Outcomes of a Novel Single Branched Aortic Stent Graft for Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Intervention on Type B dissection frequently requires landing the proximal edge of the stent graft between the left common carotid artery and left subclavian artery (LSA). The Gore® TAG® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE) is a technology which allows LSA preservation with a single internal branch. METHODS: This study was a prospective non-randomized single-arm clinical trial of patients with type B aortic dissection that were treated with the single branched device. Patients with operative indications for acute, chronic or residual Type B dissections that originated distal to the origin of a left subclavian artery suitable for branch graft placement were eligible for the study. Native aortic and surgical graft proximal landing zones were eligible. RESULTS: Among the 132 patients, there were 25 (18.9%) acute type B dissections, 79 (59.8%) of chronic type B dissections and 28 (21.1%) of residual dissections after previous open Type A repair. Percutaneous access was used in 105 (79.5%) patients. Overall, 30-day mortality occurred in 6 patients (4.5%). The overall 30 day stroke rate was 2/132(1.5%) and the one-year freedom from stroke was 96.8%. Device Technical Success and Procedural Success was achieved in 129/132(97.7%) and 110/132(83.3%) of subjects, respectively and there was one instance of loss of side branch patency. There was no persistent antegrade false lumen flow observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of a novel branched endograft device to preserve the LSA in patients with type B dissection undergoing TEVAR, we demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy outcomes at one year.

Polygenic Scoring for Detection of Ascending Thoracic Aortic Dilation.

BACKGROUND: Ascending thoracic aortic dilation is a complex heritable trait that involves modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. Polygenic scores (PGS) are increasingly used to assess risk for complex diseases. The degree to which a PGS can improve aortic diameter prediction in diverse populations is unknown. Presently, we tested whether adding a PGS to clinical prediction algorithms improves performance in a diverse biobank. METHODS: The analytic cohort comprised 6235 Penn Medicine Biobank participants with available echocardiography and clinical data linked to genome-wide genotype data. Linear regression models were used to integrate PGS weights derived from a genome-wide association study of thoracic aortic diameter performed in the UK Biobank and were compared with the performance of the previously published aorta optimized regression for thoracic aneurysm (AORTA) score. RESULTS: Cohort participants had a median age of 61 years (IQR, 53-70) and a mean ascending aortic diameter of 3.36 cm (SD, 0.49). Fifty-five percent were male, and 33% were genetically similar to an African reference population. Compared with the AORTA score, which explained 30.6% (95% CI, 29.9%-31.4%) of the variance in aortic diameter, AORTA score+UK Biobank-derived PGS explained 33.1%, (95% CI, 32.3%-33.8%), the reweighted AORTA score explained 32.5% (95% CI, 31.8%-33.2%), and the reweighted AORTA score+UK Biobank-derived PGS explained 34.9% (95% CI, 34.2%-35.6%). When stratified by population, models including the UK Biobank-derived PGS consistently improved upon the clinical AORTA score among individuals genetically similar to a European reference population but conferred minimal improvement among individuals genetically similar to an African reference population. Comparable performance disparities were observed in models developed to discriminate cases/noncases of thoracic aortic dilation (≥4.0 cm). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that inclusion of a UK Biobank-derived PGS to the AORTA score confers a clinically meaningful improvement in model performance only among individuals genetically similar to European reference populations and may exacerbate existing health care disparities.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) remain understudied. Prior research has not reported the outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in patients with previous CAS. In this study, we compared the peri-operative outcomes of TCAR, transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS using the Vascular Quality Iniatitive. METHODS: Using Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2016 to 2023, we identified patients who underwent TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA after prior ipsilateral CAS. We included covariates such as age, race, sex, body mass index, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary artery disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia), symptom status, urgency, ipsilateral stenosis, and contralateral occlusion into a regression model to compute propensity scores for treatment assignment. We then used the propensity scores for inverse probability weighting and weighted logistic regression to compare in-hospital stroke, in-hospital death, stroke/death, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and cranial nerve injury (CNI) after TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA. We also analyzed trends in the proportions of patients undergoing the three revascularization procedures over time using Cochrane-Armitage trend testing. RESULTS: We identified 2137 patients undergoing revascularization after prior ipsilateral carotid stenting: 668 TCAR patients (31%), 1128 tfCAS patients (53%), and 341 CEA patients (16%). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a lower yet not statistically significant in-hospital stroke/death than tfCAS (TCAR vs tfCAS: 0.7% vs 2.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.05; P = .06), and similar odds of stroke/death with CEA (TCAR vs CEA: 0.7% vs 0.9%; aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.16-3.98; P = .8). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with lower odds of postoperative MI (0.1% vs 14%; aOR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.10; P < .001), stroke/death/MI (0.8% vs 15%; aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001), and CNI (0.1% vs 3.8%; aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.30; P = .002) in this patient population. In symptomatic patients, TCAR had an unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rate of 5.1%, with lower rates of CNI than CEA. We also found an increasing trend in the proportion of patients undergoing TCAR following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting (2016 to 2023: 14% to 41%), with a relative decrease in proportions of tfCAS (61% to 45%) and CEA (25% to 14%) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with tfCAS, with comparable stroke/death but lower postoperative MI and CNI rates compared with CEA. In symptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with unacceptably higher in-hospital stroke/death rates. In line with the postprocedure outcomes, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of patients with prior ipsilateral stenting undergoing TCAR over time.

