Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the association between prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) vs non-CSFD in preventing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysm and dissection. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before April 1, 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We assessed the association between CSFD strategies, including routine CSFD vs selective CSFD or no CSFD, and the SCI rates after TEVAR for patients with aortic dissection (AD), solitary thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the association between different aortic pathologies, including AD and thoracic aneurysms, and SCI rates after TEVAR with and without prophylactic CSFD. The data are presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 34 studies of 3561 patients (2671 with TAA or TAAA and 890 with type B AD) were included in the present analysis. The data are presented as the pooled ERs and 95% CIs. The overall SCI rate for patients who had undergone TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD for AD (ER, 1.80%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.72%) was significantly lower than that for the aortic aneurysm group (ER, 5.73%; 95% CI, 4.20%-7.27%; P < .0001). The SCI rate after TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD was not significantly different from that without CSFD for AD (P = .51). No association was found between the rates of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD vs selective prophylactic CSFD for aortic aneurysms (P = .76) and AD (P = .70). The SCI rate after TEVAR without CSFD for aortic aneurysms, including isolated TAA and TAAA (ER, 3.49%; 95% CI, 0.23%-6.76%) was not significantly different from that for AD (ER, 3.20%; 95% CI, 0.00%-7.20%; P = .91). For the patients with TAAAs, the rate of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD was significantly lower than that with selective prophylactic CSFD (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that SCI occurs more often after TEVAR for aortic aneurysms than for AD. Routine prophylactic CSFD, compared with selective CSFD, was associated with a lower rate of postoperative SCI after TEVAR for TAAAs. No significant association was found between the SCI rate and routine prophylactic CSFD for patients undergoing TEVAR for isolated TAA or AD.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness and safety of unilateral versus bilateral iliac branch devices for aortoiliac and iliac artery aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Iliac branch devices (IBDs) have been used in the treatment of aortoiliac and isolated iliac artery aneurysms. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of IBDs. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted by identifying studies in the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases regarding the outcomes of IBDs in aortoiliac or isolated iliac artery aneurysms between May 2006 and December 2020. Individual studies were evaluated for the following major outcomes: technical success, 30-day mortality, primary patency, endoleak, reintervention, and rates of pelvic ischemia. Furthermore, subgroup meta-analyses were performed to compare the pelvic ischemic events in patients with bilateral IBDs, unilateral IBDs, and bilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) embolization/coverage. RESULTS: Forty-five studies with a total of 2736 patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral IBDs met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate of IBDs was 98.0% (confidence interval [CI]: 97.3%-98.7%). After IBD treatment, the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4% (CI: 0.07%-0.70%); 30-day patency was 98.4% (CI: 97.7%-99.0%); buttock claudication developed in 1.84% (CI: 1.26%-2.41%); and endoleak occurred in 11.9% (CI: 9.2%-14.7%) and reintervention in 7.6% (CI: 5.65%-9.58%). Furthermore, in patients with bilateral iliac artery involvement, the pooled estimate rates of buttock claudication were 0.7% in the bilateral IBD group, 7.9% in unilateral IBD with contralateral IIA embolization patients, and 33.8% in bilateral IIA embolization/coverage patients, which were statistically significant among the three groups. Sexual dysfunction was 5.0% in the bilateral IIA occlusion group, which was significantly higher than that in IBD groups. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of IBDs in the treatment of aortoiliac or isolated iliac artery aneurysms is associated with high technical success rates as well as low incidences of pelvic ischemia. The risk of postoperative buttock claudication can be further decreased with both IIA preservation if patients are anatomically suitable for bilateral IBDs.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgery for Ruptured Descending Thoracic Aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The comparisons between thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aorta (TEVAR) and open surgery (OS) have not been well documented, although both procedures have been widely utilized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and safety between TEVAR and OS in the repair of ruptured descending thoracic aorta. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to find relevant studies to assess TEVAR and OS outcomes. The comparative parameters were perioperative mortality (30 day/in-hospital), 1 year mortality, paraplegia or paraparesis, renal insufficiency, stroke, pulmonary embolism, re-intervention rate, pulmonary complications, and cardiac complications. A fixed-effects model was applied to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on pooled outcomes from different studies. RESULTS: Eighteen observational trials involving 2088 patients were evaluated (TEVAR=560; OS=1528). Meta-analysis showed that TEVAR in repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta was associated with lower perioperative mortality (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.66; p<0.01), 1 year mortality (OR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.75; p<0.01), renal insufficiency incidence (OR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.93; p=0.03), and pulmonary complications (OR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.92; p=0.01) when compared with OS. There was no significant difference between TEVAR and OS in terms of paraplegia, stroke, pulmonary embolism, cardiac complications, and early re-intervention rates. However, the late re-intervention rate was higher in the TEVAR group than that in the OS group. CONCLUSIONS: When repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta, TEVAR may be performed rapidly and safely. TEVAR is associated with lower rates of perioperative morbidity and early postoperative complications than OS.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence raised the concern that paclitaxel-containing therapy was associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with peripheral artery diseases (PADs). However, it is unclear whether drug-eluting stent (DES) versus drug-coated balloon (DCB) have a different effect on mortality of PAD patients. Our study aimed to systematically review current literature comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with DES versus DCB for PAD. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for eligible studies from January 2000 to December 31, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that reported outcomes of DES versus DCB were included in our study. The primary outcome was 12-month all-cause mortality. A random-effect model was used to pool the odds ratios (ORs) and related 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Our review included 7 studies, involving 2 RCTs and 5 cohort studies. A total of 4,237 patients with DES and 9,234 patients with DCB were analyzed. All included cohort studies were of high quality with Newcastle-Ottawa scores from 7 to 8. No significant difference in 12-month all-cause mortality was found between DES and DCB without significant heterogeneity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91-1.14, I2 = 0%). As for primary patency, no significant difference between treatments was observed (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.15, I2 = 55%). Similar results were observed for freedom from target lesion revascularization (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64-1.40, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that no significant difference in 12-month all-cause mortality was found between DES and DCB. Primary patency and freedom from target lesion revascularization of lower extremity PAD were also comparable between the 2 groups.

