Multicenter Study on Physician-Modified Endografts for Thoracoabdominal and Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68-79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6-50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

A Contemporary Evaluation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services High-Risk Indicators for Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Compare stroke/death outcomes across Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA), Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR), and Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS) using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) high-risk criterion. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Existing literature has revealed inconsistencies with CMS risk guidelines. With recent approval for TCAR and TFCAS in standard risk patients, an updated analysis of guidelines is needed. METHODS: Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) (2016-2023) on CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR patients were used. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital stroke/death rates across procedures for high-risk criteria: contralateral occlusion (CLO), prior CEA, CAS, radiation, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD (on home O2), unstable angina, recent MI (<6 mo.), and age (≥75 years-old). RESULTS: A total of 199,050 patients were analyzed, of whom 122,737 (62%) patients underwent CEA, 50,095 (25%) TCAR, and 26,218 (13%) TFCAS. TCAR had lower odds of stroke/death compared to CEA in patients with CLO (aOR=0.73 [95%CI:0.55-0.98], P=0.035) and radiation (aOR=0.44[95%CI:0.23-0.82], P=0.010). Contrary to CMS criteria, CEA patients did not have higher stroke/death in patients with prior CEA, CAS, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD, unstable angina, recent MI, or age (≥75) compared to TCAR and TFCAS. CONCLUSIONS: While CMS high-risk criteria have traditionally been recognized as contraindications for CEA, our study reveals inconsistencies-with CEA performing similarly to TCAR and significantly better than TFCAS in patients with prior CEA, moderate to severe CHF, recent MI, or age (≥75). As a result, the definition of high-risk criteria may warrant reconsideration.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy vs transfemoral carotid stenting in a Medicare-matched database.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. However, there is discrepancy in data regarding long-term outcomes. We aimed to compare long-term outcomes of CEA vs TFCAS using the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. METHODS: We assessed patients undergoing first-time CEA or TFCAS in Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network from January 2003 to December 2018. Patients with prior history of carotid revascularization, nontransfemoral stenting, stenting performed without distal embolic protection, multiple or nonatherosclerotic lesions, or concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality, any stroke, and a combined end point of death or stroke. We additionally performed propensity score matching and stratification based on symptomatic status. RESULTS: A total of 80,146 carotid revascularizations were performed, of which 72,615 were CEA and 7531 were TFCAS. CEA was associated with significantly lower risk of death (57.8% vs 70.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.52; P < .001), stroke (21.3% vs 26.6%; aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.69; P < .001) and combined end point of death and stroke (65.3% vs 76.5%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55; P < .001) at 10 years. These findings were reflected in the propensity-matched cohort (combined end point: 34.6% vs 46.8%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.62) at 4 years, as well as stratified analyses of combined end point by symptomatic status (asymptomatic: 63.2% vs 74.9%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; P < .001; symptomatic: 69.9% vs 78.3%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59; P < .001) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of North American real-world data, CEA was associated with greater long-term survival and fewer strokes compared with TFCAS. These findings support the continued use of CEA as the first-line revascularization procedure.

