Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Thirty-day outcomes from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B dissection project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for dissection project is to assess the effectiveness of TEVAR for type B dissection by evaluation in a prospective quality improvement registry. Here we describe the project cohort and 30-day outcomes of TEVAR for both acute dissection (AD) and chronic dissection (CD) patients and focus specifically on outcomes of uncomplicated AD patients based on timing of treatment. METHODS: Summary statistics were performed comparing patients with AD (<30 days) and patients with CD. Both groups were further divided into those with complicated (ie, malperfusion or rupture) or uncomplicated presentation. Further subdivision of the uncomplicated AD patients into treatment at ≤48 hours, >48 hours to <7 days, ≥7 days to ≤14 days, and >14 days to <30 days was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 30-day survival and freedom from reintervention. RESULTS: Data for 397 patients (204 AD patients and 193 CD patients) were collected from 40 institutions. Overall, AD patients were younger than CD patients (58.8 vs 62.2 years; P = .003). Technical success, including coverage of the primary entry tear, was 98.0% for AD patients and 99.0% for CD patients, with a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality in AD patients (AD, 9.3%; CD, 5.2%; P = .126). Any degree of procedure-related spinal cord ischemia occurred in 4.4% of AD patients vs 2.1% of CD patients (P = .261), with a deficit at discharge in 3.4% of AD patients vs 0.5% of CD patients (P = .068). Disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of AD patients vs 1.6% of CD patients (P = .725); retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1.1% of AD patients vs 2.6% of CD patients (P = .412). There was a trend toward a lower freedom from reintervention in AD patients (90.7% vs 94.8%; P = .13). In uncomplicated AD patients, rapid aortic expansion was more common in the treatment groups of ≥7 days to ≤14 days and >14 days to <30 days compared with those treated within 7 days of dissection (P = .042). The uncomplicated AD cohorts based on timing of treatment were otherwise similar in demographics and presentation, with no significant differences in 30-day mortality or serious complications, such as spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or retrograde type A dissection. The 30-day reintervention rate for uncomplicated AD patients was 5.8%, with no apparent differences in reintervention rates according to timing of treatment of initial TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, AD patients demonstrated a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality and lower freedom from reintervention compared with CD patients. Mortality at 30 days after TEVAR for uncomplicated AD was 5.8%, and there were no clear patterns in mortality or reintervention based on timing of treatment. Further study and evaluation at longer follow-up are needed to determine the impact of timing of intervention in uncomplicated AD patients.

In Vivo Assessment of Ascending and Arch Aortic Compliance.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic compliance (Cd) of the adult thoracic ascending and arch aorta has had limited in vivo evaluation in patients with aortic disease. This study evaluates aortic compliance using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) across a range of thoracic aortic diseases. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients undergoing thoracic aortic endovascular procedures had Cd measurements of the ascending aorta proximal to the origin of the brachiocephalic trunk and distal to the origin of the left common carotid artery using IVUS before endograft deployment. Cd was calculated for each segment using the following equation, Cd = ΔD/(D • ΔP) where ΔD = change in aortic diameter, D = diameter in diastole, and ΔP = pulse pressure. RESULTS: Mean Cd of the ascending aorta in all patients (18.4%/mm Hg) and aortic arch (16.5 %/100 mm Hg) did not differ significantly. Compliance was significantly lower in patients being treated for thoracic aortic aneurysm and penetrating ulcer than in patients with traumatic rupture, acute and chronic dissection (P = 0.009). Compliance was significantly higher in patients with aortic transection compared with thoracic aneurysm or penetrating ulcer (P = 0.001). Compliance decreased with age by 0.44 ± 0.06 (P = 0.001) per year in the ascending aorta and 0.41 ± 0.05 (P = 0.001) per year in the aortic arch. Compliance did not increase with diameter when adjusted for age (P = 0.65). Compliance measured in the ascending aorta in 7 patients after descending thoracic aortic endograft repair decreased to 12.6%/100 mm Hg, although not significant (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Ascending and aortic arch compliance is significantly higher than reported for peripheral vessels. Thoracic aortic compliance decreases with age and is not related to aortic diameter. The results of the present study are important when considering the development of endoprosthesis devices and long-term effects on the thoracic aorta.

