Age-Appropriate Cancer Screenings Through a Dermatology Len.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are often the first to identify signs and symptoms concerning for cancer. An important aspect of cancer screening is thorough skin examinations and subsequent referral to a dermatologist for atypical cutaneous presentations, which may be associated with an underlying visceral malignancy. Diagnostic considerations for pruritus without dermatitis ("itch without rash") in adults include senile pruritus, medication reaction, and paraneoplastic syndrome. Recognition of cutaneous manifestations of cancer should prompt cancer screening by primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To update practicing physicians on current cancer screening guidelines with a specific focus on cutaneous clues to prompt further workup. METHODS: American Cancer Society and United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines were systematically reviewed using PubMed and organizational websites during August and September, 2021, with review of Task Force Guidelines during October, 2022. RESULTS: Colorectal, cervical, breast, lung, skin, prostate, ovarian, hematologic, pancreatic, thyroid, testicular, bladder, oral, and gastric cancer screening guidelines are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians can recognize atypical cutaneous conditions and facilitate referral to a dermatologist for evaluation and/or directly order tests themselves to initiate appropriate cancer screening.

Effectiveness of Body Mass Index-Based Prophylactic Enoxaparin Dosing in Bariatric Surgery Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Enoxaparin is administered for venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis in bariatric surgery patients. There is concern whether body mass index (BMI)-based enoxaparin dosing consistently achieves prophylactic targets in patients with severe obesity. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent bariatric surgery at an academic medical center from Jan 2015-May 2021 and had an anti-Xa level drawn 2.5-6 h after ≥3 doses of BMI-based prophylactic enoxaparin. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved a target anti-Xa level. Secondary outcomes were prevalence of venous thromboembolic and bleeding events within 30 d post-operatively. RESULTS: Overall, 137 patients were included. Mean BMI was 59.1 ± 10.4 kg/m2, mean age was 43.9 ± 13.3 y and 110 patients (80.3%) were female. Target anti-Xa levels were achieved in 116 patients (84.7%); 14 (10.2%) were above target and 7 (5.1%) were below target. Patients with above target anti-Xa levels were significantly shorter in height than those within target range (167.1 versus 159.8 cm, P = 0.003). Five patients (3.6%) had a bleeding event; no thromboembolisms occurred. Anti-Xa levels correlated more strongly with enoxaparin dose per unit estimated blood volume (EBV) than dose per unit BMI (Rho = 0.54 versus Rho = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Target range anti-Xa levels were achieved in 85% of patients using BMI-based enoxaparin dosing. Patients with above target anti-Xa levels were significantly shorter by nearly 3 inches, suggesting an increased risk of overdosing enoxaparin in shorter, obese patients. An EBV-based dosing regimen may better account for patient height and is supported by a greater correlation with anti-Xa levels with dosing based on EBV than BMI.

Poor T-cell receptor ß repertoire diversity early posttransplant for severe combined immunodeficiency predicts failure of immune reconstitution.

BACKGROUND: Development of a diverse T-cell receptor ß (TRB) repertoire is associated with immune recovery following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). High-throughput sequencing of the TRB repertoire allows evaluation of clonotype dynamics during immune reconstitution. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether longitudinal analysis of the TRB repertoire would accurately describe T-cell receptor diversity and illustrate the quality of T-cell reconstitution following HCT or gene therapy for SCID. METHODS: We used high-throughput sequencing to study composition and diversity of the TRB repertoire in 27 infants with SCID at 3, 6, and 12 months and yearly posttreatment(s). Total RNA from peripheral blood was used as template to amplify TRB rearrangements. RESULTS: TRB sequence analysis showed poor diversity at 3 months, followed by significant improvement by 6 months after cellular therapies. Kinetics of development of TRB diversity were similar in patients with a range of underlying gene defects. However, in patients with RAG and DCLRE1C defects, HCT with no conditioning or immune suppression only resulted in lower diversity than did HCT with conditioning. HCT from a matched donor correlated with higher diversity than did HCT from a mismatched donor. Naive CD4+ T-cell count at 6 months post-HCT correlated with higher TRB diversity. A Shannon index of diversity of 5.2 or lower 3 months after HCT predicted a need for a second intervention. CONCLUSIONS: TRB repertoire after hematopoietic cell therapies for SCID provides a quantitative and qualitative measure of diversity of T-cell reconstitution and permits early identification of patients who may require a second intervention.

Low Exposure Busulfan Conditioning to Achieve Sufficient Multilineage Chimerism in Patients with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency.

After allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), the minimal myeloid chimerism required for full T and B cell reconstitution in patients with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is unknown. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with low-exposure busulfan (cumulative area under the curve, 30 mg·hr/L) in 10 SCID patients undergoing either first or repeat HCT from unrelated or haploidentical donors. The median busulfan dose required to achieve this exposure was 5.9 mg/kg (range, 4.8 to 9.1). With a median follow-up of 4.5 years all patients survived, with 1 requiring an additional HCT. Donor myeloid chimerism was generally >90% at 1 month post-HCT, but in most patients it fell during the next 3 months, such that 1-year median myeloid chimerism was 14% (range, 2% to 100%). Six of 10 patients had full T and B cell reconstitution, despite myeloid chimerism as low as 3%. Three patients have not recovered B cell function at over 2 years post-HCT, 2 of them in the setting of treatment with rituximab for post-HCT autoimmunity. Low-exposure busulfan was well tolerated and achieved sufficient myeloid chimerism for full immune reconstitution in over 50% of patients. However, other factors beyond busulfan exposure may also play critical roles in determining long-term myeloid chimerism and full T and B cell reconstitution.