Clinical outcomes of celiac artery coverage vs preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Adequate proximal and distal seal zones are necessary for successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Often, the achievement of an adequate distal seal zone requires celiac artery (CA) coverage by endograft with or without preservation of CA blood flow. The outcomes of CA coverage without its flow preservation were studied only in small case series. This study aims to determine the difference in outcomes between CA coverage with vs without preservation of CA blood flow during TEVAR using a multi-institutional national database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for all TEVAR patients distally landing in zone 6. The cohort was divided into TEVAR with vs without CA flow preservation. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative characteristics, as well as postoperative mortality, morbidities, and complications, were compared between the groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 25,549 reviewed patients, 772 had a distal landing in Zone 6, 212 of which (27.5%) had TEVAR without CA flow preservation, whereas 560 (72.5%) underwent TEVAR with CA flow preservation. Indications for TEVAR were aneurysm in 431 (55.8%), dissection in 247 (32.0%), or other in 94 (12.2%) cases. Patients who underwent TEVAR without CA flow preservation had statistically significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (11.3% vs 5.9%; P = .010), 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (8.0% vs 4.3%; P = .039), as well as a tendency of increased intestinal ischemia requiring intervention (1.9% vs 0.5%; P = .077). After adjusting for potential confounders, CA coverage without flow preservation was associated with more than a two-fold increase in the overall 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-5.92; P = .006) and 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.11-6.72; P = .029). In a sub-group analysis based on disease pathology, these results persisted only in the aneurysm group (30-day mortality [OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.01-5.48; P = .047]; 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.08-7.67; P = .034]), whereas there was no significant association between CA flow preservation status and the endpoints in the dissection subgroup (30-day mortality [OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.22-6.05; P = .856], 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.16-5.19; P = .911]). CONCLUSIONS: CA coverage during TEVAR without preservation of its blood flow is associated with significantly higher mortality in patients with aortic aneurysm, but not dissection. In patients with aortic aneurysm, CA flow should be preserved during TEVAR whenever feasible, whereas in patients with dissection, it may be safe to cover CA without preservation of its flow. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these findings and compare the open vs endovascular revascularization techniques on outcomes.

The effect of controlled vs uncontrolled hypertension on outcomes of carotid revascularization procedures.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) has been implicated as a strong predictive factor for poorer outcomes in patients undergoing various vascular procedures. However, limited research is available that examines the effect of uncontrolled HTN (uHTN) on outcomes after carotid revascularization. We aimed to determine which carotid revascularization procedure yields the best outcome in this patient population. METHODS: We studied patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) from April 2020 to June 2022 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with cHTN and those with uHTN. Patients with cHTN were those with HTN treated with medication and a blood pressure of <130/80 mm Hg. Patients with uHTN had a blood pressure of ≥130/80 mm Hg. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative hypotension or HTN, reperfusion syndrome, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>1 day), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI. We used logistic regression models for the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34,653 CEA (uHTN, 11,347 [32.7%]), 8199 TFCAS (uHTN, 2307 [28.1%]), and 17,309 TCAR (uHTN, 4990 [28.8%]) patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in age between patients with cHTN and patients with uHTN for each carotid revascularization procedure. However, compared with patients with cHTN, patients with uHTN had significantly more comorbidities. uHTN was associated with an increased risk of combined in-hospital stroke/death/MI after CEA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.87; P < .001), TFCAS (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; P < .001), and TCAR (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73; P = .003) compared with cHTN. Additionally, uHTN was associated with a prolonged LOS after all carotid revascularization methods. For the subanalysis of patients with uHTN, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.39-2.37; P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.25-6.19; P < .001), reperfusion syndrome (aOR, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.57-10.93; P < .001), and extended LOS (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.32; P < .001) compared with CEA. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of TCAR compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study show that patients with uHTN are at a higher risk of stroke and death postoperatively compared with patients with cHTN, highlighting the importance of treating HTN before undergoing elective carotid revascularization. Additionally, in patients with uHTN, TFCAS yields the worst outcomes, whereas CEA and TCAR proved to be safer interventions. Patients with uTHN with symptomatic carotid disease treated with CEA or TCAR have better outcomes compared with those treated with TFCAS.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Outperforms Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting Regardless of Aortic Arch Type or Degree of Atherosclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now approve reimbursement for Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of standard-risk patients with carotid artery occlusive disease. TFCAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy is known to be challenging with worse outcomes. Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) could be a preferable alternative in these patients owing to avoiding the aortic arch and using flow reversal during stent deployment. We aim to compare the outcomes of TCAR versus TFCAS across all aortic arch types and degrees of arch atherosclerosis. METHODS: All patients undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) between September 2016 and October 2023 were identified in the VQI database. Patients were stratified into four groups: Group-A (Mild Atherosclerosis and Type I/II Arch), Group-B (Mild Atherosclerosis and Type III Arch), Group-C (Moderate/Severe Atherosclerosis and Type I/II Arch), Group-D (Moderate/Severe Atherosclerosis and Type III Arch). The primary outcome was in-hospital composite stroke or death. ANOVA and χ2tests analyzed differences for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders, and backward stepwise selection was implemented to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final models. Kaplan Meier survival estimates, Log Rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models analyzed hazard ratios for one-year mortality. RESULTS: A total of 20,114 patients were included [Group-A:12,980 (64.53%); Group-B: 1,175 (5.84%); Group-C: 5,124 (25.47%); Group-D: 835 (4.15%)]. TCAR was more commonly performed across the four groups (72.21%, 67.06%, 74.94% 69.22%; p<0.001). Compared to patients with mild arch atherosclerosis, patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis in Group-C and Group-D were more likely to be female, hypertensive, smokers, and have CKD. Patients with Type-III arch in Group-B and Group-D were more likely to present with stroke preoperatively. On multivariable analysis, TCAR had less than half the risk of stroke/death and one-year mortality compared to TFCAS in the patients with the mildest atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (group A) (OR=0.43,95%CI:0.31-0.61, p<0.001; HR=0.42,95%CI:0.32-0.57, p<0.001). Group-B patients with similar atherosclerosis but more complex arch anatomy had 70% lower odds of stroke/death with TCAR compared to TFCAS (OR=0.30,95%CI:0.12-0.75, p=0.01). Similar findings were also evident in patients with more severe atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (OR=0.66,95%CI:0.44-0.97, p=0.037). There was no significant difference in odds of stroke/death in patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis and complex arch (Group-D) (OR=0.91,95%CI:0.39-2.16, p=0.834). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR is safer than TFCAS in patients with simple and advanced arch anatomy. This could be related to the efficiency of flow reversal vs distal embolic protection. Current CMS decision will likely increase stroke and death outcomes of carotid stenting nationally if multidisciplinary approach and appropriate patient selection are not implemented.