Feasibility of endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies as part of an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of ascending aortic lesions has been reported, but to date, no FDA-approved studies have been conducted to define feasibility and the use of endografts in this particular location or to analyze the critical factors involved. METHODS: Patients were consented for entry into an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study to investigate the outcome of those with ascending aortic pathologies. These patients were suitable according to the instructions for use for endovascular repair with a Valiant Captivia (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) thoracic stent graft, a device designed specifically for deployment in the ascending aorta. All patients had sequential gated-cardiac computed tomography scans, with data being entered into the VQI Complex TEVAR software (West Lebanon, NH). All procedures were performed in a hybrid room, with the capability to convert to an open repair to ensure maximal patient protection. The first five patients constituted the feasibility study, with continued enrollment based on initial results and submission of an annual report to the FDA. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were screened, and six patients were entered into the physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study. Although there was no early mortality, there was one late death. All patients had sequential computed tomographies and cardiac echocardiograms with no evidence of migration, one type 1a endoleak, one postoperative stroke, and regression of the aortic lesions in the excluded aortic segment. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, the preliminary evaluation of endovascular treatment for ascending aortic pathologies demonstrates uniform accuracy of deployment and secure fixation up to 17.5 months of follow-up. There is positive remodeling of the excluded aortic segments similar to surveillance studies involving the descending aorta.

Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy in "normal-risk" patients from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Acceptable complication rates after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are drawn from decades-old data. The recent Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated improved stroke and mortality outcomes after CEA compared with carotid artery stenting, with 30-day periprocedural CEA stroke rates of 3.2% and 1.4% for symptomatic (SX) and asymptomatic (ASX) patients, respectively. It is unclear whether these target rates can be attained in "normal-risk" (NR) patients experienced outside of the trial. This study was done to determine the contemporary results of CEA from a broader selection of NR patients. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Registry was examined to determine in-hospital and 30-day event rates for NR, SX, and ASX patients undergoing CEA. NR was defined as patients without anatomic or physiologic risk factors as defined by SVS Carotid Practice Guidelines. Raw data and risk-adjusted rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) were compared between the ASX and SX cohorts. RESULTS: There were 3977 patients (1456 SX, 2521 ASX) available for comparison. The SX group consisted of more men (61.7% vs 57.0%; P = .0045) but reflected a lower proportion of white patients (91.3% vs 94.4%; P = .0002), with lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (P < .0001), prior MI (P < .0001), peripheral vascular disease (P = .0017), and hypertension (P = .029), although New York Heart Association grade >3 congestive heart failure was equally present in both groups (P = .30). Baseline stenosis >80% on duplex imaging was less prevalent among SX patients (54.2% vs 67.8%; P < .0001). Perioperative stroke rates were higher for SX patients in the hospital (2.8% vs 0.8%; P < .0001) and at 30 days (3.4% vs 1.0%; P < .0001), which contributed to the higher composite death, stroke, and MI rates in the hospital (3.6% vs 1.8; P = .0003) and at 30 days (4.5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001) observed in SX patients. After risk adjustment, the rate of stroke/death was greater among SX patients in the hospital (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.58) although not at 30 days (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-2.17). No in-hospital or 30-day differences were observed for death or MI by symptom status. CONCLUSIONS: The SVS Vascular Registry results for CEA in NR patients are similar by symptom status to those reported for CREST and may serve as a benchmark for comparing results of alternative therapies for treatment of carotid stenosis in NR patients outside of monitored clinical trials. The contemporary perioperative risk of stroke after CEA in NR patients continues to be higher for SX than for ASX patients.

