokes (2.3% vs 1.2%; P = .13) and TIAs (0.54% vs 0%; P = .10) in the UE access group. On multivariable analysis, total TF access was associated with a 60% reduction in the frequency of perioperative cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 0.39; P = .029). No significant differences were observed between UE and TF access in the technical success rate (96.5% vs 96.8%; P = .72), perioperative mortality (2.9% vs 2.6%; P = .72), or local access-related complications (6.5% vs 5.5%; P = .43).In the present large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, a total TF approach for F-BEVAR was associated with a lower rate of perioperative cerebrovascular events compared with UE access. Although the cerebrovascular event rate was low with UE access, the TF approach offered a lower risk of stroke and TIA. UE access will continue to play a role for appropriately selected patients requiring more complex repairs with anatomy not amenable to the TF approach.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) results have been studied in short-term time frames. This study aimed to evaluate midterm and long-term outcomes of TEVAR, emphasizing postoperative aortic remodeling and need for reintervention.This is an institutional retrospective review of TEVAR for isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Data were collected from 2004 to 2018. Primary outcomes studied included aneurysm sac remodeling, freedom from reintervention, and all-cause mortality. Other outcomes studied include endoleak rates, neurologic complication rates, and any overall postoperative complication rates.During the study period, 219 patients underwent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. The median effect of TEVAR on sac diameter was a 0.7-cm decrease in size (interquartile range, -1.4 to 0.0 cm). During the study period, 80% (n = 147) of patients experienced aneurysm sac regression or stability. Perioperative neurologic complications occurred in 16% (n = 34) of patients. Significant predictors of sac growth were endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 65; P .001), preoperative carotid-subclavian bypass (OR, 8; P = .003), and graft oversizing 20% (OR, 15; P = .046). Every 1-mm increase in aortic diameter at the proximal TEVAR landing zone led to an increased odds of endoleak (OR, 2; P = .049). Access complications (OR, 8) and subclavian artery coverage (OR, 6) significantly increased the odds of reintervention, whereas every percentage of graft oversizing protected against reintervention (OR, 0.005). Life-table analysis revealed an overall survival of 78% (71%-83%) at median follow-up. At 3 years, survival was 88% (80%-93%) for those with aneurysm sac stability or regression, whereas it was 70% (49%-84%) for those with aneurysm sac growth (P = .0402). Cox proportional hazards model showed that the only protective factor for mortality was percentage oversizing, with every 1% of oversizing having a hazard ratio (HR) of .001 (P = .032). This was counterbalanced by the fact that patients with graft oversizing30% had an increased odds of mortality with HR10 (P = .049). Other significant factors that increased the odds of mortality included endoleak (HR, 3.6; P = .033), diabetes (HR, 4.1; P = .048), age (every 1-year increase in age; HR, 1.2; P = .002), year of surgery (every year subsequent to 2004; HR, 1.3; P = .012), and peripheral artery disease (HR, 5.2; P = .041).The majority of patients (80%) experience sac stability or regression after TEVAR, which offers a clear survival advantage. Endoleaks are predictive of sac growth, conferring increased mortality. Rigorous surveillance is necessary to prevent future aortic events through reintervention.

Objective The ideal mating stent for target vessel revascularization in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) of juxtarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms remains unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes associated with use of different stent types and configurations mated with reinforced fenestrations during FEVAR. Methods Clinical data from patients undergoing FEVAR for juxtarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial were analyzed. Outcomes for two different balloon-expandable covered stents (BECSs) mated with reinforced fenestrations were assessed along with the impact of distal extension with a self-expanding stent (SES). Primary patency, branch-related endoleak, and reintervention rates were determined. Cox proportional hazards model was used for time-to-event analysis. Results From 2001 to 2016, there were 918 patients who underwent fenestrated or branched endograft repair of complex aortic aneurysms; 1604 renal arteries (RAs), 714 superior mesenteric arteries (SMAs), and 333 celiac arteries (CAs) were mated with reinforced fenestrations using JOMED (n = 2014; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif) or iCAST (n = 637; Atrium Medical, Hudson, NH) BECSs. The type of BECS did not affect short-term or long-term patency, branch-related endoleaks, or reintervention rates in the RA, SMA, or CA. Twenty-five percent (402/1604) of RAs, 84% (598/714) of SMAs, and 8% (27/333) of CAs underwent distal SES extension at the index operation. RAs with a distal SES in addition to the BECS had a higher likelihood of an occlusion event (hazard ratio, 2.791; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-5.48; P = .003) and reinterventions (P = .036) compared with those without an SES. Addition of a distal SES to the BECS in the SMA or CA did not have an impact on patency or reintervention rates. Conclusions BECS choice does not appear to have an impact on branch durability after FEVAR. Selective distal SES placement in RAs with high-risk anatomy does not appear to significantly protect against an occlusion event or to prevent secondary interventions. Routine addition of a distal SES does not improve SMA fenestration durability.