Four-year outcomes following endovascular repair in patients with traumatic isolated popliteal artery injuries.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of endovascular treatment for popliteal arterial injury has not been well-documented. This study was aimed to investigate the midterm outcomes of endovascular repair of traumatic isolated popliteal arterial injury. METHODS: Medical records of the patients who underwent endovascular repair for traumatic popliteal arterial injuries from January 2012 to February 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical data including patient demographics, Injury Severity Score, type of injury, classification of acute limb ischemia, concomitant extremity fracture, runoff vessel status, complications, time of endovascular procedure, time interval from injury to blood flow restoration, length of hospital stay, reintervention, and follow-up were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Endovascular repair was performed in 46 patients with traumatic popliteal arterial injuries. The mean Injury Severity Score was 15.8 ± 6.2. The overall limb salvage rate was 89.1%. There were 10 penetrating and 36 blunt injuries (78.3%). The initial angiographic findings revealed occlusion in 34 patients (73.9%), pseudoaneurysm in 2 (4.4%), active extravasation in 9 (19.5%), and arteriovenous fistulas in 1 (2.2%). Technical success was achieved in all 46 patients, via antegrade access in 24 patients (52.2%) and concurrent retrograde access in 22 (47.8%). The mean time interval from popliteal artery injury to blood flow restoration was 10.6 ± 4.9 hours and mean operative time was of 54.9 ± 10.0 minutes. The mean follow-up was 36.1 ± 14.5 months. The primary patency rate was 75.3% at 12 months, 61.9% at 24 months, and 55.7% at 48 months. The secondary patency rate was 92.2% at 12 and 24 months and 85.2% at 48 months. A Cox multivariate analysis revealed that single vessel runoff was an independent risk factor for primary patency loss. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of an isolated popliteal artery injury may be a safe and effective alternative treatment in select patients, with acceptable midterm outcomes. Single vessel runoff was an independent risk factor for primary patency loss.