Defining risk and identifying predictors of mortality for open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Risk of open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR-c) is poorly defined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine outcomes of elective EVAR-c compared with elective primary open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent elective EVAR-c and PAR (2002-2014) were reviewed. Candidate predictors of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and/or 30-day mortality were entered into a multivariable model, and stepwise elimination was used to reduce the number of covariates to a best subset of predictors. To estimate the additive risk of EVAR-c for MACE or 30-day mortality over PAR, this variable was added along with the best subset of predictors into generalized estimating equations logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 159 EVAR-c and 3741 PAR patients. EVAR-c patients were older (73.5 ± 8.1 vs 69.5 ± 8.4 years; P < .0001), more likely to have diabetes (21% vs 15%; P = .03), and history of lower extremity bypass (9% vs 4%; P = .0006). EVAR-c was associated with a higher incidence of retroperitoneal aortic exposure (41%; n = 64 vs PAR, 26%, n = 976; P < .0001), use of a bifurcated graft (65%; n = 101 vs PAR, 52%; n = 1923; P = .001), greater blood loss (median [interquartile range], 2000 mL [1010-3500] vs PAR, 1200 mL [750-2000]; P < .0001) and longer procedure times (EVAR-c, 275 ± 122 minutes vs PAR, 232 ± 9 minutes; P < .0001). However, PAR more frequently was completed with a suprarenal and/or mesenteric cross-clamp (74%, n = 2749 vs EVAR-c, 53%, n = 83; P < .0001) and had a higher incidence of concomitant procedures (26%; n = 972 vs EVAR-c, 18%; n = 28; P = .03). Nonadjusted 30-day mortality was greater after EVAR-c: EVAR-c, 8% (n = 10) vs PAR, 3% (n = 105); P = .009. There was no difference in complication rates: EVAR-c, 33% (n = 52) vs PAR, 28% (n = 1056); P =.3. Preoperative 30-day mortality predictors included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06/y, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.1; P < .0001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5; P < .0001), history of leg bypass (OR, 2.3, 1.2-4.4;P =.01), suprarenal cross-clamp (OR 2.2, 1.2-4.1;P =.01), prior carotid revascularization (OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8; P = .0004), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9-3.5; P = .08), and female sex (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .02; area under the curve, 0.75). When controlling for covariates, EVAR-c was not significantly associated with MACE (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.0; P = .4) or 30-day mortality (OR, 2.0; 0.9-4.2; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR-c patients are typically older, have more comorbidities, and experience greater blood loss and longer procedure times compared with PAR patients. However, postoperative morbidity and mortality are primarily driven by patient covariates and intraoperative factors, rather than the need for endograft explantation. Several preoperative variables were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality after elective EVAR-c and should be considered during the decision-making process for remedial treatment of failed endovascular PAR.

Fate of Aneurysmal Common Iliac Artery Landing Zones Used for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To determine outcomes of aneurysmal common iliac arteries (aCIA) used for landing zones (LZs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: This single-center study retrospectively compared 57 EVAR patients (mean age 72±8 years; 56 men) with 70 aCIAs (diameter ≥20 mm) to 25 control EVAR subjects (mean age 73±7 years; 20 men) with 50 normal (≤15-mm) CIA LZs treated consecutively during the same time interval. The CIA LZ measurements were analyzed using random effects linear mixed models to determine diameter change over time. Life tables were used to estimate freedom from endoleak, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The mean maximum preoperative CIA diameter in the aCIA LZ group was 24.8±4.5 mm (range 20.0-47.3, median 23.9) vs 13.6±1.5 mm (range 9.2-15.0, median 13.9; p<0.001) in the controls. Nineteen aCIA LZs were treated outside the instructions for use of the device. Median follow-up in the aCIAs LZ cohort was 39.2 months [interquartile range (IQR) 15, 61] vs 49.3 months (IQR 36, 61) in the controls (p=0.06). The rate of aCIA LZ change (0.09 mm/mo, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.1) was significantly greater than controls (0.03 mm/mo, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.07; p<0.0001). No type Ib endoleaks developed in either group; however, aCIA LZ patients had 6 (11%) iliac limb-related reinterventions. There were significantly more endograft-related reinterventions in the aCIA LZ patients (n=10, 14%) compared with controls (n=2, 4%; p=0.06). There was no difference in mortality or freedom from any post-hospital discharge endoleak. CONCLUSION: Aneurysmal CIA LZs used during EVAR experience greater dilatation compared with normal LZs, but no significant difference in outcome was noted in midterm follow-up. However, an increased incidence of graft limb complications or endograft-related reintervention may be encountered. Use of aCIA LZs appears to be safe; however, greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to understand the clinical implications of morphologic changes in these vessels when used during EVAR.