The influence of contralateral occlusion on results of carotid interventions from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Data on the influence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are conflicting and are absent for carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study evaluated the influence of CCO on CEA and CAS. METHODS: We evaluated patients with and without CCO in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry. Primary outcome was a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and its individual components. Further analysis was done to identify the influence, if any, of symptom status on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 1128 CAS and 666 CEA patients with CCO. CAS patients were more often symptomatic with a greater incidence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and New York Heart Association class >III. Absolute risk of periprocedural MACE (2.7% for CAS vs. 4.2% for CEA), death (1.1% for CAS vs. 0.7% for CEA), stroke (2.1% for CAS vs. 3.1% for CEA), and MI (0.3% for CAS vs. 0.6% for CEA) was statistically equivalent for both. This equivalence was maintained when patients with CCO were segregated according to symptom status and after adjusting for periprocedural risk. There were 16,646 patients without contralateral occlusion (5698 CAS; 10,948 CEA). Patients without contralateral occlusion with CEA have better outcomes in periprocedural MACE (1.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 4.2% for patients with CCO), and stroke (1.1% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 3.1% for patients with CCO) (P < .0001 for both). In CAS patients, CCO did not significantly affect periprocedural MACE (3.2% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.7% for patients with CCO), death (0.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 1.0% for patients with CCO), stroke (2.3% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.1% for patients with CCO), or MI (0.6% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 0.3% for patients with CCO). In CEA patients, CCO increased MACE, primarily by increasing stroke rates in asymptomatic (0.7% vs. 2.0%; P = .0095) and symptomatic (1.7% vs. 4.9%; P = .0012) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA is preferred in patients without contralateral occlusion, regardless of symptom status, based on lower rates of periprocedural MACE, death, and stroke, the benefit of CEA is lost in patients with CCO because of increased stroke rates in CCO patients after CEA but not after CAS regardless of symptom status. The results of CAS and CEA in patients with CCO are equivalent and within acceptable American Heart Association guidelines.

Gender-specific 30-day outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Although the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis remains unclear, available data suggest that women have higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization. We used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry to determine the effect of gender on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: There were 9865 patients (40.6% women) who underwent CEA (n = 6492) and CAS (n = 3373). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no difference in age and ethnicity between genders, but men were more likely to be symptomatic (41.6% vs 38.6%; P < .003). There was a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, whereas men had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking history. For disease etiology in CAS, restenosis was more common in women (28.7% vs 19.7%; P < .0001), and radiation was higher in men (6.2% vs 2.6%; P < .0001). Comparing by gender, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point for CEA (women, 4.07%; men, 4.06%) or CAS (women, 6.69%; men, 6.80%). There remains no difference after stratification by symptomatology and multivariate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, real-world analysis, women and men demonstrated similar results after CEA or CAS. These data suggest that, contrary to previous reports, women do not have a higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization.

The impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services high-risk criteria on outcome after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the SVS Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require high-risk (HR) criteria for carotid artery stenting (CAS) reimbursement. The impact of these criteria on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS remains uncertain. Additionally, if these HR criteria are associated with more adverse events after CAS, then existing comparative effectiveness analysis of CEA vs CAS may be biased. We sought to elucidate this using data from the SVS Vascular Registry. METHODS: We analyzed 10,107 patients undergoing CEA (6370) and CAS (3737), stratified by CMS HR criteria. The primary endpoint was composite death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]) at 30 days. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes using univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: CAS patients were more likely to have preoperative stroke (26% vs 21%) or transient ischemic attack (23% vs 19%) than CEA. Although age ≥ 80 years was similar, CAS patients were more likely to have all other HR criteria. For CEA, HR patients had higher MACEs than normal risk in both symptomatic (7.3% vs 4.6%; P < .01) and asymptomatic patients (5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001). For CAS, HR status was not associated with a significant increase in MACE for symptomatic (9.1% vs 6.2%; P = .24) or asymptomatic patients (5.4% vs 4.2%; P = .61). All CAS patients had MACE rates similar to HR CEA. After multivariable risk adjustment, CAS had higher rates than CEA for MACE (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5), death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2), and stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI,1.0-1.7), whereas there was no difference in MI (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.3). Among CEA patients, age ≥ 80 (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.02-1.8), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.03-2.8), EF <30% (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.7), angina (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.9), contralateral occlusion (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.1-4.7), and high anatomic lesion (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.33-5.6) predicted MACE. Among CAS patients, recent MI (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-7.0) was predictive, and radiation (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8) and restenosis (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96) were protective for MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Although CMS HR criteria can successfully discriminate a group of patients at HR for adverse events after CEA, certain CMS HR criteria are more important than others. However, CEA appears safer for the majority of patients with carotid disease. Among patients undergoing CAS, non-HR status may be limited to restenosis and radiation.