Meta-analysis of redo stenting versus endarterectomy for in-stent stenosis after carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: The development of in-stent restenosis (ISR) hinders the long-term patency of carotid artery stenting (CAS), yet no optimal treatment has been established. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of redo CAS (rCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for ISR. METHODS: A systematic search using the terms "in-stent restenosis," "carotid endarterectomy," and "carotid artery stenting" was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting perioperative stroke, death, and other important complications of rCAS or CEA for ISR after previous CAS with four or more patients were included. Pooled and sensitivity analyses were conducted to synthesize and compare estimates of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies with 1057 patients who had undergone rCAS (n = 894) or CEA (n = 163) met the inclusion criteria. The CEA group had a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (rCAS vs CEA, 30.4% vs 42.1%; P < .01). The duration from primary CAS to reintervention was relatively longer in the CEA group (rCAS vs CEA, median, 8.8 months [range, 3-26 months] vs 19.9 months [range, 0-54 months]). In the rCAS group, a greater proportion of patients had hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease and had received antiplatelet therapy before reintervention. Because of insufficient data or a low incidence, the only complications feasible for further analysis were restenosis, myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, and neck hematoma. No significant differences were found in the primary end point of mortality/stroke event-free rate (rCAS vs CEA, 99% vs 98%; P > .05) or other secondary end points (event-free restenosis, 100% vs 100%; event-free myocardial infarction, 100% vs 98%; event-free cranial nerve injury, 100% vs 98%; event-free neck hematoma, 100% vs 100% for rCAS vs CEA; P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: rCAS is commonly used to treat patients with severe and/or symptomatic ISR after primary CAS. Although the endovascular approach is less invasive, both rCAS and CEA can be performed safely with similar short- and midterm outcomes of stroke, death, and surgery-related complications.

Comparison of Venous Thromboembolism Risks Between COVID-19 Pneumonia and Community-Acquired Pneumonia Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to investigate and compare the risks and incidences of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between the 2 groups of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Approach and Results: Medical records of 616 pneumonia patients who were admitted to the Yichang Central People's Hospital in Hubei, China, from January 1 to March 23, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. The patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were treated in the dedicated COVID-19 units, and the patients with CAP were admitted to regular hospital campus. Risks of VTE were assessed using the Padua prediction score. All the patients received pharmaceutical or mechanical VTE prophylaxis. VTE was diagnosed using Duplex ultrasound or computed tomography pulmonary angiogram. Differences between COVID-19 and CAP groups were compared statistically. All statistical tests were 2 sided, and P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. All data managements and analyses were performed by IBM SPSS, version 24, software (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL). Of the 616 patients, 256 had COVID-19 pneumonia and 360 patients had CAP. The overall rate of VTE was 2% in COVID-19 pneumonia group and 3.6% in CAP group, respectively (P=0.229). In these two groups, 15.6% of the COVID-19 pneumonia patients and 10% of the CAP patients were categorized as high risk for VTE (Padua score, >4), which were significantly different (P=0.036). In those high-risk patients, the incidence of VTE was 12.5% in COVID-19 pneumonia group and 16.7% in CAP group (P=0.606). Subgroup analysis of the critically ill patients showed that VTE rate was 6.7% in COVID-19 group versus 13% in CAP group (P=0.484). In-hospital mortality of COVID-19 and CAP was 6.3% and 3.9%, respectively (P=0.180). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that COVID-19 pneumonia was associated with hypercoagulable state. However, the rate of VTE in COVID-19 pneumonia patients was not significantly higher than that in CAP patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of death and patency after application of paclitaxel-coated balloons in the hemodialysis access.