The association between sex and outcomes after thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has found worse outcomes for female patients after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and mixed findings after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) is not fully elucidated. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent TEVAR for aTBAD (<30 days) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022. We excluded patients with an entry tear or stent seal within the ascending aorta or aortic arch and patients with an unknown proximal tear location. Included patients were stratified by biological sex, and we analyzed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed adjusted variables for interaction with female sex. RESULTS: We included 1626 patients, 33% of whom were female. At presentation, female patients were significantly older (65 [interquartile range: 54, 75] years vs 56 [interquartile range: 49, 68] years; P = .01). Regarding indications for repair, female patients had higher rates of pain (85% vs 80%; P = .02) and lower rates of malperfusion (23% vs 35%; P < .001), specifically mesenteric, renal, and lower limb malperfusion. Female patients had a lower proportion of proximal repairs in zone 2 (39% vs 48%; P < .01). After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with comparable odds of perioperative mortality to males (8.1 vs 9.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.20]). Regarding perioperative complications, female sex was associated with lower odds for cardiac complications (2.3% vs 4.7%; aOR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.26-0.97]), but all other complications were comparable between sexes. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar risk for 5-year mortality (26% vs 23%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.77-1.32]). On testing variables for interaction with sex, female sex was associated with lower perioperative and 5-year mortality at older ages relative to males (aOR: 0.96 [0.93-0.99] | adjusted hazard ratio: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) and higher odds of perioperative mortality when mesenteric malperfusion was present (OR: 2.71 [1.04-6.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Female patients were older, less likely to have complicated dissection, and had more distal proximal landing zones. After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with similar perioperative and 5-year mortality to male sex, but lower odds of in-hospital cardiac complications. Interaction analysis showed that females were at additional risk for perioperative mortality when mesenteric ischemia was present. These data suggest that TEVAR for aTBAD overall has a similar safety profile in females as it does for males.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Retrograde pedal access and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for salvage of an occluded vein bypass.

Managing occlusions in a lower extremity bypass is challenging, although several surgical methods and percutaneous devices are available for treatment. A 64-year-old man presented with subacute failure of his infrainguinal vein bypass. Because we were unable to access the bypass in an antegrade fashion, we accessed the bypass graft via retrograde pedal access. The occluded vein graft was salvaged with the Pounce percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy system (Surmodics) with the use of a 0.014-in. through and through buddy wire to maintain access in the bypass alongside the Pounce system to allow multiple passes of the nitinol baskets to retrieve thrombus.