Pathogenesis and management of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde type A aortic dissection is a feared complication of thoracic aortic endografting. The aim of this study was to review the incidence, etiology, and management of this life-threatening complication. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the literature in the last 10 years was performed. Data on retrograde type A aortic dissection from this literature search, along with authors' personal experience, provided the basis for this review. RESULTS: The incidence of retrograde type A aortic dissection ranges from 1.3% to 6.8%. In is most commonly associated with endografting of acute or chronic aortic dissection. Up to one third of patients will have this complication 3 months or later after the index procedure. Open surgical repair remains the "gold standard" for retrograde type A aortic dissection, although medical and endovascular approaches may be utilized in selected patients with prohibitive operative risk. Mortality remains high ranging from 20% to 57%. Potential etiologies of retrograde type A aortic dissection include aortic injury from catheter and wire or stent graft manipulation, poor perioperative antihypertensive control, inappropriate patient and device selection, aggressive balloon dilation, and stent graft oversizing. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde type A aortic dissection remains a deadly complication of thoracic aortic endografting. The high incidence of delayed type A aortic dissection underscores the importance of imaging follow-up in patients undergoing a thoracic endograft procedure.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Effects of sildenafil and/or muscle derived stem cells on myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that long-term oral daily PDE 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) counteract fibrosis, cell loss, and the resulting dysfunction in tissues of various rat organs and that implantation of skeletal muscle-derived stem cells (MDSC) exerts some of these effects. PDE5i and stem cells in combination were found to be more effective in non-MI cardiac repair than each treatment separately. We have now investigated whether sildenafil at lower doses and MDSC, alone or in combination are effective to attenuate LV remodeling after MI in rats. METHODS: MI was induced in rats by ligature of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Treatment groups were: "Series A": 1) untreated; 2) oral sildenafil 3 mg/kg/day from day 1; and "Series B": intracardiac injection at day 7 of: 3) saline; 4) rat MDSC (106 cells); 5) as #4, with sildenafil as in #2. Before surgery, and at 1 and 4 weeks, the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured. LV sections were stained for collagen, myofibroblasts, apoptosis, cardiomyocytes, and iNOS, followed by quantitative image analysis. Western blots estimated angiogenesis and myofibroblast accumulation, as well as potential sildenafil tachyphylaxis by PDE 5 expression. Zymography estimated MMPs 2 and 9 in serum. RESULTS: As compared to untreated MI rats, sildenafil improved LVEF, reduced collagen, myofibroblasts, and circulating MMPs, and increased cardiac troponin T. MDSC replicated most of these effects and stimulated cardiac angiogenesis. Concurrent MDSC/sildenafil counteracted cardiomyocyte and endothelial cells loss, but did not improve LVEF or angiogenesis, and upregulated PDE 5. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term oral sildenafil, or MDSC given separately, reduce the MI fibrotic scar and improve left ventricular function in this rat model. The failure of the treatment combination may be due to inducing overexpression of PDE5.

