Adapting Vascular Surgery Practice to the Current COVID-19 Era at a Tertiary Academic Center in Madrid.

BACKGROUND: The epidemic potential of coronavirus infection is now a reality. Since the first case detected in late 2019 in China, a fast worldwide expansion confirms it. The vascular patient is at a higher risk of developing a severe form of the disease because of its nature associating several comorbid states, and thus, some vascular surgery communities from many countries have tried to stratify patients into those requiring care during these uncertain times. METHODS: This is an observational study describing the current daily vascular surgery practice at one tertiary academic hospital in Madrid region, Spain-one of the most affected regions worldwide due to the COVID-19 outbreak. We analyzed our surgical practice since March 14th when the lockdown was declared up to date, May 14th (2 months). Procedural surgical practice, organizational issues, early outcomes, and all the troubles encountered during this new situation are described. RESULTS: Our department is composed of 10 vascular surgeons and 4 trainees. Surgical practice has been reduced to only urgent care, totaling 50 repairs on 45 patients during the period. Five surgeries were performed on 3 COVID-19-positive patients. Sixty percent were due to critical limb ischemia, 45% of them performed by complete endovascular approach, whereas less than 10% of repairs were aorta related. We were allocated to use a total of 5 surgical rooms in different locations, none our usual, as it was converted into an ICU room while performing 50% of those repairs with unusual nursery staff. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 outbreak has dramatically changed our organization and practice in favor of urgent or semiurgent surgical care alone. The lack of in-hospital/ICU beds and changing nursery staff changed the whole availability organization at our hospital and was a key factor in surgical decision-making in some cases.

Outcomes of open and endovascular repair of inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Objective Reports on inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm treatment are scarce. Traditionally, open surgery has been validated as the gold standard of treatment; however, high technical skills are required. Endovascular aortic repair has been suggested as a less invasive treatment by some authors offering good results. The purpose of our study was to report our experience and outcomes in the treatment of inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm using both approaches. Material and methods A retrospective review and data collection of all patients treated for inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm between 2000 and 2015 was done in one academic center. Diagnosis of inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm was based on preoperative CT-scan imaging. Type of treatment, postoperative and long-term morbidity and mortality are described. Abdominal compressive symptoms (hydronephrosis) severity and relief after treatment are described. Results Thirty-four patients with intact inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm were included. Twenty-nine (85.3%) patients were treated by open means and the remaining five (14.7%) with endovascular aortic repair. Nearly 90% were considered high-risk patients. Median follow-up was 46 months (range 24-112). The two groups were comparable, except for the age and preoperative hydronephrosis. There was no statistical significance in blood transfusion requirements, intensive care hospitalization, 30-day and long-term mortality between the two groups. Preoperative hydronephrosis was diagnosed in four (13.8%) patients in the open surgery group and three (60%) patients in the endovascular aortic repair group. Improvement of hydronephrosis was recognized in three out of the four patients in the open repair group and two out of the three in the endovascular aortic repair group. Renal function remained stable in both groups during follow-up. Conclusions Open surgery remains a safe and valid option for the treatment of inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm. Although our study included a small number of patients with endovascular aortic repair treatment, results are promising. Further randomized controlled studies may be necessary to assess long-term effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair treatment in this disease.