Defining utility and predicting outcome of cadaveric lower extremity bypass grafts in patients with critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Despite poor long-term patency, acceptable limb salvage has been reported with cryopreserved saphenous vein bypass (CVB) for various indications. However, utility of CVB in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains undefined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the role of CVB in CLI patients and to identify predictors of successful outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all lower extremity bypass (LEB) procedures at a single institution was completed, and CVB in CLI patients were further analyzed. The primary end point was amputation-free survival. Secondary end points included primary patency and limb salvage. Life tables were used to estimate occurrence of end points. Cox regression analysis was used to determine predictors of limb salvage. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2012, 1059 patients underwent LEB for various indications, of whom 81 received CVB for either ischemic rest pain or tissue loss. Mean age (± standard deviation) was 66 ± 10 years (male, 51%; diabetes, 51%; hemodialysis dependence, 12%), and 73% (n = 59) had history of failed ipsilateral LEB or endovascular intervention. None had sufficient autogenous conduit for even composite vein bypass. Infrainguinal CVB (infrapopliteal target, 96%; n = 78) was completed for multiple indications including Rutherford class 4 (42%; n = 34), class 5 (40%; n = 32), and class 6 (18%; n = 15). Eleven (14%) had CLI and concomitant graft infection (n = 8) or acute on chronic ischemia (n = 3). Intraoperative adjuncts (eg, profundaplasty, suprainguinal stent or bypass) were completed in 49% (n = 40) of cases. Complications occurred in 36% (n = 29), with 30-day mortality of 4% (n = 3). Median follow-up for CLI patients was 11.8 (interquartile range, 0.4-28.4) months with corresponding 1- and 3-year actuarial estimated survival (± standard error mean) of 84% ± 4% and 62% ± 6%. Primary patency of CVB for CLI was 27% ± 6% and 17% ± 6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Amputation-free survival was 43% ± 6% and 23% ± 6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, and significantly higher for rest pain (59% ± 9%, 36% ± 10%) compared with tissue loss (31% ± 7%, 14% ± 7%; log-rank, P = .04). Freedom from major amputation after CVB for CLI was 57% ± 6% and 43% ± 7% at 1 and 3 years. Multivariable predictors of limb salvage for the CVB CLI cohort included postoperative warfarin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.8), dyslipidemia (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9), and rest pain (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9). Predictors of major amputation included graft infection (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: In CLI patients with no autologous conduit and prior failed infrainguinal bypass, CVB outcomes are disappointing. CVB performs best in patients with rest pain, particularly those who can be anticoagulated with warfarin. However, it may be an acceptable option in patients with minor tissue loss or concurrent graft infection, but consideration should be weighed against the known natural history of nonrevascularized CLI and nonbiologic conduit alternatives, given potential cost implications.

Critical analysis of results after chimney endovascular aortic aneurysm repair raises cause for concern.

OBJECTIVE: "Chimney" techniques used to extend landing zones for endovascular aortic repair (chEVAR) have been increasingly reported; however, concerns about durability and patency remain. The purpose of this analysis was to examine midterm outcomes of chEVAR. METHODS: All patients at the University of Florida treated with chEVAR were reviewed. Major adverse events (MAEs) were recorded and defined as any chimney stent thrombosis, type Ia endoleak in follow-up, reintervention, 30-day/in-hospital death, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate after discharge. Primary end points included chimney stent patency and freedom from MAE. Secondary end points included complications and long-term survival. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2012, 41 patients (age ± standard deviation, 73 ± 8 years; male, 66% [n = 27]) were treated with a total of 76 chimney stents (renal, n = 51; superior mesenteric artery, n = 16; celiac artery, n = 9) for a variety of indications: juxtarenal, 42% (n = 17, one rupture), suprarenal, 17% (n = 7), and thoracoabdominal aneurysm, 17% (n = 7); aortic anastomotic pseudoaneurysm, 15% (n = 6; three ruptures); type Ia endoleak after EVAR, 7% (n = 3); and atheromatous disease, 2% (n = 1). Two patients had a single target vessel abandoned because of cannulation failure, and one had a type Ia endoleak at case completion (technical success, 93%). Intraoperative complications occurred in seven patients (17%), including graft maldeployment with unplanned mesenteric chimney (n = 2) and access vessel injury requiring repair (n = 5). Major postoperative complications developed in 20% (n = 8). The 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality were 5% (n = 2) and 7% (n = 3), respectively. At median follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 1.4-41.5 months), 28 of 33 patients (85%) with available postoperative imaging experienced stabilization or reduction of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameters. Nine patients (32%) developed endoleak at some point during follow-up (type Ia, 7% [n = 3]; type II, 10% [n = 4]; indeterminate, 7% [n = 3]), and one patient underwent open, surgical conversion. The estimated probability of freedom from reintervention (±standard error mean) was 96% ± 4% at both 1 year and 3 years. Primary patency of all chimney stents was 88% ± 5% and 85% ± 5% at 1 year and 3 years, respectively. Corresponding freedom from MAEs was 83% ± 7% and 57% ± 10% at 1 year and 3 years. The actuarial estimated survival for all patients at 1 year and 5 years was 85% ± 6% and 65% ± 8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that chEVAR can be completed with a high degree of success; however, perioperative complications and MAEs during follow-up, including loss of chimney patency and endoleak, may occur at a higher rate than previously reported. Elective use of chEVAR should be performed with caution, and comparison to open and fenestrated EVAR is needed to determine long-term efficacy of this technique.