Factors Associated with Urgent Amputation Status and Its Impact on Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day mortality is higher after urgent major lower extremity amputations compared to elective lower extremity amputations. This study aims to identify factors associated with urgent amputations and to examine their impact on perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality. METHODS: Patients undergoing major lower limb amputation from 2013 to 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. Urgent amputation was defined as occurring within 72 hr of admission. Associations with sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes including postoperative complication, inpatient death, and long-term survival were compared using univariable tests and multivariable logistic regression. Long-term survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of the 12,874 patients included, 4,850 (37.7%) had urgent and 8,024 (62.3%) had elective amputations. Non-White patients required urgent amputation more often than White patients (39.8% vs. 37.9%, P = 0.03). A higher proportion of Medicaid and self-pay patients presented urgently (Medicaid: 13.0% vs. 11.0%; self-pay: 3.4% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001). Patients requiring urgent amputation were less often taking aspirin (55.6% vs. 60.1%, P < 0.001) or statin (62.2% vs. 67.2%, P < 0.001), had fewer prior revascularization procedures (41.0% vs. 48.8%, P < 0.001), and were of higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 4-5 (50.9% vs. 40.1%, P < 0.001). Urgent amputations were more commonly for uncontrolled infection (48.1% vs. 29.4%, P < 0.001) or acute limb ischemia (14.3% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were higher after urgent amputations (34.7% vs. 16.6%, P < 0.001), including need for return to operating room (23.8% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001) and need for higher revision (15.2% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001). Inpatient mortality was higher after urgent amputation (8.9% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed non-White race, self-pay, homelessness, current smoking, ASA class 4-5, and amputations for uncontrolled infection or acute limb ischemia were associated with urgent status, whereas living in a nursing home or prior revascularization were protective. Furthermore, urgent amputation was associated with an increased odds of postoperative complication or death (odds ratio 1.86 [1.69-2.04], P < 0.001) as well as long-term mortality (odds ratio: 1.24 [1.13-1.35], P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis corroborated that elective status was associated with improvement of long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring urgent amputations are more often non-White, uninsured, and less frequently had prior revascularization procedures, revealing disparities in access to care. Urgency was associated with a higher postoperative complication rate, as well as increased long-term mortality. Efforts should be directed toward reducing these disparities to improve outcomes following amputation.

Association Between Diagnosis-to-Limb Revascularization Time and Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: Insights From the CLIPPER Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The extent and consequences of ischemia in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) may change rapidly, and delays from diagnosis to revascularization may worsen outcomes. We sought to describe the association between time from diagnosis to endovascular lower extremity revascularization (diagnosis-to-limb revascularization [D2L] time) and clinical outcomes in outpatients with CLTI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CLIPPER cohort, comprising patients between 66 and 86 years old diagnosed with CLTI betweeen 2010 and 2019, we used Medicare claims data to identify patients who underwent outpatient endovascular revascularization within 180 days of diagnosis. We described the risk-adjusted association between D2L time and clinical outcomes. Among 1 130 065 patients aged between 66 and 86 years with CLTI, 99 221 (8.8%) underwent outpatient endovascular lower extremity revascularization within 180 days of their CLTI diagnosis. Among patients with D2L time <30 days, there was no association between D2L time and all-cause death or major lower extremity amputation. However, among patients with D2L time >30 days, each additional 10-day increase in D2L time was associated with a 2.5% greater risk of major amputation (hazard ratio, 1.025 [95% CI, 1.014-1.036]). There was no association between D2L time and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: A delay of >30 days from CLTI diagnosis to lower extremity endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased risk of major lower extremity amputation among patients undergoing outpatient endovascular revascularization. Improving systems of care to reduce D2L time could reduce amputations.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Sex disparities in patients with acute aortic dissection: A scoping review.

Disparities in outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease and those undergoing cardiac or vascular operations are well-established. These disparities often span several dimensions and persist despite advancements in medical and surgical care; sex is among the most pervasive. Specifically, females sex has been implicated as a predictor of poor outcomes in both patients with acute type A aortic dissections (ATAADs) and type B aortic dissections (TBADs). For instance, one study, using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection database, found that females with acute aortic dissection-including ATAAD and TBAD that were either medically or surgically managed-had 40% higher odds of in-hospital mortality than men. Notably, both types of acute aortic dissections affect men more commonly than females and can be life-threatening without prompt, appropriate treatment. The underlying mechanisms for these disparities are unclear but are thought to be multifactorial. The association of sex with patterns of disease and outcomes in patients with ATAAD or TBAD remains unclear, with conflicting reports from different studies. Thus, we sought to review the literature regarding sex disparities in patients with ATAAD and TBAD.