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has had major implications for the United States healthcare system. This survey study sought to identify practice changes, understand current personal protection equipment (PPE) use, and determine how caring for patients with COVID-19 differs for vascular surgeons practicing in states with high COVID-19 case numbers versus low case numbers. Methods A fourteen-question online survey regarding the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular surgeons’ current practice was sent to 365 vascular surgeons across the country via REDCap from 4/14/2020 to 4/21/2020 with responses closed on 4/23/2020. The survey response was analyzed with descriptive statistics. Further analyses were performed to evaluate whether responses from states with the highest number of COVID-19 cases (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and California) differed from those with lower case numbers (all other states). Results A total of 121 vascular surgeon responded (30.6%) to the survey. All high-volume states were represented. The majority of vascular surgeons are reusing PPE The majority of respondents worked in an academic setting (81.5%) and were performing only urgent and emergent cases (80.5%) during preparation for the surge. This did not differ between high case and low COVID case states (p=0.285). High case states were less likely to perform a lower extremity intervention for critical limb ischemia (60.8% vs. 77.5%, p=0.046), but otherwise case types did not differ. Most attendings work with residents (90.8%) and limited their exposure to procedures on suspected/confirmed COVID-19 cases (56.0%). Thirty-eight percent of attendings have been redeployed within the hospital to a vascular access service, and/or other service outside of vascular surgery. This was more frequent in high case volume states compared to low case volume states (p=0.039). The majority of vascular surgeons are reusing PPE (71.4%) and N95 masks (86.4%), and 21% of vascular surgeons feel that they do not have adequate PPE to perform clinical their duties. Conclusion The initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in reduced elective cases with primarily only urgent and emergent cases being performed. A minority of vascular surgeons have been redeployed outside of their specialty, however, this is more common among states with high case numbers. Adequate PPE remains an issue for almost a quarter of vascular surgeons who responded to this survey., ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS: Type of research: Nationwide survey of attending vascular surgeons Key Finding: Most of the 121 vascular attendings who responded are limiting resident involvement in COVID-19 positive cases, 38% of attendings have been redeployed to services other than traditional vascular surgery, such as the ICU and vascular access service, and 71% are reusing personal protective equipment (PPE). Twenty-one percent of vascular surgeons do not feel they have adequate access to PPE. Take Home Message: There have been major changes to vascular surgery practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although prior endovascular intervention is a risk factor for inferior outcomes after infrainguinal bypass, there are few studies evaluating the effect of prior aortoiliac endovascular intervention (AIEI) on outcomes after aortofemoral bypass (AFB). We sought to determine if prior AIEI was predictive of adverse events after AFB.The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all patients who underwent AFB form 2009 to 2019. Urgent/emergent cases and repeat procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes were major perioperative complications, major adverse limb event (MALE)-free survival, and long-term survival. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of major complications. Predictors of MALE-free survival were identified with Cox proportional hazards modeling.There were 3,056 patients who underwent AFB; 618 had a prior AIEI. Mean age was 60.3 ± 8.7 years, and 58.7% of patients were men. There was no difference in major complications between the 2 groups (AIEI: 23.8%, no AIEI: 24.5%; P-value = 0.70). Factors associated with major complications were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.54; P = 0.008), simultaneous lower extremity intervention (endarterectomy, bypass, or transluminal intervention, OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.18-1.69; P 0.001), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.15-2.16; P = 0.004), increased age (OR 1.03 per year, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04; P 0.001), increasing operative blood loss (OR 1.35 per liter, 95% CI: 1.21-1.50; P 0.001), increasing operative time (OR 1.07 per hour, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13; P = 0.008), and end-to-side proximal anastomosis (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.03-1.46; P = 0.022). One-year MALE-Free survival was 88.2% (95% CI: 85.2-90.7%) for the prior AIEI group and 89.7% (95% CI: 88.3-90.7%) for the group without prior AIEI (logrank P-value = 0.201). Predictors of MALEs/death were history of a bypass (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% CI: 1.16-1.96; P = 0.002), increasing degree of ischemia on presentation (HR 1.28 per increasing level of ischemia, 95% CI: 1.16-1.41; P 0.001), diabetes (HR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.05-1.59; P = 0.014), simultaneous peripheral vascular intervention (HR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.02-4.15; P = 0.044), CHF (HR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.18-2.18; P = 0.002), end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis (HR 5.07, 95% CI: 2.45-10.48; P 0.001), and presenting hemoglobin9 g/dl (HR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.02-3.02; P = 0.041). One-year survival for the prior AIEI group was 94.5% (95% CI: 92.2-96.1%) and 94.0% (95% CI: 92.9-94.9%) for the group with no prior AIEI (logrank P = 0.486). Prior AIEI did not predict any of the primary outcomes in multivariable analysis.An endovascular-first approach for aortoiliac occlusive disease appears to be safe and does not portend to inferior results after AFB.

Background Spinal cord ischemia/infarction (SCI) is a devastating complication of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair that can result in permanent paresis or paralysis. The reported incidence of SCI after aortic interventions has ranged from 2% to 10%. Methods to prevent SCI are a topic of ongoing research, and many current practices have been based on expert opinion. Methods In an effort to better delineate the best practice models for SCI prevention during endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, a 65-question survey was completed by the eight principal investigators of the U.S. Aortic Research Consortium to capture data related to current practices and management strategies related to the prevention and treatment of SCI. Specific categories of interest included considerations for the “high-risk” classification of SCI, current perioperative prevention practices, indications for and management of spinal drains, and SCI rescue maneuvers. Results The most common practices routinely included blood pressure elevation (7 of 8; 87.5%), with most having a mean arterial pressure goal of not less than 90 mm Hg in the perioperative period (5 of 7; 71%), a hemoglobin goal intra- and postoperatively of not less than 10 mg/dL (6 of 8; 75%), and the use of prophylactic spinal drains in high-risk patients (6 of 8; 75%). Significant variation was found among the group for the timing of the resumption of antihypertensive medications, duration of hemoglobin goals after the procedure, and management of spinal drains. Many methods described in reported studies were not routinely used by most of the group, including a perioperative steroid bolus (1 of 8; 12.5%), mannitol (2 of 8; 25%), and naloxone infusion (1 of 8; 12.5%). Rescue maneuvers included placement of a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain if not already present (8 of 8; 100%), decreasing the target CSF drain pop-off pressure (6 of 8; 75%), increasing the CSF drainage volume (5 of 8; 62.5%), increasing the mean arterial pressure goal (8 of 8; 100%), increasing the hemoglobin goal (8 of 8; 100%), and imaging the spine using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (7 of 8; 87.5). Conclusions In general, consistent broad practices were used by most of the consortium; however, the details of specific parameters (ie, spinal drain management, therapy duration, and timing of resumption of antihypertensive medication) varied among the group. The U.S. Aortic Research Consortium group used the results of the survey for discussion and agreed on standardized SCI prevention recommendations in accordance with the group's collective expert opinion and experience. Variations in current practice were also identified to act as a foundation for future study, the most notable of which was the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic vs prophylactic use of CSF drains in the prevention of SCI.

