Perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral and transcervical carotid artery stenting in radiation-induced carotid lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available to guide the choice of intervention for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), either transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patients who had undergone these carotid artery interventions for RICS and the associated outcomes. METHODS: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting surveillance project registry and the SVS VQI CEA modules who had undergone carotid artery intervention (TCAR, TFCAS, or CEA) for RICS were included. Those aged >90 years and those with concomitant interventions (eg, coronary bypass) were excluded. A composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included death, MI, stroke, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and other local and systemic complications. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for presenting symptomatic status and comorbid medical conditions was conducted for the outcome variables, except for death, which was analyzed using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1927 patients with RICS had undergone CEA (n = 1172), TCAR (n = 253), or TFCAS (n = 502). The CEA group had a higher rate of diabetes (31% vs 25% for TCAR and 25% for TFCAS; P = .01), hypertension (85% vs 82% for TCAR and 79% for TFCAS; P < .01), and peripheral vascular disease (8% vs 4% for TCAR and 4% for TFCAS; P < .01). The TCAR and TFCAS groups had higher rates of coronary artery disease (21% for CEA vs 30% for TCAR and 29% for TFCAS; P < .01). The patients who had undergone TFCAS were more likely to have had symptomatic lesions (57% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 41% for TCAR; P < .01) and prior stroke (55% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 40% for TCAR; P < .001). The composite outcome occurred in 3.2% of TCAR patients, 11.2% of TFCAS patients, and 11.1% of CEA patients (P < .01) with an odds ratio of 0.27 for TCAR, 0.91 for TFCAS, and 1.00 for CEA. However, no differences in the individual outcomes were noted for any procedure. TCAR exhibited the lowest odds ratio for CNI (0.15) compared with TFCAS at 0.9, both relative to CEA (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: RICS patients treated by TCAR in the SVS VQI had the lowest risk of the composite of stroke, death, and MI and CNI. Therefore, TCAR might be the preferred treatment modality. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes in this population and to elucidate the relationship of these procedures to the individual outcomes of stroke, MI, and death.

Perioperative neurologic outcomes of right versus left upper extremity access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Upper extremity (UE) access is frequently used for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR), particularly for complex repairs. Traditionally, left-side UE access has been used to avoid crossing the arch and the origin of the supra-aortic vessels, which could potentially result in cerebral embolization and an increased risk of perioperative cerebrovascular events. More recently, right UE has been more frequently used as it is more convenient and ergonomic. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes and cerebrovascular events after F-BEVAR with the use of right- vs left-side UE access. METHODS: During an 8-year period, 453 patients (71% male) underwent F-BEVAR at a single institution. UE access was used in more complex repairs. Left UE access was favored in the past, whereas right UE access is currently the preferred UE access side. Brachial artery cutdown was used in all patients for the placement of a 12F sheath. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing right vs left UE access. End points included cerebrovascular events, perioperative mortality, technical success, and local access-related complications. RESULTS: UE access was used in 361 (80%) patients. The right side was used in 232 (64%) and the left side in 129 (36%) patients for the treatment of 88 (25%) juxtarenal, 135 (38%) suprarenal, and 137 (38%) thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Most procedures were elective (94%). Technical success was achieved in 354 patients (98%). In-patient or 30-day mortality was 3.3%. Five (1%) perioperative strokes occurred in patients undergoing right UE access, of which three were ischemic and two were hemorrhagic. No transient ischemic attacks occurred perioperatively. Two hemorrhagic strokes were associated with permissive hypertension to prevent spinal cord ischemia. No perioperative strokes occurred in patients undergoing left UE access (P = .16). Overall, perioperative strokes occurred with similar frequency in patients undergoing UE (5, 1%) and femoral access only (1, 1%) (P = .99). Arm access-related complications occurred in 15 (5%) patients, 11 (4.8%) on the right side and 4 (6%) on the left side (P = .74). CONCLUSIONS: Right UE access can be used for F-BEVAR with low morbidity and minimal risk of perioperative ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attacks. In general, UE access is not associated with an increased risk of perioperative stroke compared with femoral access only. Tight blood pressure control is, however, critical to avoid intracranial bleeding related to uncontrolled hypertension.

Suprasternal Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From a Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P=0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P=0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P=0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P=0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P=0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.

Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained increasing acceptance for patients with aortic disease. Both transfemoral (TF-TAVR) and transapical (TA-TAVR) approach were widely adopted while their performances are limited to a few studies with controversial results. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the mortality and morbidity of complications between TF- versus TA-TAVR based on the latest data. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched until April 2021. RCTs and observational studies comparing the outcomes between TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR patients were included. Heterogeneity assumption was assessed by an I2 test. The pooled odds ratios(OR) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the difference for each end point using a fixed-effect model or random-effect model based on I2 test. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 1 RCT and 20 observational studies, enrolling 19,520 patients (TF-TAVR, n = 11,986 and TA-TAVR, n = 7,534). Compared with TA-TAVR, TF-TAVR patients showed significantly lower rate of postoperative in-hospital death (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77, P < 0.001) and 1-year death (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.41-0.69, P < 0.001). Incidence of major bleeding and acute kidney injury were lower and length of hospital stay was shorter, whereas those of permanent pacemaker and major vascular complication were higher in TF-TAVR patients. There were no significant differences between TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR for stroke and mid-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There were fewer early deaths in patients with transfemoral approach, whereas the number of mid-term deaths and stroke was not significantly different between two approaches. TF-TAVR was associated with lower risk of bleeding, acute kidney injury as well as shorter in-hospital stay, but higher incidence of vascular complication and permanent pacemaker implantation.

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Postcardiotomy Shock-Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock complicating cardiac surgery yields nearly 100% mortality when untreated. Use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock has increased worldwide recently. The aim of the current analysis was to outline the trends in use, changing patient profiles, and in-hospital outcomes including complications in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. DESIGN: Analysis of extracorporeal life support organization registry from January 2010 to December 2018. SETTING: Multicenter worldwide registry. PATIENTS: Seven-thousand one-hundred eighty-five patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Hospital death, weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, hospital complications. Mortality predictors were assessed by multivariable logistic regression. Propensity score matching was performed for comparison of peripheral and central cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A significant trend toward more extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in recent years (coefficient, 0.009; p < 0.001) was found. Mean age was 56.3 ± 14.9 years and significantly increased over time (coefficient, 0.513; p < 0.001). Most commonly, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was instituted after coronary artery bypass surgery (26.8%) and valvular surgery (25.6%), followed by heart transplantation (20.7%). Overall, successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning was possible in 4,520 cases (56.4%), and survival to hospital discharge was achieved in 41.7% of cases. In-hospital mortality rates remained constant over time (coefficient, -8.775; p = 0.682), whereas complication rates were significantly reduced (coefficient, -0.009; p = 0.003). Higher mortality was observed after coronary artery bypass surgery (65.4%), combined coronary artery bypass surgery with valve (68.4%), and aortic (69.6%) procedures than other indications. Lower mortality rates were observed in heart transplantation recipients (46.0%). Age (p < 0.001), central cannulation (p < 0.001), and occurrence of complications while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were independently associated with poorer prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis confirmed increased use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Mortality rates remained relatively constant over time despite a decrease in complications, in the setting of supporting older patients.

Cardiac Catheterizations in Patients With Prior Coronary Bypass Surgery: Impact of Access Strategy on Short-Term Safety and Long-Term Efficacy Outcomes.

Little data are available on access strategy outcomes for cardiac catheterizations in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). We investigated the effect of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) on short-term major vascular complications (MVC) and long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, 1084 patients met our inclusion criteria (TRA = 469; TFA = 615). The cumulative incidence for the primary safety endpoint MVC at 30 days (a composite of major bleeding, retroperitoneal hematoma, dissection, pseudoaneurysm, and arteriovenous fistula) was lower with TRA (0.7% vs 3.0%, P < .01) and this difference remained significant after propensity score adjustment (odds ratio: 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.83; P = .024). The cumulative incidence for the primary efficacy endpoint MACE at 36 months (a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and urgent target vessel revascularization) was 28.6% with TRA and 27.6% with TFA, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference for the primary efficacy endpoint (P = .65). Contrast use (mL) was significantly lower with TRA (130 [100-180] vs 150 [100-213], P < .01). In conclusion, in patients with prior CABG, TRA was associated with significantly fewer short-term MVC and contrast use, but not with a difference in long-term MACE, compared with TFA.

Safety of vascular interventions performed in an office-based laboratory in patients with low/moderate procedural risk.