OBJECTIVE: The comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for hemodialysis (HD) access stenosis or occlusion has not been well investigated. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare all-cause mortality, HD access primary patency, and circuit primary patency after endovascular maintenance procedures using PCB angioplasty vs PBA. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were systematically searched to identify all the relevant studies on paclitaxel-coated devices for stenosis or thrombosis of HD access. A random effects model was applied to pool the effect measures. Dichotomous data were presented using an odds ratio (OR). Effect data were presented using pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis, 12 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies involving 1086 patients who underwent endovascular treatment for HD access stenosis or occlusion. All-cause mortality rates at 6, 12, and 24 months after intervention were similar between the PCB and PBA groups (6 months: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.38-2.96; P = .907; I2 = 19.2%]; 12 months: OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.66-2.16; P = .554; I2 = 0%]; 24 months: OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.83-2.45; P = .195; I2 = 0%]). There was a significant improvement of primary patency in the PCB group compared with the PBA group (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.69; P < .001; I2 = 67.3%). This benefit was consistent with the analysis of randomized controlled trials, whereas cohort studies were excluded. Further subgroup analysis of target lesions demonstrated that primary patency was significantly higher in the PCB group than in the PBA group, not only for arteriovenous fistula (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.98; P = .041; I2 = 76.8%) but also for central venous stenosis (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.71; P = .002; I2 = 0%). The PCB group was associated with higher 6-month (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59; P < .001) and 24-month lesion primary patency (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.72; P = .009) than PBA and was marginally associated with 12-month lesion primary patency (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.03; P = .06). Circuit primary patency analysis showed a marginal trend toward better outcome in the PCB group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00) but no statistical significance (P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that PCB angioplasty is associated with significantly improved primary patency of arteriovenous fistula and central venous stenosis for HD access maintenance, with no evidence of increasing all-cause mortality based on short-term and midterm follow-up. Further large cohort study is needed to investigate long-term mortality.

Early and midterm outcomes of in situ laser fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and subacute aortic arch diseases and analysis of its complications.

OBJECTIVE: An analysis was conducted of early and midterm outcomes of a large series of patients treated with in situ laser fenestration (ISLF) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of acute and subacute complex aortic arch diseases, such as Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD), type B aortic dissection (TBAD) requiring proximal sealing at zone 2 or more proximal, thoracic aortic aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm, and penetrating aortic ulcer. We present the perioperative and follow-up outcomes and discuss the rate of complications. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from January 2017 to March 2019 of patients treated with TEVAR and ISLF of aortic arch branches at a large tertiary academic institution in an urban city in China. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up clinical and radiographic data are analyzed and discussed. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients presented with symptomatic and acute or subacute TAAD, TBAD, thoracic aortic aneurysm, or penetrating aortic ulcer for a total of 183 arch vessels. There were 105 men and 43 women, 21 to 79 years of age (mean, 54.9 ± 12.9 years). Time from symptom onset to time of surgery was an average of 7 ± 3 days. Survivor follow-up duration ranged from 5 to 24 months (mean, 15 ± 5 months). Single-vessel fenestration was carried out in 124 cases, two-vessel fenestration in 13 cases, and three-vessel fenestration in 11 cases. There were four cases with technical failure to laser fenestration, with a technical success rate of 97.3%. Postoperatively, there were seven cases of endoleak (4.7%; one type IB distal from the left subclavian artery branch stent graft, three type IIIC at the fenestration site, and three type II), three retrograde dissections (2.0%), and five strokes (3.4%); death occurred in three patients with 30-day mortality of 2.9%, and two deaths occurred during follow-up for 3.4% mortality at an average 15 months of follow-up. There was no branch stent graft occlusion or spinal ischemia postoperatively or during follow-up. The distribution of arch diseases varied significantly according to the number of vessels that were laser fenestrated; TAAD was more likely to receive multivessel laser fenestrations, and TBAD was more likely to receive single-vessel fenestration (P < .001). The rate of complications was distributed differently between the three ISLF groups, with more complications occurring in multivessel fenestrations. However, a statistical weakening was observed when frequency of complications between the three groups was stratified by type of arch disease. The complication rate varied significantly between the different arch diseases, higher in TAAD than in TBAD (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: ISLF during TEVAR for treatment of acute and subacute complex aortic arch diseases in the proximal aortic arch is safe and effective on the basis of these early to midterm follow-up data of a large cohort. However, care should be taken in intervening on TAAD using TEVAR with adjunctive multivessel laser fenestration. Continued investigation of TEVAR and adjunctive ISLF is needed to elucidate the long-term outcomes of this minimally invasive treatment for complex aortic arch disease in an urgent setting.