Objective To determine if premature menopause and early menarche are associated with increased risk of AAA, and to explore potential effect modification by smoking history. Summary of background data Despite worse outcomes for women with AAA, no studies have prospectively examined sex-specific risk factors, such as premature menopause and early menarche, with risk of AAA in a large, ethnically diverse cohort of women. Methods This was a post-hoc analysis of Women's Health Initiative participants who were beneficiaries of Medicare Parts A&B fee-for-service. AAA cases and interventions were identified from claims data. Follow-up period included Medicare coverage until death, end of follow-up or end of coverage inclusive of 2017. Results Of 101,119 participants included in the analysis, the mean age was 63 years and median follow-up was 11.3 years. Just under 10,000 (9.4%) women experienced premature menopause and 22,240 (22%) experienced early menarche. Women with premature menopause were more likely to be overweight, Black, have ≥20 pack years of smoking, history of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and early menarche. During 1,091,840 person-years of follow-up, 1125 women were diagnosed with AAA, 134 had premature menopause (11.9%), 93 underwent surgical intervention and 45 (48%) required intervention for ruptured AAA. Premature menopause was associated with increased risk of AAA [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.14, 1.66)], but the association was no longer significant after multivariable adjustment for demographics and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Amongst women with ≥20 pack year smoking history (n = 19,286), 2148 (11.1%) had premature menopause, which was associated with greater risk of AAA in all models [hazard ratio 1.63 (1.24, 2.23)]. Early menarche was not associated with increased risk of AAA. Conclusions This study finds that premature menopause may be an important risk factor for AAA in women with significant smoking history. There was no significant association between premature menopause and risk of AAA amongst women who have never smoked. These results suggest an opportunity to develop strategies for better screening, risk reduction and stratification, and outcome improvement in the comprehensive vascular care of women.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of patients requiring open supra-aortic trunk (SAT) reconstruction have significant carotid artery stenosis. The addition of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to SAT has been described. Yet, additive risks are not well defined and controversy remains as to whether concomitant CEA increases stroke risk. This study assessed the perioperative effects of adding CEA to SAT. METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), patients who underwent SAT from 2005 to 2015 were evaluated. SAT + CEA were identified. An isolated SAT (ISAT) cohort was created by removing patients who underwent concurrent secondary procedures. Nonocclusive indications were excluded. SAT + CEA were compared with ISAT as well as a propensity-matched ISAT cohort. Primary outcomes were 30-day stroke, death, and composite stroke/death/myocardial infarction (SDM). Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: After review, 1,515 patients were identified: 1,245 ISAT (82%) and 270 SAT + CEA (18%). Most were women (56%), 86% were Caucasian, and 24% were symptomatic. Average age was 65 ± 12 years and SAT + CEA were older (69 vs. 64 years, P < 0.001), CEA + SAT were more likely to be men (53% vs. 42%, P < 0.001), have hypertension (86% vs. 75%, P < 0.001) and diabetes (26% vs. 20%, P = 0.04). SAT procedures included the following: carotid-subclavian bypass (68%), carotid-carotid bypass (16%), aorta-great vessel bypass (9%), and carotid-subclavian transposition (7%). ISAT were more likely to undergo carotid-subclavian bypass than SAT + CEA (71% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Overall stroke was 2.3%, death 1.4%, and SDM 4.6%. There were no differences in 30-day stroke (ISAT 2.0% vs. SAT + CEA 3.7%, P = 0.09) or mortality (1.4% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.88). SAT + CEA had higher rates of SDM (7% vs. 4%, P = 0.03). On logistic regression, urgency was a predictor of SDM (operating room [OR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–8.4, P= 0.003); addition of CEA was not predictive of stroke (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5–4.2, P = 0.52) or SDM (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.6–3.6, P = 0.40). After propensity matching, there were no longer differences in demographics or primary end points between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of CEA does not confer increased perioperative stroke or SDM risk over ISAT. Perioperative outcomes appear to be more affected by disseminated disease risk factors than the addition of CEA. In patients undergoing SAT, it is reasonable to consider performing combined CEA in populations with tandem carotid bifurcation disease and appropriate operative risk profile.