OBJECTIVE: An exponential increase in number of office-based laboratories (OBLs) has occurred in the United States, since the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services increased reimbursement for outpatient vascular interventions in 2008. This dramatic shift to office-based procedures directed to the objective to assess safety of vascular procedures in OBLs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to include all procedures performed over a 4-year period at an accredited OBL. The procedures were categorized into groups for analysis; group I, venous procedures; group II, arterial; group III, arteriovenous; and group IV, inferior vena cava filter placement procedures. Local anesthesia, analgesics, and conscious sedation were used in all interventions, individualized to the patient and procedure performed. Arterial closures devices were used in all arterial interventions. Patient selection for procedure at OBL was highly selective to include only patients with low/moderate procedural risk. RESULTS: Nearly 6201 procedures were performed in 2779 patients from 2011 to 2015. The mean age of the study population was 66.5 ± 13.31 years. There were 1852 females (67%) and 928 males (33%). In group I, 5783 venous procedures were performed (3491 vein ablation, 2292 iliac vein stenting); with group II, 238 arterial procedures (125 femoral/popliteal, 71 infrapopliteal, iliac 42); group III, 129 arteriovenous accesses; and group IV, 51 inferior vena cava filter placements. The majority of procedures belonged to American Society of Anesthesiology class II with venous (61%) and arterial (74%) disease. A total of 5% patients were deemed American Society of Anesthesiology class IV (all on hemodialysis). There was no OBL mortality, major bleed, acute limb ischemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospital transfer within 72 hours. Minor complications occurred in 14 patients (0.5%). Thirty-day mortality, unrelated to the procedure, was noted in 9 patients (0.32%). No statistically significant differences were noted in outcomes between the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that it is safe to use OBL for minimally invasive, noncomplex vascular interventions in patients with a low to moderate cardiovascular procedural risk.

Impact of Young Age and Gender on Outcomes of Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access Coronary Angiography.

The differential impact of young age and female gender on transradial access (TRA) outcomes remains to be confirmed. The primary objective was to assess the impact of young age and female gender on in-hospital net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). Among 12 346 patients from the Coronary Angiogram Database of South Australia (CADOSA) Registry, the impact of gender; men (transfemoral access [TFA] 1995, TRA 6168) and women (TFA 1249, TRA 2934), and a median split of age, ≤63 years (TFA 1617, TRA 4727) and >63 years (TFA 1627, TRA 4375) were analyzed on in-hospital outcomes by creating 5 separate propensity-matched cohorts (entire cohort, men, women, ≤63 and > 63 years). Net adverse cardiovascular event reduction with TRA was limited to the >63 years old cohort (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.93, P = .02) and women (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18-0.76, P = .007). In both the age groups and genders, TRA was associated with a lower risk of bleeding and all-cause mortality. On multivariate logistic regression, TRA was associated with a significant reduction in NACE, major bleeding, and mortality in the overall cohort. In conclusion, a reduction in bleeding and mortality was noted with TRA in all the subgroups in this observational study.

Six-year study on peripheral venous catheter-associated BSI rates in 262 ICUs in eight countries of South-East Asia: International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium findings.

BACKGROUND: Short-term peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection rates have not been systematically studied in Asian countries, and data on peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections incidence by number of short-term peripheral venous catheter days are not available. METHODS: Prospective, surveillance study on peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections conducted from 1 September 2013 to 31 May 2019 in 262 intensive care units, members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium, from 78 hospitals in 32 cities of 8 countries in the South-East Asia Region: China, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. For this research, we applied definition and criteria of the CDC NHSN, methodology of the INICC, and software named INICC Surveillance Online System. RESULTS: We followed 83,295 intensive care unit patients for 369,371 bed-days and 376,492 peripheral venous catheter-days. We identified 999 peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections, amounting to a rate of 2.65/1000 peripheral venous catheter-days. Mortality in patients with peripheral venous catheter but without peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 4.53% and 12.21% in patients with peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. The mean length of stay in patients with peripheral venous catheter but without peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 4.40 days and 7.11 days in patients with peripheral venous catheter and peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. The microorganism profile showed 67.1% were Gram-negative bacteria: Escherichia coli (22.9%), Klebsiella spp (10.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.3%), Enterobacter spp. (4.5%), and others (23.7%). The predominant Gram-positive bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (11.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Infection prevention programs must be implemented to reduce the incidence of peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections.