Anticoagulation Alone for Aortic Segment Treatment in Symptomatic Primary Aortic Mural Thrombus Patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary aortic mural thrombus (AMT) is a rare entity. Asymptomatic AMT may be found in imaging studies for other disease studies. Symptomatic AMT as embolic events may localize in the arterial branches of the aorta; limb ischemia is the most usual clinical presentation, though. However, when proximal aorta is compromised, visceral branches occlusion and ischemia may determine morbidity and mortality in these patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study with collection of data from January 2011 to September 2016. Medical records of patients were reviewed for: demographic data, cardiovascular risk factors or any known prothrombotic predisposing condition, clinical presentation, vessel of embolism, localization of aortic thrombus, treatment of AMT and symptoms, follow-up, and computed tomography scan imaging findings. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 54.7 ± 11.5 years, with male/female ratio 3:1. Four (50%) patients had AMT at the arch or descending aorta, 3 (37.5%) patients in the infrarenal sector, and the remaining in the visceral aorta. All but one patient received anticoagulation alone for the aortic thrombus. Patient with femoral thromboembolectomy died in the early postoperative time due to severe massive embolism. Median follow-up was 23 months (range, 1-50). Five out of seven patients showed complete aortic thrombus resolution in imaging follow up. None of the patients presented recurrence of embolic events. CONCLUSIONS: An anticoagulation first-approach treatment may be reasonable if mild organ damage is encountered. This strategy may be continued if no recurrences in embolic events are encountered, as high percentage of thrombus resolution is expected. Open or endovascular may be saved for life-threatening visceral or arch branches damage.

Predictors of inadequate EndoAnchors aortic wall penetration for the Endosutured therapy in hostile neck patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of EndoAnchors is increasing; however, not much about appropriate use in terms of aortic wall penetration (AWP) is described. We aim to evaluate the procedural and anatomical conditions related with borderline (b) or absence (ab) of AWP when checked on first CT-scan after the Endosutured aortic repair (ESAR) for hostile neck anatomies (HNA). METHODS: This study with NCT04100499 is a single center prospective evaluation of patients receiving EndoAnchors for prevention or treatment of a proximal EVAR failure. AWP was evaluated on first CT-scan and findings correlated with neck anatomical features and procedural data. The sum of borderline and absence of AWP was considered as Inadequate - In-AWP (failure). Adjunctive procedures, reinterventions, all-cause mortality, absence of type Ia EL and aneurysm related mortality are also described. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were treated during the study period and 43 high-surgical risk patients were finally included in the study for analysis with at least one HNA criteria (58%) and associating two in 21% or even three in 21%. A total of 250 EndoAnchors were deployed at a median 6 (range, 4-10) per case. From those, 31 (12.5%) achieved b-AWP and 11 (4.4%) ab-AWP, meaning 42 (16.8%) EndoAnchors with In-AWP. Univariate-analysis showed being an occasional user and a therapeutic case as predictor for at least one and more failures. The only predictor on multivariate analysis for two or more EndoAnchors with In-AWP was being an occasional user. Cumulative-survival and freedom from type-Ia EL at 2-years was 84% and 95%; respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of the ESAR therapy should be validated according to their aortic wall penetration checked on first CT-scan. EndoAnchors use in HNA should not be considered an easy approach for the endovascular technique, especially for therapeutic cases. An individual and specific case analysis counterbalancing inadequate use of the device in unexperienced users should be evaluated against the increased risk of proximal failure as in standard EVAR alone during HNA treatment.

Infragenicular bypass graft for limb salvage using polytetrafluoroethylene and distal vein cuff as the first alternative in patients without ipsilateral greater saphenous vein.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the results of polytetrafluoroethylene infragenicular bypass grafts with a distal interposition vein cuff in patients with critical limb ischemia in the absence of ipsilateral greater saphenous vein. From January 1997 to June 2002, 58 consecutive below-knee bypass grafts with PTFE and distal interposition vein cuff were performed in 57 patients with a median age of 70.8 years. The distal anastomosis was located at the infragenicular popliteal artery in 18 cases and at tibial vessels in 40. Primary patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. During a median follow-up of 14.4 months (range, 1-50) 26 cases of graft occlusion and 19 major amputations were registered. The primary and secondary patency rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 57%, 54%, and 47% and 61%, 58%, and 50%, respectively. Limb salvage rates reached 69%, 69%, and 59% at 12, 24, and 36 months. When below-knee revasculanzation is required in patients with limb-threatening ischemia, in the absence ipsilateral greater saphenous vein, PTFE grafts with a distal vein cuff are a reasonable substitute with acceptable long-term patency and limb salvage rates.