This study reports the clinical impact of iliac artery aneurysms (IAAs) in a population of patients with juxtarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms being treated with fenestrated or branched aortic endografts.Data from 364 patients with IAA (33%) were extracted from the 1118 patients treated for juxtarenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with a fenestrated or branched aortic endograft in a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial (2001-2016). IAAs were defined as ≥21 mm in diameter, as measured by an imaging core laboratory. Outcomes were assessed by univariate and multivariable analysis.IAAs were unilateral in 219 (60%) and bilateral in 145 (40%) of the 364 patients. Treatment was iliac leg endoprosthesis without coverage of the hypogastric artery (seal distal to the IAA in the common iliac artery), placement of a hypogastric branched endograft in 105 (21%), and hypogastric artery coverage with extension into the external iliac artery in 103 (20%); 67 (13%) were untreated. Procedure duration was longer for those with IAA (5.3 ± 1.79 hours vs 4.6 ± 1.74 hours; P .001), although hospital stay was not. There was no difference in aneurysm-related mortality and all-cause mortality for patients with unilateral and bilateral IAAs compared with those without an IAA. Treatment of patients with a hypogastric branched endograft had similar all-cause mortality compared with treatment of patients without a hypogastric branched endograft but also with an IAA. Reintervention rates were significantly higher in those with bilateral IAAs compared with no IAA (hazard ratio, 1.886; P .001). Spinal cord ischemia trended higher in patients with bilateral IAA.IAA management at the time of fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair increases procedure time without increasing hospitalization. The reintervention rate and spinal cord ischemia rate are higher in patients with bilateral IAA compared with those with no IAA.

This study aimed to understand the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients being treated for aortic dissection.Patients undergoing TEVAR from January 2014 to March 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database were analyzed. Patients with aortic dissection who underwent TEVAR were divided into quartiles based on the annual TEVAR volume of their vascular surgeon. The highest quartile, middle two quartiles, and lowest quartile were deemed high volume (HV), moderate volume (MV), and low volume (LV), respectively. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to compare cohort outcomes in terms any postoperative complication, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, reintervention, and 30-day mortality. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the hazard of overall postoperative mortality.Among 1217 patients undergoing TEVAR, 321, 621, and 275 were performed by HV, MV, and LV surgeons, respectively. HV surgeons performed19 annual TEVARs, MV surgeons between five and 18, and LV surgeons four or less. Adjusted odds of any postoperative complication revealed that HV and MV surgeons had lower odds of overall postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.85; P = .011 and OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.87; P = .008, respectively) when compared with patients of LV surgeons. Patients of HV surgeons had lower odds of respiratory complications than those of LV surgeons (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93; P = .039). Adjusted analysis of outcomes including spinal cord ischemia, stroke, myocardial infarction, 30-day mortality, and overall mortality did not reveal statistically significant differences between cohorts.Surgeon volume does not to impact 30-day mortality or long-term mortality after TEVAR for aortic dissection, but the odds of overall postoperative complications were lower for HV and MV surgeons when compared with LV surgeons.

Objective Failure of infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to loss of proximal seal is increasingly common. Open surgical conversion can be challenging and has been associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) for the treatment of patients with prior EVAR failure. Methods Consecutive patients enrolled as part of the Aortic Research Consortium in six prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies evaluating F/BEVAR between 2012 and 2018 were included in this study. The cohort was stratified according to whether the F/BEVAR procedure was performed after EVAR failure. Demographics, operative details, perioperative complications, and length of stay were compared between groups. Postprocedural survival, type I or type III endoleak, target artery patency, target artery instability, and reintervention rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups. Results A total of 893 patients underwent F/BEVAR; 161 (18%) were treated after failed EVAR and 732 (82%) were treated without prior EVAR. Patients with failed EVAR were more often men (84% vs 66%; P Conclusions In this multicenter study, F/BEVAR was safe and effective in patients with prior failed EVAR, with nearly identical outcomes to those of patients without prior EVAR. However, differences in procedural metrics indicate higher level of technical challenge in performing F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR.

The current management of acute complicated type B aortic dissection is a combination of medical therapy and endovascular repair. Endovascular repair is not feasible when the dissection extends into the aortic arch. We describe 3 patients with acute type B aortic dissection complicated by retrograde arch extension and visceral malperfusion who were successfully treated with a total arch replacement and frozen elephant trunk.

Objective The few randomized trials comparing endovascular with open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) were poorly designed and heavily criticized. The short-term and midterm survival advantages of endovascular repair remain unclear. We sought to compare the two treatment modalities using a propensity-matched analysis in a real-world setting. Methods All ruptured cases of open surgical repair (rOSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed (2003-2018). Raw and propensity-matched rEVAR and rOSR cohorts were compared. Primary and secondary outcomes included postoperative major adverse events (cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, bowel or limb ischemia, reoperation) and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Univariate, multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed. Results There were 4929 rAAA repairs performed, 2749 rEVAR and 2180 rOSR. Compared with rEVAR patients, rOSR patients had higher rates of myocardial ischemic events (15% vs 10%; P Conclusions This is one of the largest studies of rAAA demonstrating clear short-term and midterm survival benefits of rEVAR over rOSR that persisted after matching on all major demographic, comorbid, and anatomic variables. Furthermore, patients who survived rOSR had twice the length of stay with increased rates of complications compared with rEVAR patients. These data suggest a more aggressive endovascular approach for rAAA in patients with suitable anatomy.