Alternative Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Nonagenarians versus Younger Patients.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented the safety of alternatives access (AA) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients who are not candidates for transfemoral or surgical approach. There is a scarcity of studies relating use of AA TAVR in nonagenarian patients, a high-risk, frail group. Our study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes of nonagenarians who underwent AA TAVR for aortic stenosis, with comparison of nonagenarians age ≥90 years with patients age <90 years. METHODS: A cohort study of 171 consecutive patients undergoing AA TAVR (transapical [TA, n = 101, 59%], transaxillary [TAX, n = 56, 33%], transaortic [TAO, n = 11, 6%], and transcarotid [TC, n = 3, 2%]) from 2012 to 2019 was analyzed. Baseline, operative, and postoperative characteristics, as well as actuarial survival outcomes, were compared. RESULTS: AA TAVR patients had decreased aortic valve gradients with no difference detected in nonagenarians and younger patients. Operative mortality was 8% (n = 14; nine TA, three TAO, and two TAX). Compared to younger patients, significantly more nonagenarians were recorded to have new onset atrial fibrillation (7 vs. 5%, p < 0.01*). No significant difference in mortality or postoperative complications, such as stroke, pacemaker requirements, was detected. Actuarial survival at 1 and 5 years was 86 versus 87% (nonagenarians vs younger patients) and 36 versus 22%, respectively, with log-rank = 0.97. CONCLUSION: AA TAVR in nonagenarian patients who are not candidates for transfemoral approach can be efficaciously performed with comparable clinical outcomes to younger patients, age <90 years. Furthermore, some access sites should be avoided when possible; notably TA was associated with increased mortality, stroke, and new onset atrial fibrillation.

Right-sided Upper Extremity Access for Patients Undergoing Parallel Graft Placement during Endovascular Aortic Repair is Not Associated with Increased Neurologic Events When Compared with Left Upper Extremity Access.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of right axillary cannulation during complex aortic aneurysm repair for the deployment of chimney grafts is controversial; however, there are few studies that compare right and left upper extremity access. We favor the right axillary approach because of the relative ease of access to the visceral branches and the ability of surgeons and nursing staff to work on the same side of the patient, while avoiding the left sided image intensifier. We aim to demonstrate that right-sided access is equivalent or safer than left-sided access in terms of technical success and complication rates, with a focus on neurologic outcomes. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective study with a review of patients who underwent aortic intervention from January 2012 through December 2018. A total of 398 aortic interventions were performed, and 97 of these required brachial, axillary, or subclavian arterial access for attempted ChEVAR or thoracic endovascular aortic repair with parallel chimney grafts. Primary end points that were analyzed were site or sites of upper extremity access, technical success, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular events, and subclavian/axillary artery injury. The number of parallel grafts, age, mean hospital length of stay, prior aortic intervention, emergent or elective status were also analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-seven endovascular aortic operations required upper extremity access, with 67 using access from the right upper extremity, 26 using access from the left upper extremity, and 4 using bilateral upper extremity access. A total of 68.0% of patients had undergone prior aortic surgery. Technical success was achieved in 85 cases (87.6%). Five total patients suffered cerebrovascular accidents, with 2 occurring in left-sided access (7.7%), 2 in right-sided access (3.0%), and 1 in bilateral access (25%). CONCLUSIONS: Right upper extremity access for patients undergoing parallel graft placement during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is a safe and feasible approach that is not associated with an increased risk of stroke or neurological events as compared with left upper extremity access.

Outcomes after transfemoral carotid artery stenting stratified by preprocedural symptom status.