Results with the Talent thoracic stent graft in the VALOR trial.

OBJECTIVE: We report the 5-year outcomes of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) using the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) in patients considered low or moderate risk for open surgical repair. METHODS: The Evaluation of the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms (VALOR) trial was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, pivotal study conducted at 38 U.S. sites. Between December 2003 and June 2005, VALOR enrolled 195 patients who were low or moderate risk (0, 1, and 2) per the modified Society for Vascular Surgery and American Association for Vascular Surgery criteria. The patients had fusiform thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) and/or focal saccular TAAs/penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers. Standard follow-up interval examinations were conducted at 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Over the 5-year follow-up, 76 deaths occurred (43.9%). Freedom from all-cause mortality was 83.9% at 1 year and 58.5% at 5 years. Most deaths were due to cardiac, pulmonary or cancer-related causes. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality (ARM) was 96.9% at 1 year and 96.1% at 5 years. There was only 1 case of ARM after the first year of follow-up. Over the 5-year follow-up period, four patients were converted to open surgery and four patients experienced aneurysm rupture. The 5-year freedom from aneurysm rupture was 97.1% and the 5-year freedom from conversion to surgery was 97.1%. The incidence of stent graft migration (>10 mm) was ≤ 1.8% in each year of follow-up. The rate of type I endoleak was 4.6% at 1 month, 6.3% from 1 month to 1 year, and 3.8% during year 5. The rate of type III endoleak was 1.3% at 1 month, 1.9% from 1 month to 1 year, and 1.9% during year 5. Through 5 years, 28 patients (14.4%) underwent 31 additional endovascular procedures on the original target lesion. The 5-year freedom from secondary endovascular procedures was 81.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Through 5-year follow-up in patients who were candidates for open surgical repair, TEVAR using the Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System has demonstrated sustained protection from ARM, aneurysm rupture, and conversion to surgery, and durable stent graft performance. Close patient follow-up remains essential after TEVAR.

Endovascular management of acute complicated type B aortic dissection in North America.

The management of patients with complicated acute type B aortic dissection is challenging. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has shown promising results in small series; however, using nonstandard definitions and improper inclusion criteria confounds the published results. This article reviews the techniques and outcome of patients who underwent endovascular treatment for complicated acute type B aortic dissection in North America. Primary stent grafting for treatment of complicated acute type B aortic dissection compares favorably with the surgical outcome. Thoracic aortic endovascular repair can be offered with a relatively low postoperative morbidity and mortality in experienced hands. It also appears to have a favorable outcome in mid-term follow-up. Longevity of the repair and durability of the stent grafts in the thoracic aorta are yet to be established.

Acute ascending aortic intramural hematoma as a complication of the endovascular repair of a Type B aortic dissection.

Endovascular aortic graft repair (EVAR) for patients with Type B aortic dissection is a less invasive surgical procedure (compared to traditional open surgical repair) that is associated with less morbidity and shortened recovery times. However, there are notable complications for the patients undergoing EVAR. We report a patient who was brought to our hospital with a Type B dissection and underwent a thoracic EVAR but suffered iatrogenic aortic injury resulting in cardiac tamponade. This case study highlights the importance of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography to facilitate early detection of possible EVAR complications.