This study aimed to determine if there is an association between ABO blood type and severity of COVID-19 defined by intubation or death as well as ascertain if there is variability in testing positive for COVID-19 between blood types. In a multi-institutional study, all adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 across five hospitals were identified and included from March 6th to April 16th, 2020. Hospitalization, intubation, and death were evaluated for association with blood type. Univariate analysis was conducted using standard techniques and logistic regression was used to determine the independent effect of blood type on intubation and/or death and positive testing. During the study period, there were 7648 patients who received COVID-19 testing throughout the institutions. Of these, 1289 tested positive with a known blood type. A total of 484 (37.5%) were admitted to hospital, 123 (9.5%) were admitted to the ICU, 108 (8.4%) were intubated, 3 (0.2%) required ECMO, and 89 (6.9%) died. Of the 1289 patients who tested positive, 440 (34.2%) were blood type A, 201 (15.6%) were blood type B, 61 (4.7%) were blood type AB, and 587 (45.5%) were blood type O. On univariate analysis, there was no association between blood type and any of the peak inflammatory markers (peak WBC, p = 0.25; peak LDH, p = 0.40; peak ESR, p = 0.16; peak CRP, p = 0.14) nor between blood type and any of the clinical outcomes of severity (admission p = 0.20, ICU admission p = 0.94, intubation p = 0.93, proning while intubated p = 0.58, ECMO p = 0.09, and death p = 0.49). After multivariable analysis, blood type was not independently associated with risk of intubation or death (referent blood type A; blood type B: AOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.42-1.26, blood type AB: AOR: 0.78, CI: 0.33-1.87, blood type O: AOR: 0.77, CI: 0.51-1.16), rhesus factor positive (Rh+): AOR: 1.03, CI: 0.93-1.86. Blood type A had no correlation with positive testing (AOR: 1.00, CI: 0.88-1.13), blood type B was associated with higher odds of testing positive for disease (AOR: 1.28, CI: 1.08-1.52), AB was also associated with higher odds of testing positive (AOR: 1.37, CI: 1.02-1.83), and O was associated with a lower risk of testing positive (AOR: 0.84, CI: 0.75-0.95). Rh+ status was associated with higher odds of testing positive (AOR: 1.23, CI: 1.003-1.50). Blood type was not associated with risk of intubation or death in patients with COVID-19. Patients with blood types B and AB who received a test were more likely to test positive and blood type O was less likely to test positive. Rh+ patients were more likely to test positive.

Background This study evaluates the impact of surgical specialty, specifically vascular surgery (VS) versus non-VS (NVS; namely, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, general surgery, or neurosurgery) on perioperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) outcomes stratified by symptom status on presentation. Methods The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Vascular Procedure Targeted database was queried for elective asymptomatic or symptomatic CEA (excluding concomitant CEA and cardiac surgery) from 2011 to 2016. Data were stratified by VS versus NVS and symptom presentation. Primary end points were 30-day stroke and stroke/death; secondary end points included perioperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression determined predictors of all assessed primary outcomes and propensity-weight analysis was used to confirm results. Results Overall, 21,060 CEA (12,671 [59%] asymptomatic) were identified with 19,687 (93%) done by VS. In the asymptomatic CEA cohort, VS had lower unadjusted stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; P = .021) and stroke/death (1.7% vs 3.2%; P = .006) rates. In addition, VS had fewer deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; P = .033) and pulmonary complications (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .036). After risk adjustment, the NVS asymptomatic cohort predicted stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.1; P = .032), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.2; P = .008). This NVS cohort also predicted stroke/death (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .013), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.7; P = .035). After propensity weighting, these differences persisted (stroke: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3; P = .030; stroke/death: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .011). Among symptomatic CEA, there was no difference between VS and NVS in unadjusted primary end points of stroke (3.1% vs 4.2%; P = .106) or stroke/death (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .275). However, in this cohort, VS had fewer major complications (12.7% vs 15.5%; P = .029). Conclusions This study identifies the VS specialty as having significantly better outcomes after CEA in patients presenting with asymptomatic disease than NVS specialty, as evidenced by lower rates of stroke and stroke death, which persisted after risk adjustment and propensity weighting. This difference in stroke and stroke/death was not apparent in the symptomatic cohort; however, NVS did have increased unadjusted rates of major complications. Although this finding may reflect multiple factors, including higher operative volume, training, or technical approach, these differences in 30-day CEA outcomes may be crucial for the proper interpretation of ongoing national outcome trials such as CREST2.

Patients undergoing lower extremity bypass (LEB) for peripheral artery disease require intensive health care resource utilization including rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities. However, few studies have evaluated factors that lead to nonhome discharge (NHD) in this population of patients. This study sought to predict NHD by preoperative risk factors in patients undergoing LEB for peripheral artery disease using a novel risk score.The Vascular Study Group of New England database was queried for elective LEB for peripheral artery disease including claudication and critical limb ischemia from 2003 to 2017. Patients were excluded if the procedure was not elective, if they were not admitted from home, if they were bedridden, or if they died during the index admission. Only preoperative factors were considered in the analysis. The primary end point was NHD including rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities. Data were split two-thirds for model derivation and one-third for validation. In the derivation cohort, bivariate analysis assessed the association of preoperative factors with NHD. A parsimonious manual stepwise binary logistic regression for NHD aimed at maximizing the C statistic while maintaining model simplicity was performed. A risk score was developed using the β coefficients and applied to the validation data set. The risk score performance was assessed using a C statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow test for model fit.There were 10,145 cases included with an overall NHD rate of 26.4% (n = 2676). Mean age was 66 years (range, 41-90 years). NHD patients were older (72 years vs 64 years; P .01) and more frequently male (57.2% vs 42.8%; P .01) and nonwhite (16.1% vs 9.9%; P .01); they more frequently had tissue loss (54.2% vs 23.0%; P .01), anemia (16.0% vs 5.3%; P .01), severe cardiac comorbidity (21.8% vs 10.5%; P .01), and insulin-dependent diabetes (33.3% vs 18.2%; P .01). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with NHD included age, sex, nonwhite race, tissue loss, cardiac comorbidity, partial ambulatory deficit, and insulin-dependent diabetes. The C statistic was 0.78 in the derivation group and 0.79 in the validation group, with Hosmer-Lemeshow P.999. The risk score ranged from 0 to 18, with a mean score of 4 (standard deviation ±3.5). The risk score was divided into low risk (0-4 points; n = 5272 [52%]; NHD = 10.1%]), moderate risk (5-9 points; n = 3663 [36.7%]; NHD = 36.7%), and high risk (≥10 points; n = 1210 [11.9%]; NHD = 66.1%).This novel risk score was highly predictive for NHD after LEB for peripheral artery disease using only preoperative comorbidities. High-risk patients account for 12% of LEB but nearly a third of all patients requiring NHD. This risk score can be used preoperatively to determine high-risk patients for NHD, which may help improve preoperative counseling and hospital efficiency by allocating resources appropriately.