Investigation of the weekend effect on perioperative complications and mortality after carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes for weekend surgical interventions are associated with higher rates of mortality and complications than weekday interventions. Although prior investigations have reported the "weekend effect" for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), this association remains unclear for transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). We investigated the weekend effect for all three carotid revascularization methods. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative for patients who underwent CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS between 2016 and 2022. χ2 and logistic regression modeling analyzed outcomes including in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality by weekend vs weekday intervention. Backward stepwise regression was used to identify significant confounding variables and was ultimately included in each final logistic regression model. Logistic regression of outcomes was substratified by symptomatic status. Secondary multivariable analysis compared outcomes between the three revascularization methods by weekend vs weekday interventions. RESULTS: A total of 155,962 procedures were analyzed including 103,790 CEA, 31,666 TCAR, and 20,506 TFCAS. Of these, 1988 CEA, 246 TCAR, and 820 TFCAS received weekend interventions. Logistic regression demonstrated no significant differences for TCAR and increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction for CEA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.65) and TFCAS (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.09-1.96) weekend procedures. Asymptomatic TCAR patients had nearly triple the odds of 30-day mortality (OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.06-7.68, P = .038). Similarly, odds of in-hospital death were nearly tripled for asymptomatic CEA (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.30-6.43, P = .009) and asymptomatic TFCAS (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.34-5.76, P = .006) patients. Secondary analysis demonstrated that CEA and TCAR had no significant differences for all outcomes. TFCAS was associated with increased odds of stroke and death compared with CEA and TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort study, we found that weekend carotid revascularization is associated with increased odds of complications and mortality. Furthermore, asymptomatic weekend patients perform worse in the CEA and TFCAS procedural groups. Among the three revascularization methods, TFCAS is associated with the highest odds of perioperative stroke and mortality. As such, our findings suggest that TFCAS procedures should be avoided over the weekend in favor of CEA or TCAR. In patients who are poor candidates for CEA, TCAR offers the lowest morbidity and mortality for weekend procedures.