Five-year outcomes of endovascular repair of complicated acute type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the standard of care for acute complicated type B aortic dissections, but long-term single-device outcomes are limited. METHODS: Fifty patients were treated with the Valiant Captivia thoracic stent graft (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif) for acute complicated type B aortic dissections in this prospective, nonrandomized Dissection Trial. All-cause mortality, secondary procedures, and serious adverse events were assessed, and a core lab evaluated images for aortic remodeling. RESULTS: Compliance for both clinical and imaging follow-up was 78% (18 out of 23) for the available patients at 5 years. Notable baseline characteristics were 86% of patients (43 out of 50) had malperfusion, 20% (10 out of 50) had ruptures, and 94% (46 out of 49) had DeBakey class IIIB dissections. The 5-year freedom from dissection-related mortality, secondary procedures related to the dissection, and endoleaks was 83%, 86%, and 85%, respectively. After 5 years, 89% of patients (16 out of 18) had a completely thrombosed false lumen in the stented segment of the aorta and the true lumen diameter over the length of stent graft was stable or increased for 94% of patients (16 out of 17) while the false lumen diameter was stable or decreased in 77% (13 out of 17) after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: In the Dissection Trial, patients experienced positive and sustained measures of aortic remodeling. Survival outcomes, need for secondary procedures, and adverse event rates were consistent with previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair studies. Although limitations exist with the follow-up compliance, the Valiant Captivia thoracic stent graft system was effective in the long-term management of acute complicated type B aortic dissections in this patient population with a challenging condition.

Initial clinical experience with a sac-anchoring endoprosthesis for aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: All current aortic endografts depend on proximal and distal fixation to prevent migration. However, migration and rupture can occur, particularly in patients with aortic necks that are short or angulated, or both. We present our initial clinical experience with a new sac-anchoring endoprosthesis designed to anchor and seal the device within the aneurysm sac. METHODS: The initial worldwide experience using a new endoprosthesis for the treatment of aortic aneurysms (Nellix Endovascular, Palo Alto, Calif) was reviewed. The endoprosthesis consists of dual balloon-expandable endoframes surrounded by polymer-filled endobags designed to obliterate the aneurysm sac and maintain endograft position. Clinical results and follow-up contrast computed tomography (CT) scans at 30 days and 6 and 12 months were reviewed. RESULTS: The endograft was successfully deployed in 21 patients with infrarenal aortic aneurysms measuring 5.7 ± 0.7 cm (range, 4.3-7.4 cm). Two patients with common iliac aneurysms were treated with sac-anchoring extenders that maintained patency of the internal iliac artery. Infusion of 71 ± 37 mL of polymer (range, 19-158 mL) into the aortic endobags resulted in complete aneurysm exclusion in all patients. Mean implant time was 76 ± 35 minutes, with 33 ± 17 minutes of fluoroscopy time and 180 ± 81 mL of contrast; estimated blood loss was 174 ± 116 mL. One patient died during the postoperative period (30-day mortality, 4.8%), and one died at 10 months from non-device-related causes. During a mean follow-up of 8.7 ± 3.1 months and a median of 6.3 months, there were no late aneurysm- or device-related adverse events and no secondary procedures. CT imaging studies at 6 months and 1 year revealed no increase in aneurysm size, no device migration, and no new endoleaks. One patient had a limited proximal type I endoleak at 30 days that resolved at 60 days and remained sealed. One patient has an ongoing distal type I endoleak near the iliac bifurcation, with no change in aneurysm size at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Initial clinical experience with this novel intrasac anchoring prosthesis is promising, with successful aneurysm exclusion and good short-term results. This new device platform has the potential to address the anatomic restrictions and limitations of current endografts. Further studies with a longer follow-up time are needed.