The management of patients with carotid stenosis and symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging. This study assessed the impact of clinical coronary disease severity on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with and without combined coronary artery bypass (CCAB).Using the Vascular Quality Initiative, patients with symptomatic CAD who underwent CCAB or isolated CEA (ICEA) from 2003 to 2017 were identified. Patients were stratified by CAD severity: stable angina (SA) and recent myocardial infarction/unstable angina (UA). Primary outcomes, including perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke/death/MI (SDM), were assessed between procedures within each CAD cohort.There were 9098 patients identified: 887 CCAB patients (215 [24%] SA, 672 [76%] UA) and 8211 ICEA patients (6385 [78%] SA, 1826 [22%] UA). Overall, CCAB patients had higher rates of stroke (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .002) and SDM (7.3% vs 3.5%, P .001) but similar rates of MI (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = .12) compared with ICEA patients. In SA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.2% vs CCAB 1.9%; P = .36), MI (1.3% vs 1.4%; P = .95), or SDM (2.9% vs 4.7%; P = .13). In UA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.6% vs CCAB 2.8%; P = .06), but ICEA patients had higher rates of MI (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .01) and CCAB patients had higher rates of SDM (8.2% vs 5.5%; P = .01). After logistic regression in the UA cohort, predictors of MI included ICEA (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.0; P = .04) and carotid symptomatic status (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .01); carotid symptomatic status also predicted stroke (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.6; P = .03), but CCAB did not.In patients with symptomatic CAD, both clinical CAD severity and operative strategy affect outcomes. In SA patients, CCAB does not increase perioperative morbidity. However, CCAB in UA patients prevents MI while not appreciably increasing stroke risk. This suggests that coronary revascularization before or concomitant with CEA should be considered in UA patients but that prioritizing coronary intervention is less important in SA patients.

Trainee burnout is on the rise and negative training environments may contribute. In addition, as the proportion of women entering vascular surgery increases, identifying factors that challenge recruitment and retention is vital as we grow our workforce to meet demand. This study sought to characterize the learning environment of vascular residents and to determine how gender-based discrimination and bias (GBDB) affect the clinical experience.A survey was developed to evaluate the trainee experience; demographics and a two-item burnout index were also included. The instrument was sent electronically to all integrated (0 + 5) vascular surgery residents in the United States. Univariate analyses were performed and predictors of burnout identified.A total of 284 integrated vascular residents were invited to participate and 212 (75%) completed the survey. Participants were predominantly male (64%) and white (56%), with a median age of 30 years (interquartile range, 28-32 years). Seventy-nine percent of respondents endorsed some form of negative workplace experience and 30% met high-risk criteria for burnout. More than a third (38%) of residents endorsed personally experiencing GBDB, with a significant difference between men and women (14% vs 80%; P .001). Women were more likely than men to report witnessing GBDB (76% vs 56%; P = .003). Patients and nurses were the most frequently cited sources of GBDB (80% and 64%, respectively), with vascular surgery attendings cited by 41% of trainees. One in four female resident respondents indicated being sexually harassed during the course of training; this was significantly higher than for male residents (25% vs 1%; P .001). Nearly half (46%) of trainees who witnessed or experienced GBDB thought that quality of patient care, job satisfaction, personal well-being, and personal risk of burnout were directly affected as a result of GBDB. GBDB was predictive of burnout (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.5; P = .04), as were longer work hours (80 h/wk; odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-7.1; P = .03).GBDB was experienced by 38% of integrated trainees, with women significantly more affected than men. GBDB is predictive of burnout, and this has significant implications for our specialty in the recruitment and retention of female physicians. Resources addressing these issues are needed to maintain a diverse workforce and to promote physician well-being.