Surgery and Endovascular Management in Patients With Takayasu's Arteritis: A Ten-Year Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Takayasu's arteritis (TA) is an uncommon chronic vasculitis, and there is a lack of long-term large cohort studies regarding the optimal revascularization outcomes of patients with TA. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen patients with TA who underwent surgery or endovascular repair over a 10-year period were studied retrospectively. One hundred and fifty-four vascular procedures were performed consisting of 69 open and 85 endovascular repairs. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 48.5 ± 38.5 months, three cases each of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and death occurred in the open repair group while two cases of CVA and 4 deaths were observed in the endovascular repair group. At 1, 3, 5, and 10 years of follow-up, the primary patency rates were 97.3%, 86.2%, 70.5%, and 48.8% in the open repair group and 93.3%, 73.1%, 57.5%, and 31.8% in the endovascular repair group, respectively. The primary assisted patency rates were 98.2%, 90.3%, 73.2%, and 47.2% in the open repair group and 95%, 81%, 64.4%, and 35% in the endovascular repair group, respectively. The secondary patency rates were 98.2%, 96.1%, 83.5%, and 56.2% in the open repair group and 98.7%, 86%, 71.2%, and 44.9% in the endovascular repair group, respectively. The cumulative survival rates were 96.9%, 96.9%, 96.9%, and 90% in the open repair group and 97.4%, 97.4%, 88%, and 79.2% in the endovascular repair group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical repair and endovascular management are safe and efficient modes of treatment of TA. Surgical repair showed long-term durability, and it is suitable for complex lesions and failed cases of endovascular management.

Meta-analysis of the outcomes of revascularization after intentional coverage of the left subclavian artery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often required to achieve complete proximal sealing during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. However, whether LSA revascularization should be performed remains controversial. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all the relevant studies. A random-effects model was applied to pool the effect measures. Dichotomous data were presented using an odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: There were 32 studies included for qualitative analysis and 31 studies for quantitative analysis. We found that patients who underwent LSA revascularization had a significantly decreased risk of spinal cord ischemia (OR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.92; P = .02; I2 = 0%), cerebrovascular accident (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95; P = .03; I2 = 22%), and left upper extremity ischemia (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.36; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). However, no significant differences were found in the risk of paraplegia (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55-1.51; P = .71; I2 = 0%) and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.59-1.36; P = .60; I2 = 21%) between the groups of patients with and without LSA revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization of the LSA is associated with decreased risks of cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia, and left upper limb ischemia in thoracic endovascular aortic repair with LSA coverage at the cost of higher local complications, such as possible vocal cord paresis.

Outcome Comparison of TEVAR with and without Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization from Analysis of Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) without and with left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS: NIS records from 2005 to 2013 were retrospectively analyzed to identify patients undergoing TEVAR without and with LSA revascularization. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. The LSA revascularization group was further subdivided to compare perioperative outcomes if the revascularization was performed pre- or post-TEVAR or if the revascularization was performed open versus endovascular. Comparisons were examined using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable models were constructed using a forward selection approach with P < 0.05 required for model entry. Odds ratios are expressed per standard deviation change for continuous covariates. Continuous variables were compared between different groups using t-test, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test. All statistical analyses were performed using R (cran.r-project.org). RESULTS: 7,773 TEVAR patients were included in this study. 6,411 (82.5%) were performed without and 1,362 (17.5%) with LSA revascularization. The rate of revascularization for LSA coverage during TEVAR doubled after the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines recommending revascularization were published in 2009. Groups were not significantly different in age (65.5 ± 15.8 and 66.1 ± 14.4 years old, respectively), gender, or race. Multivariable analysis showed that although rates of spinal cord ischemia and upper extremity ischemia were similar, perioperative cardiac complications (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.2, 1.9], P = 0.025), stroke (OR 2.1, 95% CI [1.6, 2.8], P = 0.001), and pulmonary complications (OR 1.9, 95% CI [1.7, 2.3], P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the patients undergoing TEVAR with LSA revascularization than those without. Of the 1,362 patients with LSA revascularization, 1,251 (91.9%) were performed pre-TEVAR and 111 (8.1%) were performed post-TEVAR. Among the 1,251 patients with pre-TEVAR LSA revascularization, 583 had open surgery and 553 had stenting. In 115 patients, LSA revascularization was coded as both open and endovascular. Compared with pre-TEVAR revascularization, post-TEVAR revascularization was associated with higher risks of pulmonary complications and spinal cord ischemia. Endovascular LSA revascularization had lower pulmonary and stroke morbidity versus open LSA revascularization. The perioperative outcomes for the LSA revascularization subgroups are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR with LSA revascularization is associated with significantly increased rates of perioperative stroke and cardiopulmonary complications. LSA revascularization before TEVAR, compared with post-TEVAR revascularization, had lower perioperative complications. In high-risk patients, endovascular LSA revascularization may be recommended over open surgery.

