Outcomes of Endovascular Management of Isolated Profunda Femoris Artery Occlusive Disease.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular management of isolated profunda femoris artery occlusive disease has not been well studied. Our aim is to analyze the outcomes of endovascular management of profunda artery occlusive disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. All patients from 2013 to 2018 treated percutaneously for isolated profunda artery occlusive disease were included. Endovascular treatment included plain balloon alone, stent, stent graft, atherectomy, and drug-coated balloon without any concomitant endovascular or surgical treatment. Demographic, procedural, and follow-up data were obtained. Primary end points were primary patency, improvement of symptoms, and need for reintervention. Univariate and multivariable analysis was used to assess for significant variables. RESULTS: Of the 105,568 lower extremity endovascular interventions performed during this time period, there were 361 procedures (0.3%) performed on 341 patients for isolated profunda artery occlusive disease. The average age of these patients was 67.8 years (+/- 11.8), with 59.8% being men. The most common indication for treatment of the profunda artery was claudication (44.8%), followed by tissue loss (28.5%) and rest pain (26.0%). The most common treatment modality was plain balloon (58.5%), followed by stent (18.6%), drug-coated balloon (10.0%), atherectomy (9.4%), and stent graft (3.6%). At a mean follow-up of 13 months (+/-4.6), data were available for 238 patients (69.7%). Overall primary patency at 13 months was 92.9%. There was no significant difference in terms of patency for each treatment modality (Table I). Preoperative ambulatory status, aspirin, and statin were significantly associated with patency. At most recent follow-up, 67% of patients had improvement of their symptoms, whereas 29% were unchanged. Reintervention data were available for 247 patients, with a reintervention rate of 15.8% (n = 39) and a mean reintervention time of 226 days (+/- 173), with the majority of reinterventions (62%) occurring in the plain balloon group. Reinterventions were primarily endovascular (64%) with 9 patients (23%) undergoing surgical reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular management of profunda femoris artery occlusive disease has acceptable one-year patency rates with low reintervention rates. Endovascular treatment may be an acceptable alternative to selected patients who are high-risk for surgery.

Complexity of Aortic Arch Anatomy Affects the Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been shown to have half the rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, and death compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). Successful outcomes of TFCAS require careful patient selection. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of TFCAS versus TCAR in both simple (type I) and complex (type II and III) aortic arches. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing TFCAS versus TCAR with simple and complex aortic arches using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from August 2011 to May 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death. RESULTS: About 6,108 carotid artery interventions were analyzed, including 3,536 (57.9%) patients with type I, 2,013 (33.0%) with type II, and 559 (9.2%) with type III aortic arch. In 3,535 patients with a simple arch, 1,917 underwent TFCAS and 1,619 had TCAR. Mean age was 70.6 (±9.5) years, and 2,382 (67.4%) patients were males. The primary outcome of postoperative TIA/stroke/death was seen significantly less frequently in those undergoing TCAR compared with TFCAS in simple arches (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.43-0.94; P = 0.0236). Although the individual outcome of death occurred less often in TCAR (P = 0.0025), there was no difference in the occurrence of in-hospital stroke (P = 0.8836) or TIA (P = 0.4608). On multivariable analysis, TCAR was associated with improved outcomes (P = 0.0062). A worse outcome was associated with increasing age (P < 0.001), a prior stroke (P < 0.0001), and increasing number of stents (P = 0.0483). In 2,572 patients with a complex arch, 1,416 underwent TFCAS and 1,156 had TCAR. Mean age was 73.0 (±9.1) years, and 1,655 (64.4%) were males. In complex arch anatomy, the primary outcome of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death was seen significantly less frequently in TCAR compared with TFCAS (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.77; P = 0.0022). Again noted was a significant difference in death, with better outcomes in TCAR (P = 0.0133). Although the occurrence of in-hospital TIA was no different between the 2 approaches (P = 0.6158), there were significantly fewer strokes in those treated with TCAR (P = 0.0132). TCAR (P = 0.0146) was associated with improved outcomes. A worse outcome was seen with advancing age (P = 0.0003), prior strokes (P = 0.01), and a left-sided lesion (P = 0.0176). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR has improved outcomes of TIA/stroke/death compared with TFCAS in both simple and complex aortic arch anatomy. In simple aortic arches, there is no difference in neurologic outcomes between both approaches. In complex arch anatomy, TCAR has fewer strokes.