Long-term outcomes in the smoking claudicant after peripheral vascular interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Emphasis on tobacco cessation, given the urgent and emergent nature of vascular surgery, is less prevalent than standard elective cases such as hernia repairs, cosmetic surgery, and bariatric procedures. The goal of this study is to determine the effect of active smoking on claudicating individuals undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). Our goal is to determine if a greater emphasis on education should be placed on smoking cessation in nonurgent cases scheduled through clinic visits and not the Emergency Department. METHODS: This study was performed using the multi-institution de-identified Vascular Quality Initiative/Medicare-linked database (Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network [VISION]). Claudicants who underwent PVI for peripheral arterial occlusive disease between 2004 and 2019 were included in our study. Our final sample consisted of a total of 18,726 patients: 3617 nonsmokers (19.3%) (NSs), 9975 former smokers (53.3%) (FSs), and 5134 current smokers (27.4%) (CSs). We performed propensity score matching on 29 variables (age, gender, race, ethnicity, treatment setting [outpatient or inpatient], obesity, insurance, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, previous coronary artery bypass graft, carotid endarterectomy, major amputation, inflow treatment, prior bypass or PVI, preoperative medications, level of treatment, concomitant endarterectomy, and treatment type [atherectomy, angioplasty, stent]) between NS vs FS and FS vs CS. Outcomes were long-term (5-year) overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), freedom from reintervention (FR), and amputation-free survival (AFS). RESULTS: Propensity score matching resulted in 3160 well-matched pairs of NS and FS and 3750 well-matched pairs of FS and CS. There was no difference between FS and NS in terms of OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.09; P = .43), FR (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; P = .35), or AFS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.03; P = .12). However, when compared with CS, we found FS to have a higher OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .01), less FR (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96; P = .003), and greater AFS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional Medicare-linked study looking at elective PVI cases in patients with peripheral artery disease presenting with claudication found that FSs have similar 5-year outcomes in comparison to NSs in terms of OS, FR, and AFS. Additionally, CSs have lower OS and AFS when compared with FSs. Overall, this suggests that smoking claudicants should be highly encouraged and referred to structured smoking cessation programs or even required to stop smoking prior to elective PVI due to the perceived 5-year benefit.

The obesity paradox exists for perioperative complications and mortality following lower extremity arterial bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The obesity paradox refers to a phenomenon by which obese individuals experience lower risk of mortality and even protective associations from chronic disease sequelae when compared with the non-obese and underweight population. Prior literature has demonstrated an obesity paradox after cardiac and other surgical procedures. However, the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and perioperative complications for patients undergoing major open lower extremity arterial revascularization is unclear. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative for individuals receiving unilateral infrainguinal bypass between 2003 and 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship of BMI categories (underweight [<18.5 kg/m2], non-obese [18.5-24.9 kg/m2], overweight [25-29.9 kg/m2], Class 1 obesity [30-34.9 kg/m2], Class 2 obesity [35-39.9 kg/m2], and Class 3 obesity [>40 kg/m2]) with 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and adverse cardiovascular events. We adjusted the models for key patient demographics, comorbidities, and technical and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2020, 60,588 arterial bypass procedures met inclusion criteria for analysis. Upon multivariable logistic regression with the non-obese category as the reference group, odds of 30-day mortality were significantly decreased among the overweight (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.78), Class 1 obese (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), Class 2 obese (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), and Class 3 obese (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97) patient categories. Conversely, odds of 30-day mortality were increased in the underweight patient group (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.13). Furthermore, a BMI-dependent positive association was present, with odds of surgical site infections with patients in Class 3 obesity having the highest odds (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.60-2.76). Finally, among the adverse cardiovascular event outcomes assessed, only myocardial infarction (MI) demonstrated decreased odds among overweight (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96), Class 1 obese (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93), and Class 2 obese (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) patient populations. Odds of MI among the underweight and Class 3 obesity groups were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The obesity paradox is evident in patients undergoing lower extremity bypass procedures, particularly with odds of 30-day mortality and MI. Our findings suggest that having higher BMI (overweight and Class 1-3 obesity) is not associated with increased mortality and should not be interpreted as a contraindication for lower extremity arterial bypass surgery. However, these patients should be under vigilant surveillance for surgical site infections. Finally, patients that are underweight have a significantly increased odds of 30-day mortality and may be more suitable candidates for endovascular therapy.