Elective endovascular aortic repair conversion for type Ia endoleak is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with primary juxtarenal aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type Ia endoleak after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) can be a challenging complication to manage, and due to concerns regarding morbidity and mortality of open surgical conversion (OSC), reports of complex endoluminal salvage techniques are increasing. Despite development of these endovascular remedial strategies, many patients ultimately require OSC. The purpose of this analysis was to outcomes of elective OSC for type Ia endoleak and compare them with elective primary open juxtarenal aneurysm repair (OJAR) to determine if these concerns are warranted. METHODS: From 2000 to 2012, 54 patients underwent EVAR OSC at median time of 27 months (interquartile range, 9-55 months). Indications included endograft thrombosis in 2 (4%), intraoperative EVAR failure in 3 (6%), rupture in 5 (9%), graft infection in 6 (11%), and type Ia endoleak in 25 (all: 38 [70%]). Because many OSCs are performed for emergency indications without endovascular options, we chose elective type Ia endoleak patients as our study group. These 25 patients were compared with an elective OJAR cohort matched by anatomy and comorbidities. Primary end points were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary end points included early complications, cross-clamp time, procedure time, blood loss, and length of stay. RESULTS: Demographic and comorbidity data in the OSC and OJAR groups did not differ, with the exception that OJAR patients presented with smaller aneurysm diameter and a higher rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .03). OSC patients more frequently underwent a nontube graft repair (OSC, n = 20 [80%] vs OJAR, n = 6 [24%]; P = .0002), required longer procedure times (P = .03), and received more plasma transfusions (P = .03). The 30-day mortality was 4% in both groups (observed difference in rates, 0%; 95% confidence interval for difference in mortality rates, -14.0% to 14.0%; P = 1). A similar rate of major complications occurred (OSC, n = 9 [36%] vs OJAR, n = 8 [32%]; P = 1). One-year survival was 83% in OSC and 91% in OJAR (observed difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, -15% to 29%; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Despite many advances in EVAR technology, the need for OSC persists and will likely become more common as older-generation devices fail or providers attempt EVAR in more anatomically complex patients. Elective OSC for type Ia endoleak can be technically challenging but is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with OJAR in appropriately selected patients. These results should be considered before pursuing complex endovascular remediation of EVAR failures.

Outcomes after redo aortobifemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting with occluded aortobifemoral (ABF) bypass grafts are managed with a variety of techniques. Redo ABF (rABF) bypass procedures are infrequently performed because of concerns about procedural complexity and morbidity. The purpose of this analysis was to compare midterm results of rABF bypass with those of primary ABF (pABF) bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease to determine if there are significant differences in outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing ABF bypass for occlusive disease between January 2002 and March 2012. A total of 19 patients underwent rABF bypass and 194 received pABF bypass during that period. Data for an indication- and comorbidity-matched case-control cohort of 19 elective pABF bypass patients were collected for comparison to the rABF bypass group. Primary end points included rate of major complications as well as 30-day and all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were amputation-free survival and freedom from major adverse limb events. RESULTS: The rABF bypass patients more frequently underwent prior extra-anatomic or lower extremity bypass operations compared with pABF bypass patients (P = .02); however, no difference was found in the incidence of prior failed endovascular iliac intervention (P = .4). By design, indications for the rABF and pABF bypass groups were the same (claudication, n = 6/6 [31.6%]; P = 1; critical limb ischemia, n = 13/13 [78.4%]; P = 1). Aortic access was more frequently by retroperitoneal exposure in the rABF bypass group (n = 13 vs n = 1; P < .0001), and a significantly higher proportion of the rABF bypass patients required concomitant infrainguinal bypass or intraprocedural adjuncts such as profundaplasty (n = 14 vs n = 5; P = .01). The rABF bypass patients experienced greater blood loss (1097 ± 983 mL vs 580 ± 457 mL; P = .02), received more intraoperative fluids (3400 ± 1422 mL vs 2279 ± 993 mL; P = .01), and had longer overall procedure times (408 ± 102 minutes vs 270 ± 48 minutes; P < .0001). Length of stay (days ± standard deviation) was similar (pABF bypass, 11.2 ± 10.4; rABF bypass, 9.1 ± 4.5; P = .7), and no 30-day or in-hospital deaths occurred in either group. Similar rates of major complications occurred in the two groups (pABF bypass, n = 6 [31.6%]; rABF bypass, n = 4 [21.1%]; observed difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, -17.6% to 36.7%; P = .7). Two-year freedom from major adverse limb events (±standard error mean) was 82% ± 9% vs 78% ± 10% for pABF and rABF bypass patients (log-rank, P = .6). Two-year amputation-free survival was 90 ± 9% vs 89 ± 8% between pABF and rABF bypass patients (P = .5). Two-year survival was 91% ± 9% and 90% ± 9% for pABF and rABF bypass patients (P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing rABF bypass have higher procedural complexity compared with pABF bypass as evidenced by greater operative time, blood loss, and need for adjunctive procedures. However, similar perioperative morbidity, mortality, and midterm survival occurred in comparison to pABF bypass patients. These results support a role for rABF bypass in selected patients.