Endovascular therapy is first-line treatment for aortoiliac occlusive disease. This shift has altered case volume, patient selection, and risk profile for aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). Given this, we sought to investigate factors influencing morbidity and mortality after ABF in the endovascular era.Data for patients undergoing primary ABF from 2000 to 2017 were queried. Primary endpoints included major complication (unplanned return to the operating room, life-or-limb-threatening complications, and 30-day readmission or death) and long-term survival. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models determined predictors of primary endpoints. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated patency, freedom from reintervention, and long-term survival.During these 17 years, 256 patients underwent primary ABF. Mean age was 67.9 ± 10.6 years and 51.2% were women. Most had claudication (69.5%); 28.9% had critical ischemia. Sixty-five (25.4%) patients had prior aortoiliac endovascular intervention, 106 (41.4%) required aortic cuff endarterectomy, 111 (43.3%) femoral outflow adjunct, 9 (3.5%) simultaneous lower extremity bypass, and 230 (89.8%) had Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus D lesions. Concomitant renovisceral revascularization was needed in 42 (16.4%) patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.7%. Major complication occurred in 92 patients (35.9%). Predictors included prior endovascular intervention (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-4.1; P = 0.01), malignancy (OR, 2.6; 95% CI: 1.3-5.3; P = 0.01), intraoperative complication (OR, 3.3; 95% CI: 1.3-9.2; P = 0.03), operative blood loss, (OR, 1.0 per 100 ml; 95% CI: 1.0-1.0; P = 0.03), and cuff endarterectomy (OR, 1.8; 95% CI: 1.0-3.1; P = 0.04). Median follow-up was 5.3 years (interquartile range: 7.2 years). Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94%, 90%, and 82% respectively. Primary patency and freedom from reintervention at 5 years were 76% and 79%, respectively. Predictors of late mortality included malignancy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.3; 95% CI: 1.3-3.9; P 0.01), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1-3.1; P = 0.02), congestive heart failure (HR, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2-4.3; P = 0.01), Rutherford's class (HR, 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-2.1; P = 0.01), operative blood loss (HR 1.0 per 100 ml; 95% CI: 1.0-1.0; P = 0.04) and chronic kidney disease (HR, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2-4.2; P = 0.01).Although late outcomes after ABF in the contemporary era remain acceptable, major complications are frequent. Operative complexity and prior endovascular revascularization predict complications. Long-term survival is driven by degree of limb ischemia and comorbidities. These should be considered in selection for ABF, potentially modifying approach to improve outcomes.

In treating concomitant carotid and coronary disease, some recommend staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting, whereas others favor the combined approach (CCAB). Pressure to reduce surgical variation and to improve quality is real, yet little is known about how geographic practice differences affect outcomes. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), this study evaluated regional variation in use and outcomes of CCAB.All CCAB procedures in the VQI from 2003 to 2017 were reviewed and stratified into four regions, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Primary outcomes included perioperative stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and these as composite (SDM). A χThere were 1495 CCAB procedures identified, representing 1.8% of the VQI CEAs. Regions included the following: Midwest (MW), 32%; Northeast (NE), 39%; South (S), 25%; and West (W), 4%. Most were male (70%) and white (92%). There was significant regional variation in proportional volume of CCABs to all CEAs (0.7% [W] to 2.5% [MW]; P .001). Regional variation in patch use (78% [W] to 93% [MW]; P .001), shunting (29% [W] to 71% [MW]; P .001), and electroencephalography monitoring (13% [W] to 52% [NE]; P .001) was also significant. Overall perioperative stroke was 3.6%; death, 3.0%; and SDM, 6.8%. No regional difference was seen in outcomes of mortality (1.5% [MW] to 4.2% [NE]; P = .05), stroke (2.8% [NE] to 4.4% [MW]; P = .52), and MI (0.6% [MW] to 1.8% [W]; P = .62). When the Bonferroni correction was used, there remained no difference in stroke, MI, or SDM across regions, but mortality became significant. Using the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for consideration of CCAB, the minority of patients fell within the symptomatic carotid stenosis (SYMP, 15%; n = 218) or severe (≥70%) asymptomatic bilateral carotid disease (BIL, 18%; n = 267) categories. The most common indication was asymptomatic unilateral severe carotid stenosis (UNI, 37%; n = 552). There were no differences in regional outcomes stratified by indication (SYMP, BIL, UNI). Overall, when SYMP and BIL were compared with UNI, UNI had lower rates of stroke (2.4% vs 4.9%; P = .03) but similar MI (0.7% vs 1.2%; P = .40) and mortality (2.2% vs 2.5%; P = .75).Significant variation exists across VQI centers in the use of CCAB. Despite differences in volume and practices, regional perioperative outcomes are similar. UNI is the most commonly used indication and has lower stroke rates relative to SYMP and BIL. CCAB is performed well across the United States, but most patients fall outside of Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines.

Objective To identify predictors of aortic aneurysm formation at or above an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Methods A total of 881 infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs were identified at a single institution from 2004 to 2008; 187 of the repairs were identified that had pre-operative and post-operative computed tomography imaging at least one year or greater to evaluate for aortic degeneration following repair. Aortic diameters at the celiac, superior mesenteric, and renal arteries were measured on all available computed tomographic scans. Aortic thrombus and calcification volumes in the visceral and infrarenal abdominal aortic segments were calculated. Multivariable modeling was used with log transformed variables to determine potential predictors of future aortic aneurysm development after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Results Of the 187 patients in the cohort, 100 had an open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair while 87 were treated with endovascular repair. Proximal aortic aneurysms developed in 26% ( n = 49) of the cohort during an average of 72 ± 34.2 months of follow-up. After multivariable modeling, visceral segment aortic thrombus on pre-operative computed tomography imaging increased the risk of aortic aneurysm development above the infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair within both the open abdominal aortic aneurysm (hazard ratio 2.04, p = 0.033) and endovascular repair (hazard ratio 3.31, p = 0.004) cohorts. Endovascular repair was independently associated with a higher risk of future aortic aneurysm development after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair when compared to open abdominal aortic aneurysm (hazard ratio 2.19, p = 0.025). Conclusions Visceral aortic thrombus present prior to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and endovascular repair are both associated with an increased risk of future proximal aortic degeneration after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These factors may predict patients at higher risk of developing proximal aortic aneurysms that may require complex aortic repairs.