Aortic remodeling, volumetric analysis, and clinical outcomes of endoluminal exclusion of acute complicated type B thoracic aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Structural changes within the aorta after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute complicated type B thoracic aortic dissections (ABAD) remain unknown. This study reviewed and analyzed morphologic changes, volumetric data, and clinical outcomes of patients with ABAD. METHODS: Forty-one consecutive patients with ABAD, all with the volumetric analysis of aortic luminal changes and ≥1 year of follow-up, were treated as a part of a single-center U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) trial from 2002 to 2009. Indications were malperfusion in 17, rupture in 12, chest pain in 6, acute enlargement in 4, and uncontrolled hypertension in 2. Duration of symptoms was ≤14 days. Three-dimensional M2S computed tomography reconstructions (Medical MetRx Solutions, West Lebanon, NH) were analyzed for aortic volume and diameter changes, regression of the false lumen, and expansion of the true lumen. RESULTS: Emergent surgery was required in 17 (42%) patients, excluding one death at induction. Procedural success rate was 92.5%. The 30-day mortality was 4.9% for malperfusion, 4.9% for rupture, and 0% for all others, with late mortality of 0%, 9.8%, and 7.3%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 12.4 months. Permanent stroke and paraplegia rates were 4.9% (n = 2) and 0%. Ten of 12 secondary interventions were performed for 6 proximal endoleaks, 1 distal cuff endoleak, and 3 distal reperfusions. For the 33 patients without endoleaks, the true lumen volume increased by 29% at 1 month, 51% at 1 year, and 80% at 5 years. Volume regression of the false lumen was 69%, 76%, and 86%, respectively. The true lumen volume did not change at 1 month or 1 year in the endoleak group (n = 7) but increased 50% at 2 years after secondary intervention. A 10% reduction of abdominal aortic volume distal to endograft occurred over 5 years in the absence of endoleaks. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR offers a promising solution to patients with ABAD. Aortic morphologic changes occur shortly after TEVAR and remain predictable up to 5 years with continuous expansion of the true lumen and regression of the false lumen. A lack of increase in the true lumen volume is associated with endoleaks or distal reperfusion.

Report on the results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute, complicated, type B aortic dissection at 30 days and 1 year from a multidisciplinary subcommittee of the Society for Vascular Surgery Outcomes Committee.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed 1-year outcome after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with complicated type B aortic dissection (cTBAoD) who had rupture or malperfusion and symptom onset ≤14 days (acute), 15 to 30 days (subacute), and 31 to 90 days (chronic) until required intervention. The main focus of this report is primarily on the acute cohort. METHODS: Clinical data were systematically collected from five physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (IDE) clinical trials between 2000 and 2008 using standardized definitions and forms. Adverse events were reported early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) by body system. Major adverse events included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, respiratory failure, paralysis, and bowel ischemia. RESULTS: There were 99 cTBAoD patients: 85 were acute, 11 were subacute, and 3 were chronic. Among the acute patients, 31.8% had rupture and 71.8% had malperfusion, including 55.7% lower extremity, 36.1% renal, 19.7% visceral, 8.2% other, and 3.3% spinal cord (patients may have more than one source). Rupture and malperfusion were both reported for three acute patients. Additional findings for the acute cohort included pain (76.5%), hypertension (43.5%), and bleeding (8.2%); comorbidities included hypertension (83.5%), current/past smoking history (69.8%), and diabetes (12.9%). The main focus of this analysis was the acute cohort (n = 85). Age averaged 59 years (72.9% male). Early adverse events included pulmonary (36.5%), vascular (28.2%), renal (25.9%), and neurologic (23.5%). Early major adverse events occurred in 37.6% of patients, including death (10.6%), stroke (9.4%), renal failure (9.4%), and paralysis (9.4%); late adverse events included vascular (15.8%), cardiac (10.5%), gastrointestinal (6.6%), and hemorrhage (5.3%). The point-estimate mortality rate was 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-17.5) at 30 days and 29.4 (95% CI, 18.4-40.4) at 1 year, when 34 patients remained at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency TEVAR for patients with cTBAoD (malperfusion or rupture) provided acceptable mortality and morbidity results out to 1 year. Manufacturers can use this 30-day mortality point-estimate of 10.8 (95% CI, 4.1-17.5) for the acute cohort to establish a performance goal for use in single-arm commercial IDE trials if the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies concur.

Report on endograft management of traumatic thoracic aortic transections at 30 days and 1 year from a multidisciplinary subcommittee of the Society for Vascular Surgery Outcomes Committee.