Pathology-specific secondary aortic interventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Despite improved short-term outcomes, concerns remain regarding durability of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the pathology-specific incidence of secondary aortic interventions (SAI) after TEVAR and their impact on survival. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of all TEVAR procedures and SAI at one institution from 2004-2011. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: Of 585 patients, 72 (12%) required SAI at a median of 5.6 months (interquartile range, 1.4-14.2) with 22 (3.7%) requiring multiple SAI. SAI incidence differed significantly by pathology (P = .002) [acute dissection (21.3%), postsurgical (20.0%), chronic dissection (16.7%), degenerative aneurysm (10.8%), traumatic transection (8.1%), penetrating ulcer (1.5%), and other etiologies (14.8%)]. Most common indications after dissection were persistent false lumen flow and proximal/distal extension of disease. For degenerative aneurysms, SAI was performed primarily to treat type I/III endoleaks. SAI patients had a greater mean number of comorbidities (P < .0005), stents placed (P = .0002), and postoperative complications after the index TEVAR (P < .0005) compared with those without SAI. Freedom from SAI at 1 and 5 years (95% confidence interval) was estimated to be 86% (82%-90%) and 68% (57%-76%), respectively. There were no differences in survival (95% confidence interval) between patients requiring SAI and those who did not [SAI 1-year, 88% (77%-93%); 5-year, 51% (37%-63%); and no SAI 1-year, 82% (79%-85%); 5-year, 67% (62%-71%) (log-rank, P = .2)]. CONCLUSIONS: SAI after TEVAR is not uncommon, particularly in patients with dissection, but does not affect long-term survival. Aortic pathology is the most important variable impacting survival and dictated need, timing, and mode of SAI. The varying incidence of SAI by indication underscores the need for diligent surveillance protocols that should be pathology-specific.

Subclavian revascularization in the age of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and comparison of outcomes in patients with occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Open surgical revascularization for subclavian artery occlusive disease (OD) has largely been supplanted by endovascular treatment despite the excellent long-term patency of bypass. The indications for carotid-subclavian bypass (C-SBP) and subclavian transposition (ST) have been recently expanded with the widespread application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), primarily to augment proximal landing zones or treat endovascular failures. This study was performed to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing C-SBP/ST in the context of contemporary endovascular therapies and evolving indications. METHODS: A prospective database including all procedures performed at a single institution from 2002 to 2012 was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent subclavian revascularization for TEVAR or OD indications. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Patency was determined by computed tomography angiography in the TEVAR group. Noninvasive studies were used for the OD patients. Life-table methods were used to estimate patency, reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Of 139 procedures identified, 101 were performed for TEVAR and 38 for OD. All TEVAR patients underwent C-SBP/ST to augment landing zones (49% preoperative; 41% intraoperative), treat arm ischemia (8% postoperative), or for internal mammary artery salvage (2%). OD patients had a variety of indications, including failed stent/arm fatigue, 49%; asymptomatic >80% internal carotid stenosis with concurrent subclavian occlusion, 18%; symptomatic cerebrovascular OD, 13%; redo bypass, 8%; and coronary-subclavian steal, 5%. Differences in postoperative stroke and death, primary patency, or freedom from reintervention were not significant. The 30-day postoperative stroke, death, and combined stroke/death rates were, respectively, 10.8%, 5.8%, and 13.7% for the entire cohort; 8.9%, 7.1%, and 12.9% in TEVAR patients; and 15.8%, 2.6%, and 15.8% in OD patients. The 1- and 3-year primary patencies were, respectively, 94% and 94% for TEVAR and 93% and 73% for OD patients. Survival was similar between the groups, with an estimated survival rate of 88% at 1 year and 76% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke risk in this contemporary series of C-SBP/ST performed for TEVAR and OD indications may be higher than previously reported in historical series. In TEVAR patients, this may be attributed to procedural complexity of the TEVAR in patients requiring subclavian revascularization. In OD patients, this is likely due to the changing patient population that requires more frequent concomitant carotid interventions. Despite the short-term morbidity, excellent bypass durability and equivalent long-term patient survival can be anticipated.