Relationship between ADAMTS4 and carotid atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability in humans.

BACKGROUND: Rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and the resulting thrombosis are vital causes of clinical ischemic events. Recent studies have shown that ADAMTS4 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motifs 4) is a pathogenic factor of plaque vulnerability in mice. However, the relationship between ADAMTS4 and carotid atherosclerotic vulnerable plaques in humans remains unclear. METHODS: Forty-eight carotid atherosclerotic plaque specimens were obtained from 48 carotid artery stenosis inpatients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. We performed hematoxylin and eosin and Movat pentachrome staining for histologic characteristics; immunohistochemical staining for ADAMTS4, versican, and macrophages; and serologic tests for ADAMTS4. Patients were divided into stable and vulnerable groups on the basis of histologic characterization according to the classification criteria of the American Heart Association. Comparison between the groups was carried out using SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). RESULTS: Expression of ADAMTS4 in the plaque and its serum concentration were significantly higher in the vulnerable group compared with the stable one (P = .004 and P = .021, respectively), whereas the expression of versican was lower in the vulnerable group than in the stable group (P = .015). Univariate analysis revealed that the incidence of symptomatic cerebral ischemic events and ADAMTS4 serum levels were statistically higher in the vulnerable group compared with the stable group (P = .021 and P = .029, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that ADAMTS4 was an independent risk factor (odds ratio, 1.14; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that ADAMTS4 expression was upregulated during carotid atherosclerotic plaque development. Serum levels of ADAMTS4 were associated with increased plaque vulnerability in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. ADAMTS4 may be a potential biomarker for plaque vulnerability.

Evaluating the Utilization of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence-based guidelines on the use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients after trauma has led to variation of its application. We seek to understand the national trend of the use of prophylactic IVCF in trauma population. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Trauma Databank (2002-2014) was performed to identify patients who received an IVCF after trauma. Those without a preexisting venous thromboembolism or discharge diagnosis of VTE were classified as receiving prophylactic IVCF. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between the use of prophylactic IVCF and risk factors for VTE. P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Among the 2,189,994 patients evaluated, 41,155 (2%) received a prophylactic IVCF. The rate of overall IVCF placement (2.9% in 2002-2006 to 1.6% in 2014, P < 0.001) and prophylactic IVCF placement (2.5% in 2002-2006 to 1.2% in 2014, P < 0.001) decreased over the study period. In multivariable analysis, significant risk factors associated with the use of prophylactic IVCF were male gender (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), African-American race (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), injury severity score ≥ 24 (OR 4.4, 95% CI 4.2-4.5), Glasgow Coma Scale <8 (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.4-1.5), spinal cord injury with paraplegia (OR 5.1, 95% CI 4.7-5.6), pelvic fracture (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.7-3.0), long bone fracture (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.3-1.4), and solid organ injury (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3) (P < 0.001). Patients who were treated at a level-II trauma center (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, P < 0.001), at a facility with ≥200 beds (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4, P < 0.001), and those with medical insurance coverage (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.6-1.8, P < 0.001) were also more likely to receive a prophylactic IVCF. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients has decreased over time between 2008 and 2014. Considerable variation exists in its use, which is not fully accounted for by the VTE rate. Further study is required to evaluate appropriate indications for placement of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients.