MINI: The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endovascular repair of chronic aortic arch dissecting aneurysms with a custom-made branched endograft during follow-up after acute type A aortic dissection open repair. Unmatched outcomes are reported in a population at high risk for a redo sternotomy. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endovascular aortic arch repair for chronic dissection with a custom-made branched endograft. BACKGROUND Acute type A aortic dissections are often treated with prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta. During follow-up, repair of an aneurysmal evolution of the false lumen distal to the ascending prosthesis can be a challenge both for the surgeon and the patient. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of consecutive patients from 14 vascular units treated with a custom-made, inner-branched device (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for chronic aortic arch dissection. Rates of in-hospital mortality and stroke, technical success, early and late complications, reinterventions, and mortality during follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS Seventy consecutive patients were treated between 2011 and 2018. All patients were considered unfit for conventional surgery. In-hospital combined mortality and stroke rate was 4% (n = 3), including 1 minor stroke, 1 major stroke causing death, and 1 death following multiorgan failure. Technical success rate was 94.3%. Twelve (17.1%) patients required early reinterventions: 8 for vascular access complication, 2 for endoleak correction, and 2 for pericardial effusion drainage. Median follow-up was 301 (138-642) days. During follow-up, 20 (29%) patients underwent secondary interventions: 9 endoleak corrections, 1 open repair for prosthetic kink, and 10 distal extensions of the graft to the thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta. Eight patients (11%) died during follow-up because of nonaortic-related cause in 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS Endovascular treatment of aortic arch chronic dissections with a branched endograft is associated with low mortality and stroke rates but has a high reintervention rate. Further follow-up is required to confirm the benefits of this novel approach.

Abstract. Aortic trauma is a devastating injury often associated with significant polytrauma. Penetrating injury of the aorta is highly lethal and therefore rarely encountered in the hospital setting. The management of blunt trauma of the aorta has changed significantly over the past decade, principally due to improved imaging technology and the development of endovascular therapy. The most common site of injury is the proximal descending thoracic aorta. The degree of aortic wall injury guides the indication for therapy, while a combination of the degree of injury and the extent of co-morbid injuries drives the timing of repair. Lower grade injuries frequently do not require any surgical intervention. Thoracic aortic endograft repair can be performed in a safe, expeditious fashion. Short-term and mid-term outcomes appear excellent, with patient survival based mainly on concomitant traumatic injuries. Long-term outcomes are less well known. Future endeavors will be guided toward gaining a better understanding of the indications for repair and the long-term outcomes for endograft devices designed for this purpose.

Objectives There are no societal ultrasound guidelines detailing appropriate patient selection for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) imaging in COVID-19 patients nor are there protocol recommendations aimed at decreasing exposure time for ultrasound technologists. We aimed to provide COVID-19 specific protocol optimization recommendations limiting ultrasound technologist exposure while optimizing patient selection. Methods A novel two-pronged algorithm was implemented to limit the DVT ultrasound studies on COVID-19 patients prospectively which included direct physician communication with the care team and a COVID-19 specific imaging protocol was instated to reduce ultrasound technologist exposure. In order to assess pretest risk of DVT, sensitivity and specificity of serum D-Dimer in 500-unit increments from 500 to 8000 ng/mL and a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) to assess performance of serum D-Dimer in predicting DVT was generated. Rates of DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE) and scan times were compared using t-test and Fisher’s exact test (before and after implementation of the protocol). Results Direct physician communication resulted in cancellation or deferral of 72% of requested exams in COVID-19 positive patients. A serum D-Dimer > 4000ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 70% (CI: 0.54-0.86) for venous thromboembolism. Using the COVID-19 specific protocol, there was a significant (50%) reduction in scan time (p

Objectives Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a life-threatening condition associated with dismal outcomes. This study sought to evaluate the evolution of presentation, treatment, and outcomes of AMI over the past two decades. Methods AMI patients presenting at a single institution were reviewed (1993–2016). Venous thrombosis patients were excluded. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Patients were stratified by etiology and diagnosis date (before 2004 versus 2004 and later). Ordered logistic regression was performed for longitudinal temporal analysis. Results 303 patients were identified. AMI mechanisms included: embolic (49%), thrombotic (29%), and non-occlusive (NOMI) (22%). The majority were women (55%), 50% had atrial fibrillation, and 23% were on anticoagulation (AC) therapy. Mean age was 72±13 years. 345 procedures were performed in 242 patients: 321 open and 24 hybrid/endovascular. Among the 189 embolic/thrombotic patients who were managed operatively, 45% (n=85) underwent mesenteric revascularization while 39 (21%) had findings of non-survivable bowel necrosis (NSBN). Among the 104 patients who did not undergo revascularization, 64 (62%) died within 30-days compared to 36 out of 85 (42%) patients who were revascularized (P=0.01). 30-day mortality was 61% and stable over time (P=0.91); when stratified by AMI etiology, the thrombotic cohort had worse survival than embolic and NOMI patients (P=0.04). Since 2000, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of embolic AMI events (P=0.04). The percentage of patients who underwent operative management decreased also over time (P=0.01, 81% → 61%), which was correlated with an increasing number of patients being made comfort measures only (CMO) prior to surgical intervention (50% → 70%, P=0.02). The majority of patients (55%) were ultimately made CMO during their hospitalization. Predictors of 30-day mortality included a preoperative white blood cell count (WBC) ≥ 25 K/ µL. (OR 3.0, P=0.002) and lactate ≥ 2.3 mmol/L (OR 2.8, P=0.045). NSBN predictors included WBC ≥ 24 K/ µL. (OR 3.4 P=0.03) and lactate ≥ 3.8 mmol/L (OR 3.6, P=0.04). Conclusions Despite advances in critical care over the past 25 years, AMI continues to be associated with poor prognosis. The survival benefit observed in patients who undergo revascularization supports an aggressive approach towards early vascular intervention, although this requires further study. The importance of early diagnosis, prognostication and advanced directives is highlighted given the high morbidity, mortality and use of comfort measures associated with AMI.