Efficacy of thoracic endovascular stent repair for chronic type B aortic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration has approved devices for endovascular management of thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR); however, limited data exist describing the outcomes of TEVAR for aneurysms attributable to chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBAD). This study was undertaken to determine the results of endovascular treatment of cTBAD with aneurysmal degeneration. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients treated for cTBAD with aneurysmal degeneration at the University of Florida from 2004 to 2011 was performed. Computed tomograms with centerline reconstruction were analyzed to determine change in aortic diameter, relative proportions of aortic treatment lengths, and false lumen perfusion status. Reintervention and mortality were estimated using life-tables. Cox regression analysis was completed to predict mortality. RESULTS: Eighty patients underwent TEVAR for aneurysm due to cTBAD (mean age [± standard deviation], 60 ± 13 years [male, 87.5%; n = 70]; median follow-up, 26 [range, 1-74] months). Median time from diagnosis of TBAD to TEVAR was 16 (range, 1-72) months. Prior aortic root/arch replacement had been performed in 29% (n = 23) at a median interval of 28.5 (range, 0.5-312) months. Mean preoperative aneurysm diameter was 62.0 ± 9.9 mm. In 75% (n = 60) of cases, coverage was proximal to zone 3, and 24% (n = 19) underwent carotid-subclavian bypass or other arch debranching procedure. Spinal drains were used in 78% (pre-op 71%, n = 57; post-op 6%, n = 5). Length of stay was 6.5 ± 4.7 days with a composite morbidity of 26% and in-hospital mortality of 2.5% (n = 2). Overall neurologic event rate was 17% (spinal cord ischemia 10% [n = 8], with a permanent deficit observed in 6.2% [n = 5]; stroke 7.5%). Aneurysm diameter reduced or stabilized in 65%. The false lumen thrombosed completely within the thoracic aorta in 52%, and reintervention within the treated aortic segment was required in 16% (n = 13).One- and 3-year freedom from reintervention (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) was 80% (range, 68%-88%) and 70% (range, 57%-80%), respectively. Survival at 1 and 5 years was 89% (range, 80%-94%) and 70% (range, 55%-81%) and was not significantly different among patients requiring reintervention or experiencing favorable aortic remodeling. Multivariable analysis identified coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR], 6.4; 95% CI, 2.3-17.7; P < .005), prior infrarenal aortic surgery (HR, 8.6; 95% CI, 2.3-31.7; P = .001), and congestive heart failure (HR, 11.9; 95% CI, 1.9-73.8; P = .008) as independent risk factors for mortality. Hyperlipidemia was found to be protective (HR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.05-0.6; P = .004). No significant difference in predictors of mortality were found between patients who underwent reintervention vs those who did not (P = .2). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for cTBAD with aneurysmal degeneration can be performed safely but spinal cord ischemia rates may be higher than previously reported. Liberal use of procedural adjuncts to reduce this complication, such as spinal drainage, is recommended. Reintervention is common, but long-term survival does not appear to be impacted by remediation.

Transcaval embolization as an alternative technique for the treatment of type II endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

The purpose of this report is to highlight our experience with transcaval embolization (TCE) for the management of type II endoleaks (T2Es) as well as to provide a technical description of how to improve procedural safety and success. All patients underwent transfemoral venous access with transcaval puncture into the excluded aneurysm sac with coil placement and selective thrombin injection. Six patients (100% male; mean age [standard deviation] 72.7 [10.8] years) underwent TCE. Technical success was 100% with no postoperative complications. At median follow-up of 8.1 months (range, 2-22 months), two patients had persistent T2Es, with one requiring repeat TCE and the other having cessation of aneurysm growth. The TCE provides a practical alternative to transarterial or translumbar access for the management of T2E, with high degrees of technical and clinical success in this small case series. Larger patient numbers and longer-term follow-up are needed to define procedural efficacy and durability.

Prediction of graft patency and mortality after distal revascularization and interval ligation for hemodialysis access-related hand ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment goals of access-related hand ischemia (ARHI) are to reverse symptoms and salvage the access. Many procedures have been described, but the optimal treatment strategy remains unresolved. In an effort to guide clinical decision making, this study was undertaken to document our outcomes for distal revascularization and interval ligation (DRIL) and to identify predictors of bypass patency and patient mortality. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent DRIL at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2011. Diagnosis of ARHI was based primarily upon clinical symptoms with noninvasive studies used to corroborate in equivocal cases. Patient demographics, procedure-outcome variables, and reinterventions were recorded. Bypass patency and mortality were estimated using cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier methodology, respectively. Cumulative incidence and Cox regression analysis were performed to determine predictors of bypass patency and mortality, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 134 DRILs were performed in 126 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 57 [12] years) following brachial artery-based access. The postoperative complication rate was 27% (19% wound), and 30-day mortality was 2%. The wrist-brachial index and digital brachial index increased 0.31 (0.25) and 0.25 (0.29), respectively. Symptoms resolved in 82% of patients, and 85% continued to use their access. Cumulative incidences (± standard error of the mean) of loss of primary and primary-assisted patency rates were 5% ± 2% and 4% ± 2% at 1 year and 22% ± 5% and 18% ± 5% at 5 years, respectively, with mean follow-up of 14.8 months. Univariate predictors of primary patency failure were DRIL complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-8.9; P = .02), configuration other than brachiobasilic/brachiocephalic autogenous access (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-8.3; P = .009), and two or more prior access attempts (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.6-10.4; P = .004). Brachiocephalic access configuration (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.04-0.8; P = .02) and autogenous vein conduit (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.06-0.58; P = .004) were predictors of improved bypass patency. All-cause mortality was 28% and 79% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Multivariable predictors of mortality were age >40 (hazard ratio [HR], 8.3; 95% CI, 2.5-33.3; P = .0004), grade 3 ischemia (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6; P = .0008), complication from DRIL (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.5; P = .004), and smoking history (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-4; P = .007). Patients with no prior access attempts had lower predicted mortality (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The DRIL procedure effectively improves distal perfusion and reverses the symptoms of ARHI while salvaging the access, but the long-term survival of these patients is poor. Given the poor survival, preoperative risk stratification is critical. Patients at high risk for DRIL failure and mortality may be best served with alternate remedial procedures.