Open aneurysmorrhaphy for repair of a massive iliac vein aneurysm and review of the recent literature.

An iliac vein aneurysm is a rare vascular anomaly, scarcely reported in the vascular literature. We present the case of a 72-year-old man with a history of a remote heart transplant complicated by severe tricuspid regurgitation and traumatic abdominal injury, who was incidentally found to have a 10-cm right common iliac vein aneurysm. Because of the size and risk of rupture, we elected to treat him with surgical iliac vein aneurysmorrhaphy. His iliac venous diameter and flow continued to be stable at subsequent follow-up.

Using a polygenic score to account for genomic risk factors in a model to detect individuals with dilated ascending thoracic aortas.

Background: Ascending thoracic aortic dilation is a complex trait that involves modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors and can lead to thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection. Clinical risk factors have been shown to predict ascending thoracic aortic diameter. Polygenic scores (PGS) are increasingly used to assess clinical risk for multifactorial diseases. The degree to which a PGS can improve aortic diameter prediction is not known. In this study we tested the extent to which the addition of a PGS to clinical prediction algorithms improves the prediction of aortic diameter. Methods: The patient cohort comprised 6,790 Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) participants with available echocardiography and clinical data linked to genome-wide genotype data. Linear regression models were used to integrate PGS weights derived from a large genome wide association study of thoracic aortic diameter in the UK biobank and were compared to the performance of the standard and a reweighted variation of the recently published AORTA Score. Results: Cohort participants were 56% male, had a median age of 61 years (IQR 52-70) with a mean ascending aortic diameter of 3.4 cm (SD 0.5). Compared to the AORTA Score which explained 28.4% (95% CI 28.1% to 29.2%) of the variance in aortic diameter, AORTA Score + PGS explained 28.8%, (95% CI 28.1% to 29.6%), the reweighted AORTA score explained 30.4% (95% CI 29.6% to 31.2%), and the reweighted AORTA Score + PGS explained 31.0% (95% CI 30.2% to 31.8%). The addition of a PGS to either the AORTA Score or the reweighted AORTA Score improved model sensitivity for the identifying individuals with a thoracic aortic diameter ≥ 4 cm. The respective areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the AORTA Score + PGS (0.771, 95% CI 0.756 to 0.787) and reweighted AORTA Score + PGS (0.785, 95% CI 0.770 to 0.800) were greater than the standard AORTA Score (0.767, 95% CI 0.751 to 0.783) and reweighted AORTA Score (0.780 95% CI 0.765 to 0.795). Conclusions: We demonstrated that inclusion of a PGS to the AORTA Score results in a small but clinically meaningful performance enhancement. Further investigation is necessary to determine if combining genetic and clinical risk prediction improves outcomes for thoracic aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Racial Differences in Presentation and Outcomes After Peripheral Arterial Interventions: Insights From the NCDR-PVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: We assess the rates of device use and outcomes by race among patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent PVI between April 2014 and March 2019 were included. Socioeconomic status was evaluated using the Distressed Community Index score for patients' zip codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with utilization of drug-eluting technologies, intravascular imaging, and atherectomy. Among patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, we compared 1-year mortality, rates of amputation, and repeat revascularizations. RESULTS: Of 63 150 study cases, 55 719 (88.2%) were performed in White patients and 7431 (11.8%) in Black patients. Black patients were younger (67.9 versus 70.0 years), had higher rates of hypertension (94.4% versus 89.5%), diabetes (63.0% versus 46.2%), less likely to be able to walk 200 m (29.1% versus 24.8%), and higher Distressed Community Index scores (65.1 versus 50.6). Black patients were provided drug-eluting technologies at a higher rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.23]) with no difference in atherectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.05]) or intravascular imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.22]) use. Black patients experienced a lower rate of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.72-0.88]). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked analyses of 7429 cases (11.8%), Black patients were significantly less likely to have surgical (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17-0.96]) or repeat PVI revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.59]) at 1 year compared with White patients. There was no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [0.8-1.4]) or major amputation (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.8-7.6]) between Black and White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients presenting for PVI were younger, had higher prevalence of comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status. After adjustment, Black patients were less likely to have surgical or repeat PVI revascularization after the index PVI procedure.