Outcomes of endovascular and open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is becoming the preferred treatment modality for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Although the survival advantage of EVAR over open aortic repair (OAR) has been shown in some studies, it is unclear whether this benefit extends to elderly patients. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of rAAA repair in octogenarians. METHODS: We reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set (2005-2014) to identify patients older than 80 years who were treated with EVAR and OAR for rAAA. Procedural trends were evaluated during the course of the study period. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared. Multivariable regression models were used to identify predictors of perioperative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: Among 1048 elderly patients who underwent rAAA repair, 450 (43%) and 598 (57%) were treated with EVAR and OAR, respectively. The use of EVAR to treat rAAA had increased significantly in this population of patients (0% in 2005 vs 56% in 2014; P < .001). The overall 30-day mortality rate among octogenarians was 41%. The mortality rate was significantly higher among those treated with OAR compared with EVAR (47% vs 33%; P < .001). Pneumonia (21% vs 10%; P < .001), reintubation (14% vs 9%; P < .001), and >48-hour ventilator dependence (43% vs 21%; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients undergoing OAR. Hospital LOS (13 vs 10 days; P < .001) was also longer in the OAR cohort. Compared with EVAR, OAR was independently predictive of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.2; P < .001), pneumonia (AOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6; P < .001), >48-hour ventilator dependence (AOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.3; P < .001), and longer LOS (adjusted mean ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients have significant but acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity after rAAA repair. Use of endovascular repair in the elderly population has increased and is associated with better perioperative survival and 30-day outcomes compared with traditional open repair in this study.

Carvedilol promotes mitochondrial biogenesis by regulating the PGC-1/TFAM pathway in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs).

Carvedilol, a third-generation and nonselective ß-adrenoceptor antagonist, is a licensed drug for treating patients suffering from heart failure in clinics. It has been shown that Carvedilol protects cells against mitochondrial dysfunction. However, it's unknown whether Carvedilol affects mitochondrial biogenesis. In this study, we found that treatment with Carvedilol in HUVECs resulted in a significant increase of PGC-1α, NRF1, and TFAM. Notably, Carvedilol significantly increased mtDNA contents and the two mitochondrial proteins, cytochrome C and COX IV. In addition, MitoTracker Red staining results indicated that treatment with Carvedilol increased mitochondria mass. Mechanistically, we found that the effect of Carvedilol on the expression of PGC-1α is mediated by the PKA-CREB pathway. Importantly, our results revealed that stimulation of mitochondrial biogenesis by carvedilol resulted in functional gain of the mitochondria by showing increased oxygen consumption and mitochondrial respiratory rate. The increased expression of PGC-1α and mitochondrial biogenesis induced by Carvedilol might suggest a new mechanism of the therapeutic effects of Carvedilol in heart failure.

Outcomes of patients with type I endoleak at completion of endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Type I endoleak (TIE) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is usually identified and treated intraoperatively. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who, despite possible treatment, had TIE at completion of EVAR. METHODS: We examined consecutive EVAR for nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) within the Vascular Study Group of New England database (2003-2012) and compared the outcomes of patients who had TIE at completion with those who did not. Outcomes included perioperative death, cardiac complication, reoperation, and 1-year mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with perioperative mortality, as well as factors associated with TIE. Anatomic factors associated with TIE were not evaluated because of the limitations of the Vascular Study Group of New England database. RESULTS: Among the 2402 EVARs for nonruptured AAA in the Vascular Study Group of New England sample, 93% (n = 2235) were performed electively and 7% had (n = 167) symptomatic AAA. Eighty patients (3.3%) had TIE at completion of surgery. Patients with TIE were older (77.9 vs 73.9 years; P < .001), had higher female preponderance (34% vs 20%; P = .004), larger endograft main body diameter (28.8 vs 27.2 mm; P < .001), and more unplanned graft extension (32% vs 10%; P < .001) than those without TIE. At 1-year follow-up, 90% of patients who had TIE at the completion of their EVAR had resolution of TIE without further need for endovascular intervention or open conversion type I endoleak at the completion of surgery was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (5% vs 0.6%; P = .002) and cardiac dysrhythmia (8.8% vs 3.2%; P = .02). In multivariable analysis, TIE was independently associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16.4; P = .03). Multivariable analysis revealed the following factors to be independently predictive of TIE: female gender (OR, 2.2, 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P = .002), patients older than 70 years of age (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .02), those with main body graft diameter >30 mm (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3; P < .001), and those undergoing unplanned graft extension (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.7; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: TIE occurred in 3% of patients at completion of EVAR with more than 90% resolved spontaneously at 1-year follow-up. It is associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and cardiac complication. Additional investigation is needed to further define anatomic factors associated with TIE and to improve perioperative outcomes of these at-risk patients.