Preoperative prediction of mortality within 1 year after elective thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is known to have a survival benefit over open repair in patients with descending thoracic aneurysms and has become a mainstay of therapy. Because death before 1 year after TEVAR likely indicates an ineffective therapy, we have created a predictive model for death within 1 year using factors available in the preoperative setting. METHODS: A registry of 526 TEVARs performed at the University of Florida between September 2000 and November 2010 was queried for patients with degenerative descending thoracic aneurysm as their primary pathology. Procedures with emergent or urgent indications were excluded. Preoperatively available variables, such as baseline comorbidities, anatomic-, and procedure-specific planning details, were recorded. Univariate predictors of death were analyzed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards to identify independent predictors of 30-day (death within 30 days) and 1-year mortality (death within 1 year) after TEVAR. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were identified and evaluated. The 30-day mortality rate was 3% (n = 7) and the 1-year mortality rate was 15% (n = 33). Multivariable predictors of 1-year mortality (hazard ratios [95% confidence interval]) included: age >70 years (5.8 [2.1-16.0]; P = .001), adjunctive intraoperative procedures (eg, brachiocephalic or visceral stents, or both, concomitant arch debranching procedures; 4.5 [1.9-10.8]; P = .001), peripheral arterial disease (3.0 [1.4-6.7]; P = .006), coronary artery disease (2.4 [1.1-4.9]; P = .02), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.9 [1.0-3.9]; P = .06). A diagnosis of hyperlipidemia was protective (0.4 [0.2-0.7]; P = .006). When patients were grouped into those with one, two, three, or four or more of these risk factors, the predicted 1-year mortality was 1%, 3%, 10%, 27%, and 54%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Factors are available in the preoperative setting that are predictive of death within 1 year after TEVAR and can guide clinical decision making regarding the timing of repair. Patients with multiple risk factors, such as age ≥ 70 years, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a need for an extensive procedure involving adjunctive therapies, have a high predicted mortality within 1 year and may be best served by waiting for a larger aneurysm size to justify the risk of intervention.

Safety of elective management of synchronous aortic disease with simultaneous thoracic and aortic stent graft placement.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous treatment of multilevel aortic disease is controversial due to the theoretic increase in morbidity. This study was conducted to define the outcomes in patients treated electively with simultaneous thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) and abdominal aortic endovascular endografting for synchronous aortic pathology. METHODS: Patients treated with simultaneous TEVAR and endovascular aneurysm repair (T&E) at the University of Florida were identified from a prospectively maintained endovascular aortic registry and compared with those treated with TEVAR alone (TA). The study excluded patients with urgent or emergency indications, thoracoabdominal or mycotic aneurysm, and those requiring chimney stents, fenestrations, or visceral debranching procedures. Demographics, anatomic characteristics, operative details, and periprocedural morbidity were recorded. Mortality and reintervention were estimated using life-table analysis. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2011, 595 patients underwent TEVAR, of whom 457 had elective repair. Twenty-two (18 men, 82%) were identified who were treated electively with simultaneous T&E. Mean ± standard deviation age was 66 ± 9 years, and median follow-up was 8.8 months (range, 1-34 months). Operative indications for the procedure included dissection-related pathology in 10 (45%) and various combinations of degenerative etiologies in 12 (55%). Compared with TA, T&E patients had significantly higher blood loss (P < .0001), contrast exposure (P < .0001), fluoroscopy time (P < .0001), and operative time (P < .0001). The temporary spinal cord ischemia rate was 13.6% (n = 3) for the T&E group and 6.0% for TA (P = .15); however, the permanent spinal cord ischemia rate was 4% for both groups (P = .96). The 30-day mortality for T&E was 4.5% (n = 1) compared with 2.1% (n = 10) for TA. Temporary renal injury (defined by a 25% increase over baseline creatinine) occurred in two T&E patients (9.1%), with none requiring permanent hemodialysis; no significant difference was noted between the two groups (P = .14). One-year mortality and freedom from reintervention in the T&E patients were 81% and 91%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptable short-term morbidity and mortality can be achieved with T&E compared with TA, despite longer operative times, greater blood loss, and higher contrast exposure. There was a trend toward higher rates of renal and spinal cord injury, so implementation of strategies to reduce the potential of these complications or consideration of staged repair is recommended. Short-term reintervention rates are low, but longer follow-up and greater patient numbers are needed to determine procedural durability and applicability.

Prevalence and clinical significance of stent fracture and deformation following carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a developing intervention for carotid artery stenosis, and long-term outcomes remain unclear. We examined the prevalence and clinical significance of carotid stent fractures or deformations following CAS. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-one CAS performed in 219 patients at one academic institution between August 2000 and March 2009 were reviewed. One hundred sixteen stents (57 closed cell, 59 open cell) were evaluated with multiplanar plain films of the neck to assess for stent fracture or deformation. Stent fracture was identified by wire strut disruption. Deformation was defined as an increase in stent-cell area from stent strut distortion. Study endpoints included rate of stent fracture or deformation determined using Kaplan-Meier and life table analysis. Factors associated with stent fracture or deformation were identified by Cox regression. Effect of stent fracture or deformation on recurrent carotid artery stenosis >70% requiring reintervention and postoperative stroke was studied. RESULTS: There were five stent fractures (4%) and 27 deformed stents (23%). Rate of stent fracture or deformation was 15% at 2 years and 50% at 4 years. Deformations were significantly more common in open cell stents than in closed cell stents (58% vs 5% at 4 years, P < .00005). Presence of calcified plaque on plain film was significantly associated with increased rate of stent fracture or deformation (P = .0006). At median follow-up of 25 months, restenosis requiring treatment occurred in four (5%) and late stroke in one (1%). Neither stent fracture nor deformation was associated with late stroke or reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Stent fracture and deformation is not uncommon following CAS and is associated with the presence of heavy calcification. Whether a carotid stent fractures or deforms correlates with stent design. Larger studies are necessary to determine the possible clinical significance of carotid stent fracture and deformation.