International Multi-Institutional Experience with Presentation and Management of Aortic Arch Laterality in Aberrant Subclavian Artery and Kommerell's Diverticulum.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch. METHODS: Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions. RESULTS: 288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of insurance has been independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, possibly due to worse control of comorbidities and delays in diagnosis and treatment. Medicaid expansion has improved insurance rates and access to care, potentially benefiting these patients. We sought to assess the association between Medicaid expansion and outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases data from 14 states between 2012 and 2018 was conducted. The sample was restricted to first-record abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in adults under age 65 in states that expanded Medicaid on January 1, 2014 (Medicaid expansion group) or had not expanded before December 31, 2018 (non-expansion group). The Medicaid expansion and non-expansion groups were compared between pre-expansion (2012-2013) and post-expansion (2014-2018) time periods to assess baseline demographic and operative differences. We used difference-in-differences multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient factors, open vs endovascular repair, and standard errors clustered by state. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Outcomes were stratified by insurance type. RESULTS: We examined 8995 patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, including 3789 (42.1%) in non-expansion states and 5206 (57.9%) in Medicaid expansion states. Rates of Medicaid insurance were unchanged in non-expansion states but increased in Medicaid expansion states post-expansion (non-expansion: 10.9% to 9.8%; P = .346; expansion: 9.7% to 19.7%; P < .001). One in 10 patients from both non-expansion and Medicaid expansion states presented with ruptured aneurysms, which did not change over time. Rates of open repair decreased in both non-expansion and Medicaid expansion states over time (non-expansion: 25.1% to 19.2%; P < .001; expansion: 25.2% to 18.4%; P < .001). On adjusted difference-in-differences analysis between expansion and non-expansion states pre-to post-expansion, Medicaid expansion was associated with a 1.02% absolute reduction in in-hospital mortality among all patients (95% confidence interval, -1.87% to -0.17%; P = .019). Additionally, among patients who were either on Medicaid or were uninsured (ie, the patients most likely to be impacted by Medicaid expansion), a larger 4.17% decrease in in-hospital mortality was observed (95% confidence interval, -6.47% to -1.87%; P < .001). In contrast, no significant difference-in-difference in mortality was observed for privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among all patients and particularly among patients who were either on Medicaid or were uninsured. Our results provide support for improved access to care for patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair through Medicaid expansion.

Risk of Stroke, Death, and Myocardial Infarction Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Standard Surgical Risk.

Importance: Carotid artery stenting has been limited to use in patients with high surgical risk; outcomes in patients with standard surgical risk are not well known. Objective: To compare stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes following transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with standard surgical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective propensity-matched cohort study was conducted from August 2016 to August 2019 with follow-up until August 31, 2020, using data from the multicenter Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Artery Stent and Carotid Endarterectomy registries. Patients with standard surgical risk, defined as those lacking Medicare-defined high medical or surgical risk characteristics and undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (n = 2962) or carotid endarterectomy (n = 35 063) for atherosclerotic carotid disease. In total, 760 patients were excluded for treatment of multiple lesions or in conjunction with other procedures. Exposures: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke. Results: After 1:3 matching, 2962 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [6.9] years; 1910 [64.5%] male) and 8886 undergoing endarterectomy (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [6.5] years; 5777 [65.0%] male) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary composite end point between the 2 cohorts (transcarotid 3.0% vs endarterectomy 2.6%; absolute difference, 0.40% [95% CI, -0.43% to 1.24%]; relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.50]; P = .34). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a higher risk of 1-year ipsilateral stroke (1.6% vs 1.1%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.08]; RR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.11%]; P = .02) but no difference in 1-year all-cause mortality (2.6% vs 2.5%; absolute difference, -0.13% [95% CI, -0.18% to 0.33%]; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.39]; P = .67). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke was similar in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization compared with those undergoing endarterectomy for carotid stenosis.