Circumferential Aortic Endarterectomy Followed with Immediate Infrarenal Clamping Obviates Suprarenal Clamping for Juxtarenal Aortoiliac Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Traditional open surgery for juxtarenal aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) requires suprarenal aortic cross-clamping (SRCC), which is associated with high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). This study was to compare the outcomes of circumferential aortic endarterectomy followed by immediate infrarenal cross-clamping (IRCC) with the traditional approach of SRCC during surgery for juxtarenal AIOD. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective review of 87 patients who underwent open surgery for AIOD at our University Medical Center was performed. There were 52 males and 35 females (mean age of 52 years). Multivariate analysis was performed to assess operative time, blood loss, incidence of AKI, 30-day mortality, and recurrent aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were found to have juxtarenal AIOD, which were divided into SRCC (n = 25) and IRCC (n = 12). Ten patients from the SRCC developed AKI versus 1 from the IRCC (30% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.04). SRCC demonstrated increased blood loss (1,681 vs. 591 mL, P = 0.004). Mean operative time was less in the IRCC group (5 vs. 7 hr, P = 0.0001). Thirty-day mortality in the SRCC group was 1 and 0 in the IRCC group, respectively. Recurrent aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm was not identified in endarterectomized aorta up to 4-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential aortic endarterectomy followed with immediate IRCC is a feasible, safe, and effective approach for juxtarenal AIOD in properly selected patients. It may be associated with lower rates of AKI, intraoperative bleeding, operating room time, and length of hospital stay, when compared with the traditional SRCC.

Evaluation of urine fibrinogen level in a murine model of contrast-induced nephropathy.

OBJECTIVE: The mechanisms of contrast-induced nephropathy are not fully understood and sensitive biomarkers of contrast-induced nephropathy are yet to be found. We investigated whether urinary fibrinogen could be a potential biomarker for contrast-induced nephropathy. METHODS: To create a contrast-induced nephropathy model, mice received a prostaglandin synthesis inhibitor (indomethacin) and a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor (Nω-Nitro-L-arginine methyl ester) intraperitoneally followed by a different dose of iodixanol. In the control group, normal saline was administered. Urinary fibrinogen and serum creatinine were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Kidneys were used to quantify fibrinogen using qRT-PCR and Western blot and for histopathological examination. RESULTS: Histopathological examination demonstrated mild renal injury in the low-dose group, and moderate renal injury in the high-dose group. Urinary fibrinogen levels were significantly increased in an iodixanol dose-dependent manner (control vs. low-dose group, P < 0.05; control vs. high-dose group P < 0.01). Serum creatinine levels were only increased in the high-dose group (P < 0.01 compared to control), but not in the low-dose group. For fibrinogen-gene expression, in the low-dose group, Fgγ increased (qRT-PCR, Western blot, P < 0.05) in the high-dose group, Fgß and Fgγ decreased (qRT-PCR, P < 0.01; Western blot, P < 0.05), and Fgα increased (qRT-PCR, P < 0.05; Western blot, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We propose that urinary fibrinogen could be used as a potential biomarker for early contrast-induced nephropathy diagnosis.

Pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis of acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in a 9-year-old boy with inferior vena cava atresia.

Lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is uncommon in the pediatric population, but it can be associated with severe symptoms and potential long-term morbidity secondary to post-thrombotic syndrome. Inferior vena cava (IVC) atresia can predispose a patient to the development of extremity DVT. There is no clear consensus on optimal management of extensive extremity DVT in pediatric patients, especially in patients with IVC anomalies. We report a case of iliofemoral DVT in a 9-year-old boy with IVC atresia and presumed protein S deficiency that was treated successfully using pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis. He was maintained on long-term anticoagulation and remained symptom free at 6 months' follow-up.