OBJECTIVE: The available data on outcomes after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) originate from the early experience with TFCAS. Although most previous studies stratified outcomes according to a symptomatic or asymptomatic presentation, they often did not specify the degree of presenting neurologic injury. We previously reported that the outcomes after carotid endarterectomy differed according to neurologic injury severity, the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TFCAS stratified by the specific presenting symptom status are unknown. METHODS: Patients with data in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone TFCAS from 2016 to 2020 were included. We stratified patients according to their preprocedural symptom status as asymptomatic, formerly symptomatic (last symptoms >180 days before the procedure), or recently symptomatic (symptoms <180 days before the procedure). The symptoms included stroke, hemispheric transient ischemic attack (TIA), and ocular TIA. We compared the occurrence of in-hospital stroke or death (stroke/death) among the asymptomatic, formerly symptomatic, and specific subtypes of recently symptomatic patients. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to adjust for the baseline differences among the groups. RESULTS: Of the 9807 included patients, 2650 (27%) had had recent stroke, 842 (9%), recent hemispheric TIA, and 360 (4%), recent ocular TIA. In addition, 795 patients (8%) were formerly symptomatic and 5160 (53%) were asymptomatic. The patients with recent stroke had a perioperative stroke/death rate of 5.5%, higher than that of patients with recent hemispheric TIA (2.4%; P < .001) or recent ocular TIA (2.8%; P = .03) and asymptomatic patients (1.4%; P < .001). The stroke/death rate was greater for patients with recent ocular TIA than for asymptomatic patients (2.8% vs 1.4%; P = .04). Formerly symptomatic patients had higher stroke/death rates compared with asymptomatic patients (3.5% vs 1.4%; P < .001). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, recent stroke was associated with higher stroke/death compared with recent hemispheric TIA (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-4.3; P < .001) and asymptomatic status (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 3.0-5.6; P < .001) and demonstrated a trend toward higher stroke/death compared with recent ocular TIA (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.9; P = .06). Furthermore, asymptomatic status was associated with lower stroke/death compared with formerly symptomatic status (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing TFCAS, recent stroke was associated with greater odds of in-hospital stroke/death after TFCAS compared with recent hemispheric TIA. Also, formerly symptomatic status was associated with greater odds of stroke/death compared with asymptomatic status. These findings support further symptom stratification by the degree of the presenting neurologic injury in the preoperative risk assessment.

The long-term implications of access complications during endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Access issues are one of the most common complications of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, contemporary rates as well as risk factors for complications and the subsequent impact of access complications on mortality are poorly described. METHODS: We studied all EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms without prior aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2011 and 2018. We studied factors associated with access complications (thrombosis, embolus, wound infection, hematoma, and conversion to cutdown), as well as the interaction with female sex and the impact on survival using multilevel logistic regression and propensity weighting. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. RESULTS: There were 33,951 EVAR during the study period (91% elective, 9% symptomatic); most cases (70%) involved an attempt at percutaneous access on at least one side, with 30% bilateral cutdowns and 0.1% iliac conduits. There were 1553 patients (4.6%) who experienced at least one access complication. Access complications were almost twice as common in female patients (7.5% vs 3.9%; P < .001). The factors associated with access complications included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.6; P < .001), age (OR, 1.05 per 5 years; 95% CI, 1.02-1.1; P < .01), aortouni-iliac device (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P < .01), smoking (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P < .01), body mass index of less than 16 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5; P = .001), dual antiplatelet therapy (1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.6 P = .03), prior infrainguinal bypass (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .01), and beta blocker use (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.03-1.4; P = .02). Conversion from percutaneous access to open cutdown was associated with higher rates of complications than planned open cutdown (8.6% vs 2.9%; P < .001). In propensity-weighted analysis, percutaneous access was associated with significantly lower odds of access complications in women (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96; P = .03). Patients who experienced an access complication had more than four times the odds of perioperative death (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.5-7.1; P < .001), and a 60% higher risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P = .001). In addition to death, patients with access site complications had higher rates of other major complications, including reoperation during the index hospitalization (19% vs 1.2%; P < .001), myocardial infarction (3.5% vs 0.7%; P < .001), stroke (0.8% vs 0.2%; P < .001), acute kidney injury (12% vs 3%; P < .001), and reintubation (5.7% vs 0.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Although access complications are infrequent in the current era, they are associated with both perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality. Female patients in particular are at high risk of access complications, but may benefit from percutaneous access.