Completion duplex ultrasound predicts early graft thrombosis after crural bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intraoperative distal graft end-diastolic velocity (EDV) using completion duplex ultrasound (CDU) predicts patency of crural bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS: Records of 116 non-consecutive patients who underwent crural revascularization with vein conduit and CDU between 1998 and 2008 were reviewed. Bypass grafts were performed for rest pain (34%) or tissue loss (66%), while 56% of the reported cases were categorized as "disadvantaged" because of compromised vein quality or diseased arterial outflow. A 10-MHz low-profile transducer was used to image the entire bypass at case completion. Technical adequacy of the grafts was verified by absence of retained valves, arteriovenous fistulas, or localized velocity increases and presence of bypass-dependent distal pulses. Modified Rutherford scores were calculated as surrogate markers of runoff resistance and compared to distal graft EDV. The primary study end point was graft patency during a 1-year posttreatment period. Patency rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier life table methodology and compared using the log-rank test. Predictors of graft patency were determined by Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency for all crural bypasses were 62%, 66%, and 70% at 1 year, respectively. When stratified by tertiles of distal graft EDV (0 - <5 cm/s, 5-15 cm/s, >15 cm/s), 1-year primary patency rates were 32%, 64%, and 84% (P = .001). Low (0 - < 5 cm/s) distal graft EDV (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3 confidence interval [CI], 1.74-6.41; P < .001), poor-quality conduit (HR, 2.5; CI, 1.19-5.21; P = .016), age <70 (HR, 2.08; CI, 1.06-4.00; P = .031), and lack of statin use (HR, 2.04; CI, 1.04-4.00; P = .038) were independent predictors of graft failure. While the modified Rutherford score correlated with distal graft EDV (P = .05), it was not an independent predictor of patency (P = .58). Predictors of low EDV (<5 cm/s) included single-vessel runoff (odds ratio [OR], 3.33; CI, 1.14-9.71; P = .027), poor conduit (OR, 2.94; CI, 1.16-7.41; P = 0.024), and diabetes (OR, 2.86; CI, 1.14-7.21; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Distal graft EDV predicts crural vein graft patency in patients with CLI. Grafts with EDV <5 cm/s remain at high risk for early failure. The impacts on patency of statins, age, and poor-quality conduit are, again, confirmed. These results highlight the value of EDV using intraoperative CDU for anticipating and, possibly, improving results of open crural revascularization.

Long-term results of open and endovascular revascularization of superficial femoral artery occlusive disease.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment for patients with superficial femoral arterial (SFA) occlusive disease has yet to be determined. This study compared long-term outcomes between primary SFA stent placement and primary femoral-popliteal bypass. Periprocedural patient factors were examined to determine their effect on these results. METHODS: All femoral-popliteal bypasses and SFA interventions performed in consecutive patients with symptoms Rutherford 3 to 6 between 2001 and 2008 were reviewed. Time-dependent outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards were performed to determine predictors of graft patency. Multivariate analysis was completed to identify patient covariates most often associated with the primary therapy. RESULTS: A total of 152 limbs in 141 patients (66% male; mean age, 66 ± 22 years) underwent femoral-popliteal bypass, and 233 limbs in 204 patients (49% male; mean age, 70 ± 11 years) underwent SFA interventions. Four-year primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency rates were 69%, 78%, and 83%, respectively, for bypass patients and 66%, 91%, and 95%, respectively, for SFA interventions. Six-year limb salvage was 80% for bypass vs 92% for stenting (P = .04). Critical limb ischemia (CLI) and renal insufficiency were predictors of bypass failure. Claudication was a predictor of success for SFA stenting. Three-year limb salvage rates for CLI patients undergoing surgery and SFA stenting were 83%. Amputation-free survival at 3 years for CLI patients was 55% for bypass and 59% for SFA interventions. Multivariate predictors (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals) of covariates most frequently associated with first-line SFA stenting were TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II A and B lesions (5.9 [3.4-9.1], P < .001), age >70 years (2.1 [1.4-3.1], P < .001), and claudication (1.7 [1.1-2.7], P = .01). Regarding bypass as first-line therapy, claudicant patients were more likely to have nondiabetic status (5.6 [3.3-9.4], P < .001), creatinine <1.8 mg/dL (4.6 [1.5-14.9], P = .01), age <70 years (2.7 [CI, 1.6-8.3], P < .001), and presence of an above-knee popliteal artery target vessel (1.9 [CI, 1.1-3.4] P = .02). CONCLUSION: Indication, patient-specific covariates, and anatomic lesion classification have significant association when determining surgeon selection of SFA stenting or femoral-popliteal bypass as first-line therapy. Patients with SFA disease can have comparable long-term results when treatment options are well matched to patient-specific and anatomic characteristics.