Endovascular therapy versus bypass for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in a real-world practice.

OBJECTIVE: The recent Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) study showed that bypass was superior to endovascular therapy (ET) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) deemed suitable for either approach who had an available single-segment great saphenous vein (GSV). However, the superiority of bypass among those lacking GSV was not established. We aimed to examine comparative treatment outcomes from a real-world CLTI population using the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare-linked database. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare-linked database for patients with CLTI who underwent first-time lower extremity revascularization (2010-2019). We performed two one-to-one propensity score matchings (PSMs): ET vs bypass with GSV (BWGSV) and ET vs bypass with a prosthetic graft (BWPG). The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes were freedom from amputation and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Three cohorts were queried: BWGSV (N = 5279, 14.7%), BWPG (N = 2778, 7.7%), and ET (N = 27,977, 77.6%). PSM produced two sets of well-matched cohorts: 4705 pairs of ET vs BWGSV and 2583 pairs of ET vs BWPG. In the matched cohorts of ET vs BWGSV, ET was associated with greater hazards of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.43; P < .001), amputation (HR = 1.30, 95% CI, 1.17-1.44; P < .001), and amputation/death (HR = 1.32, 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P < .001) up to 4 years. In the matched cohorts of ET vs BWPG, ET was associated with greater hazards of death up to 2 years (HR = 1.11, 95% CI, 1.00-1.22; P = .042) but not amputation or amputation/death. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world multi-institutional Medicare-linked PSM analysis, we found that BWGSV is superior to ET in terms of OS, freedom from amputation, and amputation-free survival up to 4 years. Moreover, BWPG was superior to ET in terms of OS up to 2 years. Our study confirms the superiority of BWGSV to ET as observed in the BEST-CLI trial.

Association of stroke or death with severity of carotid lesion calcification in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for heavily calcified lesions is controversial due to concern for stent failure and increased perioperative stroke risk. However, the degree to which calcification affects outcomes is poorly understood, particularly in transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). With the precipitous increase in TCAR use and its expansion to standard surgical-risk patients, we aimed to determine the impact of lesion calcification on CAS outcomes to ensure its safe and appropriate use. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent first-time transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and TCAR between 2016 and 2021. Patients were stratified into groups based on degree of lesion calcification: no calcification, 1% to 50% calcification, 51% to 99% calcification, and 100% circumferential calcification or intraluminal protrusion. Outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year composite stroke/death, as well as individual stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between degree of calcification and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 21,860 patients undergoing CAS, 28% patients had no calcification, 34% had 1% to 50% calcification, 35% had 51% to 99% calcification, and 3% had 100% circumferential calcification/protrusion. Patients with 51% to 99% and circumferential calcification/protrusion had higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.6; P = .034; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .004, respectively) compared with those with no calcification. Circumferential calcification was also associated with increased risk for in-hospital myocardial infarction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .003). In tfCAS patients, only circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher in-hospital stroke/death odds (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P = .013), whereas for TCAR patients, 51% to 99% calcification was associated with increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .025). At 1 year, circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher odds of ipsilateral stroke/death (12.4% vs 6.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CAS, there is an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death for lesions with >50% calcification or circumferential/protruding plaques. Increasing severity of carotid lesion calcification is a significant risk factor for stroke/death in patients undergoing CAS, regardless of approach.