OBJECTIVES: The Society for Vascular Surgery Outcomes Committee, including ad hoc members from Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association of Thoracic Surgery, and Society for Interventional Radiology, collected outcomes of patients with traumatic thoracic aortic transections treated with endovascular grafts. Results through 1 year of follow-up are reported. METHODS: Data from five physician-sponsored investigational device exemption clinical trials from 2000 to 2008 were entered using standardized forms and definitions. Adverse events were reported early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) by body system. Major adverse events included one or more of the following: death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, respiratory failure, paralysis, or bowel ischemia. RESULTS: There were 60 symptomatic patients (68.3% men; mean age, 46 years) with traumatic aortic transections, of which 97% were due to a motor vehicle accident and 3% were related to other blunt trauma. The average total injury severity score was 39, most with involvement of the chest and abdomen. The average surgical time was 125 minutes. The mean hospital length of stay was 17 days. Associated procedures for the management of nonaortic injuries occurred in 51.7%. All-cause mortality was 9.1% at 30 days and 14.4% at 1 year. One or more major adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients, major adverse events occurred early in 20.0% and late in 3.6%. Death accounted for 41.7% of the early and all of the late major adverse events. Early adverse events included 16.7% pulmonary, 13.3% neurologic, and 11.7% vascular complications. Late adverse events included one patient (1.8%) with pulmonary failure and one patient (1.8%) who died of an unknown cause. CONCLUSIONS: One-year results of endograft placement for the management of patients with traumatic aortic injury are acceptable. Most cases treated were due to motor vehicle accident and associated with multiple coexisting injuries. Approximately three-quarters of the deaths occurred ≤30 days, indicating the acute severity of the condition. Although the relatively low rates of adverse and major adverse events are consistent with what is anticipated in an otherwise healthy population, future device and procedural developments may facilitate improved outcomes in the future.

Distribution of intimomedial tears in patients with type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising means of treating patients with complicated type B aortic dissection by excluding the intimomedial tears. This study aims to characterize the location of tears and to propose a classification of type B aortic dissections based on these findings. METHODS: Advanced protocols in computed tomography scans of patients with type B aortic dissection were used to identify the size and location of intimomedial tears in relation to the origin of the left subclavian artery. Aortic imaging details in 72 un-operated patients were used as a reference standard. From 1999 to 2005, 44 patients underwent primary endovascular treatment for complications of type B aortic dissection. RESULTS: Each patient had an average of 2.8 +/- 2.11 intimomedial tears. The median intimomedial tear surface area was 0.63 cm(2). The presence of >or=3 or >or=5 intimomedial tears in the descending thoracic aorta did not correlate with aortic branch malperfusion (P > .05). Thirteen of 26 (50%) patients with a tear >1.9 cm(2) had aortic branch malperfusion (P = .032). Ten of 14 (71%) patients with a tear >4.86 cm(2) (mean plus one standard deviation) had aortic branch malperfusion (P = .002). The location of tears ranged from -6 mm to +459.2 mm from the left subclavian artery orifice: 80.5% (n = 99) of these tears were above the reference origin of the celiac artery. Eight of 13 patients (62%) with a tear distal to 282 mm (the orifice of the celiac artery) had aortic branch malperfusion in (P = .04). A classification for the location of intimomedial tears is proposed with potential clinical relevance to endovascular repair: type 1 has no identifiable tears; type 2 has one or more tears with no tears distal to the orifice of the celiac artery; type 3 has tears involving the branch vessels of the abdominal aorta; and type 4 has intimomedial tears distal to the aortic bifurcation. CONCLUSIONS: Characterization and location of intimomedial tears using computed tomography (CT) imaging is feasible and represents an important step in the management of type B aortic dissection. The location and surface area of tears is associated with malperfusion. Based on the proposed classification and anatomic reference data, three out of every four patients may have a favorable constellation of intimomedial tears (type 1 or 2) that would be amenable to endovascular repair and reverse aortic remodeling. The clinical correlation will be established in upcoming studies.