Percutaneous large-bore axillary access is a safe alternative to surgical approach: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review relevant literature regarding cardiovascular outcomes of large-bore axillary arterial access via percutaneous and surgical approaches. BACKGROUND: In patients with severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) undergoing cardiac interventions, large-bore femoral access may be prohibitive. The axillary artery provides an alternative vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or mechanical circulatory support. There have been limited comparisons of percutaneous transaxillary (pTAX) approach with the more traditional surgical transaxillary (sTAX) approach. METHODS: Pubmed and Medline databases were queried through January 2019 for studies describing pTAX or sTAX approaches with TAVR or Impella insertion. Primary outcomes were access-related mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, and major bleeding. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty five studies were reviewed, with additional unpublished data from 1 institution. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Patient data was heterogeneous, with 69% TAVR and 31% Impella use in the pTAX group, and 96% TAVR and 4% Impella use in the sTAX group. There was more cardiogenic shock in the pTAX group. When compared to surgical approach, the percutaneous approach had similar 30-day mortality for TAVR (5.6% vs 4.6%, OR non-significant) and Impella (43.4% vs 38.6%, OR non-significant), similar stroke rates (4.3% vs 4.2%, OR non-significant), similar major vascular complications (2.8% vs 2.3%, OR non-significant) and less major bleeding (2.7% vs 17.9%, OR significant). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggests large-bore pTAX access has similar 30-day mortality, stroke rates, and major vascular complications as sTAX access, with less major bleeding. Additional studies are needed to validate results.

Safety and Efficacy of Protamine Administration for Prevention of Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing TAVR.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether protamine administration for heparin reversal after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) reduces bleeding complications and affects patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: Occurrence of major bleeding complications in patients undergoing TAVR is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This study included 873 patients undergoing TAVR, of whom 677 received protamine for heparin reversal. Standard access management included the use of pre-closure devices, manual compression, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or implantation of a covered stent graft, if necessary. The study complied with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and was approved by the local ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and life-threatening and major bleeding, occurred less frequently in the protamine administration group (3.2%) compared with the control group (8.7%) (p = 0.003). This was driven mainly by lower rates of life-threatening and major bleeding in the protamine group (0.1% vs. 2.6% [p < 0.001] and 1.0% vs. 4.1% [p = 0.008], respectively). Furthermore, protamine administration resulted in a significantly shorter hospital stay (11.1 ± 5.8 days vs. 12.7 ± 7.8 days; p = 0.05). In the overall cohort, stroke was observed in 1.9% and myocardial infarction in 0.2% of patients, with no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that only protamine administration (odds ratio: 0.24; 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.58; p = 0.001) and acute kidney injury (odds ratio: 5.82; 95% confidence interval: 2.02 to 16.77; p = 0.001) were independently associated with the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Protamine administration resulted in significantly lower rates of life-threatening and major bleeding complications compared with patients without heparin reversal. Occurrence of stroke and myocardial infarction was not increased by protamine administration.

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

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

Incidence, predictors, impact, and treatment of vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a modern prospective cohort under real conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular complications (VCs) occurring in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures have frequently been reported in the past. Considering significant technical improvements in delivery systems and vascular closure devices, the goal of this study was to determine the incidence, impact, and prognostic factors of VCs in a recent real-world cohort. METHODS: We report a bicentric prospective analysis of 479 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI between January 2017 and December 2017. VCs were defined according to criteria set out by the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2. RESULTS: The incidence of VCs was 26.1% (n = 125 patients), of which 2.9% were major (n = 14) and 23.2% were minor (n = 111). VCs were related to the primary puncture point in 69% of cases compared with 31% at the secondary puncture site. Treatments implemented were medical in 76% of cases and surgical in 24% of cases. The risk factors for VCs were as follows: iliac morphology score, sheath to iliofemoral artery ratio (SIFAR), and moderate-severe iliofemoral calcifications or tortuosity. In the case of major VCs, only sheath to iliofemoral artery ratio was a risk factor. Major VCs significantly increased intrahospital mortality (30.7% vs 1.1% for minor VCs and 1.3% for no VCs; log-rank, P < .0001) and 1-year mortality (40.6% vs 5.6% for minor VCs and 5.6% for no VCs; log-rank, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using strictly VARC-2 end point definitions, more than one-quarter of TAVI procedures were associated with VCs, primarily minor ones. Secondary puncture points were responsible for one-third of VCs and should therefore also be actively monitored. Major VCs have a significant impact on short-term and midterm survival.

Utility of Intravascular Ultrasound in Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare outcomes between intravascular ultrasound- (IVUS) versus angiography (AO)-guided peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). Introduction: Intravascular ultrasound facilitates plaque visualization and angioplasty during PVIs for peripheral arterial disease. It is unclear whether IVUS may improve the durability of PVIs and lead to improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a study-level meta-analysis of observational studies. The primary end points of this study were rates of primary patency and reintervention. Secondary end points included rates of vascular complications, periprocedural adverse events, amputations, technical success, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Eight observational studies were included in this analysis with 93 551 patients. Mean follow-up was 24.2 ± 15 months. Intravascular ultrasound-guided PVIs had similar patency rates when compared with AO-guided PVIs (relative risk [RR]: 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.71, P = .062). There was no difference in rates of reintervention in IVUS-guided PVIs when compared to non-IVUS-guided PVIs (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.15-1.13, P = .085). There is a lower risk of periprocedural adverse events (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94, P = .006) and vascular complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.96, P = .013) in the IVUS group. All-cause mortality (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.56-1.04, P = .084), amputation rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32-2.15, P = .705), myocardial infarctions (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.58-2.41, P = .637), and technical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.19, P = .886) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: Intravascular ultrasound-guided PVIs had similar primary patency and reintervention when compared with AO-guided PVIs with significantly lower rates of periprocedural adverse events and vascular complications in the IVUS-guided group.

Ultrasound Guidance to Reduce Vascular and Bleeding Complications of Percutaneous Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.

Background Ultrasound (US) guidance provides the unique opportunity to control the puncture zone of the artery during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may decrease major vascular complications (VC) and life-threatening or major bleeding complications. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of US guidance using a propensity score-matched comparison. Methods and Results US guidance was implemented as the default approach for all transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement cases in our institution in June 2013. We defined 3 groups of consecutive patients according to the method of puncture (fluoroscopic/US guidance) and the use of a transcatheter heart valve. Patients in the US-guided second-generation group (Sapien XT [Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA], Corevalve [Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland]) were successfully 1:1 matched with patients in the fluoroscope-guided second-generation group (n=95) with propensity score matching. In a second analysis we described the consecutive patients of the US-guided third-generation group (Evolut-R [Medtronic], Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences], n=308). All vascular and bleeding complications were reduced in the US-guided second-generation group compared with the fluoroscope-guided second-generation group: VC (16.8% versus 6.3%; P=0.023); life-threatening or major bleeding (22.1% versus 6%; P=0.004); and VC related to vascular access (12.6% versus 4.2%; P=0.052). In the US-guided third-generation group the rates of major VC and life-threatening or major bleeding were 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6% to 5.9%) and 3.6% (95% CI, 1.8% to 6.3%). In the overall population (n=546), life-threatening or major bleeding was associated with a 1.7-fold increased mortality risk (P=0.02). Conclusions We demonstrated that US guidance effectively reduced VC and bleeding complications for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and should be considered the standard puncture method. Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02628509.

Transradial vs. Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With or Without High Bleeding Risk Criteria.

BACKGROUND: The transradial approach is reportedly associated with reduced bleeding complications and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether the clinical benefits of transradial vs. transfemoral PCI differ between high bleeding risk (HBR) and non-HBR patients.Methods and Results:After excluding patients with acute myocardial infarction, dialysis, and a transbrachial approach from the 13,087 patients undergoing first PCI in the CREDO-Kyoto Registry Cohort-2, 6,828 patients were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to bleeding risk based on Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, and then divided into a further 2 groups according to access site, radial or femoral: HBR-radial, n=1,054 (38.3%); HBR-femoral, n=1,699 (61.7%); non-HBR-radial, n=1,682 (41.3%); and non-HBR-femoral, n=2,393 (58.7%). In the HBR group, the 30-day incidence and adjusted risk for major bleeding (1.9% vs. 4.7% [P<0.001]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.71 [P<0.001]) and all-cause death (0.3% vs. 0.9% [P=0.04]; aHR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-0.93 [P=0.04]) were significantly lower in the radial than femoral group. There were no significant differences in the 30-day incidence and adjusted risk for major bleeding (0.5% vs. 1.0% [P=0.09]; aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30-1.45 [P=0.33]) or all-cause death (0.1% vs. 0.1% [P=0.96]; aHR 1.51, 95% CI 0.19-9.54 [P=0.67]) between the radial and femoral approaches in the non-HBR group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with transfemoral PCI, transradial PCI was associated with lower risk for 30-day major bleeding and mortality in HBR but not non-HBR patients.