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

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

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

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

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

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

An International, Expert-based, Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues in the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of conflicting, inadequate or controversial data in the literature, several issues concerning the management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remain unanswered. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to provide some guidance for clinicians on these controversial topics. METHODS: A 3-Round Delphi Consensus document was produced with 44 experts on 6 pre-specified topics regarding the management of AAAs. All answers were provided anonymously. The response rate for each round was 100%. RESULTS: Most participants (42 of 44; 95.4%) agreed that a minimum case volume/year is essential (or probably essential) for a center to offer open/endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). Furthermore, 33 of 44 (75.0%) believed that AAA screening programs are (probably) still clinically effective and cost-effective. Additionally, most panelists (36 of 44; 81.9%) voted that surveillance after EVAR should be (or should probably be) lifelong. Finally, 35 of 44 (79.7%) participants thought that women smokers should (or should probably/possibly) be considered for screening at 65 years of age similar to men. No consensus was achieved regarding lowering the threshold for AAA repair and the need for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in patients undergoing EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: This expert-based Delphi Consensus document provides guidance for clinicians regarding specific unresolved issues. Consensus could not be achieved in some topics, highlighting the need for further research in those areas.

Non-White Patients Have a Higher Risk of Stroke Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery revascularization has traditionally been performed by either a carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent. Large data analysis has suggested there are differences in perioperative outcomes with regards to race, with non-White patients (NWP) having worse outcomes of stroke, restenosis and return to the operating room (RTOR). The introduction of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has started to shift the paradigm of carotid disease treatment. However, to date, there have been no studies assessing the difference in postoperative outcomes after TCAR between racial groups. METHODS: All patients from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent TCAR were included in our analysis. Patients were split into two groups based on race: individuals who identified as White and a second group that comprised all other races. Demographic and clinical variables were compared using Student's t-Test and chi-square test of independence. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on perioperative outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, restenosis, RTOR, and transient ischemic attack (TIA). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 22,609 patients: 20,424 (90.3%) White patients and 2185 (9.7%) NWP. After adjusting for sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, history of prior stroke or TIA, symptomatic status, and high-risk criteria at time of TCAR, there was a significant difference in postoperative stroke, with 63% increased risk in NWP (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.40, P = 0.014). However, we found no significant difference in the odds of MI, death, postoperative TIA, restenosis, or RTOR when comparing NWP to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that NWP have increased risk of stroke but similar outcomes of death, MI, RTOR and restenosis following TCAR. Future studies are needed to elucidate and address the underlying causes of racial disparity in carotid revascularization.

The Double Burden: Deciphering Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia in End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) poses significant challenges in clinical management due to its unique pathology and poor treatment outcomes. This review calls for a tailored classification and risk assessment for these patients to guide better revascularization choices with early minor amputation as a first-line strategy in advanced stages. METHODS: This review consolidates key findings from recent literature on CLTI in ESRD, focusing on disease mechanisms, treatment options, and patient outcomes. It evaluates the literature to clarify the decision-making process for managing CLTI in ESRD. RESULTS: CLTI in ESRD patients often results in worse clinical outcomes, such as nonhealing wounds, increased limb loss, and higher mortality rates. While the literature reveals ongoing debates regarding the optimal revascularization method, recent retrospective studies and meta-analyses suggest potential benefits of endovascular treatment (EVT) over open bypass surgery (OB) in reducing mortality and wound complications, with comparable amputation-free survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of revascularization methods in ESRD patients with CLTI is complex, necessitating individualized strategies. The importance of early detection and timely intervention is critical to decelerate disease progression and improve revascularization outcomes. There is a shift in these treatment strategies toward less invasive endovascular procedures, acknowledging the limitations these patients face with open revascularization surgeries. Considering early minor amputations after revascularization could prevent worse consequences, reflecting a shift in the approach to managing CLTI in ESRD patients.

30-Day Risk Score for Mortality and Stroke in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence Based Carotid Plaque Morphology.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for determining carotid artery stenosis intervention is based on a combination of percent stenosis and symptomatic status. Few studies have assessed plaque morphology as an additive tool for stroke prediction. Our goal was to create a predictive model and risk score for 30-day stroke and death inclusive of plaque morphology. METHODS: Patients with a computed tomographic angiography head/neck between 2010 and 2021 at a single institution and a diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis were included in our analysis. Each computed tomography was used to create a three-dimensional image of carotid plaque based off image recognition software. A stepwise backward regression was used to select variables for inclusion in our prediction models. Model discrimination was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Additionally, calibration was performed and the model with the least Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was selected. The risk score was modeled from the Framingham Study. Primary outcome was mortality/stroke. RESULTS: We created 3 models to predict mortality/stroke from 366 patients: model A using only clinical variables, model B using only plaque morphology and model C using both clinical and plaque morphology variables. Model A used age, sex, peripheral arterial disease, hyperlipidemia, body mass index (BMI), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and history of transient ischemia attack (TIA)/stroke and had an AUC of 0.737 and AIC of 285.4. Model B used perivascular adipose tissue (PVAT) volume, lumen area, calcified volume, and target lesion length and had an AUC of 0.644 and AIC of 304.8. Finally, model C combined both clinical and software variables of age, sex, matrix volume, history of TIA/stroke, BMI, PVAT, lipid rich necrotic core, COPD and hyperlipidemia and had an AUC of 0.759 and an AIC of 277.6. Model C was the most predictive because it had the highest AUC and lowest AIC. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that combining both clinical factors and plaque morphology creates the best predication of a patient's risk for all-cause mortality or stroke from carotid artery stenosis. Additionally, we found that for patients with even 3 points in our risk score model has a 20% chance of stroke/death. Further prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

Outcomes of Thoracic and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients with Renal Insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and complex endovascular aneurysm repair (cEVAR) are effective and minimally invasive treatment options for preventing rupture and decreasing mortality of aortic aneurysms. Patients with renal insufficiency are prone to worse postoperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality due to the atherosclerosis burden as well as increased levels of angiotensin II. Nonetheless, knowledge about the outcomes of aortic stent graft therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis is scarce. This study aimed to examine outcomes after TEVAR and cEVAR in patients on CKD and dialysis. METHODS: Utilizing data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent TEVAR or cEVRA from 2010 to 2018. Patients were divided into patients with no CKD or dialysis, CKD patients, and dialysis patients. Outcomes were in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, aneurysmal rupture, and reintervention. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis and 1-year outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier Survival and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 4,867 patients were included in the study, 2,694 had no CKD or dialysis, 2,047 had CKD, and 126 were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were significantly younger, and more likely to be non-White and of Hispanic/Latino origin. They were also more likely to have medical comorbidities. CKD patients had higher odds of in-hospital MI (odds ratio [OR]: 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.43-2.86), P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (OR: 1.56, 95% CI (1.18-2.07), P < 0.001) compared to patients with no CKD or dialysis. Dialysis patients had higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR: 3.31, 95% CI (1.73-6.35), P < 0.001). At 1 year, dialysis was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.48, 95% CI (2.39-5.07), P < 0.001) and reintervention (HR: 1.72, 95% CI (1.001-2.94), P < 0.049). CKD was associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR: 1.45, 95% CI (1.21-1.75), P < 0.001) compared to patients with no CKD or dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TEVAR or cEVAR, there was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital stroke, SCI, and 1-year aneurysmal rupture among dialysis and CKD patients compared to patients with no CKD or dialysis. However, CKD patients had twice the risk of in-hospital MI. Dialysis patients had a higher risk of 1-year reintervention. Both dialysis and CKD patients had a higher risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality.