Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Long-term outcomes of chimney endovascular aneurysm repair procedure for complex abdominal aortic pathologies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to update our earlier experience and to evaluate long-term outcomes of chimney endovascular aortic repair performed for selected cases with complex abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted on 51 consecutive patients who underwent chimney endovascular aortic repair procedure, deemed unfit for open surgical repair and fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair, from October 2009 to November 2019. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess the estimated overall survival, freedom from aneurysm related mortality, freedom from reintervention, freedom from target vessel instability, and freedom from type Ia endoleaks. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (mean age, 77.1 ± 7.5 years) with a mean preoperative maximum aneurysm diameter of 74.2 ± 20.1 mm were included. Mean follow-up duration was 48.6 months (range, 0-136 months). Estimated overall survival at 5 and 7 years was 36.3% ± 7.1% and 18.3% ± 6.0%, respectively. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 88.6% ± 4.9% at 7 years. Estimated freedom from type Ia endoleaks at 7 years was 91.8% ± 3.9%. A total of 21 late reinterventions were performed in 17 patients (33%). Most of them were performed to treat type II endoleaks with sac growth (47.6%; n = 10) and type Ib endoleak (23.8%; n = 5). Estimated freedom from reintervention at 7 years was 56.3% ± 7.9%. Estimated freedom from target vessel instability at 7 years was 91.5% ± 4.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The 7-year results of chimney endovascular aortic repair procedures performed in our center confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of this technique in a series of high-risk patients with large aneurysms. The present study has, to the best of our knowledge, the longest follow-up for patients treated with chimney endovascular aortic repair, and it provides data to the scarce literature on the long-term outcomes of this procedure, showing acceptable to good long-term results.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Type III aortic arch angulation increases aortic stiffness: Analysis from an ex vivo porcine model.

Objective: The relationship among increased aortic arch angulation, aortic flow dynamics, and vessel wall stiffness remains unclear. This experimental ex vivo study investigated how increased aortic arch angulation affects aortic stiffness and stent-graft induced aortic stiffening, assessed by pulse wave velocity (PWV). Methods: Porcine thoracic aortas were connected to a circulatory mock loop in a Type I and Type III aortic arch configuration. Baseline characteristics and blood pressures were measured. Proximal and distal flow curves were acquired to calculate PWV in both arch configurations. After that, a thoracic stent-graft (VAMF2626C100TU) was deployed in aortas with adequate proximal landing zone diameters to reach 10% t0 20% oversizing. Acquisitions were repeated for both arch configurations after stent-graft deployment. Results: Twenty-four aortas were harvested, surgically prepared, and mounted. Cardiac output was kept constant for both arch configurations (Type I: 4.74 ± 0.40 and Type III: 4.72 ± 0.38 L/minute; P = .703). Compared with a Type I arch, aortic PWV increased significantly in the Type III arch (3.53 ± 0.40 vs 3.83 ± 0.40 m/second; P < .001), as well as blood pressures. A stent-graft was deployed in 15 aortas. After deployment, Type I arch PWV increased (3.55 ± 0.39 vs 3.81 ± 0.44 m/second; P < .001) and Type III arch PWV increased although not significantly (3.86 ± 0.42 vs 4.03 ± 0.46 m/second; P = .094). Type III arch PWV resulted the highest and significantly higher compared with the Type I arch after stent-graft deployment (3.81 ± 0.44 vs 4.03 ± 0.46 m/second; P = .023). Conclusions: Increased aortic arch angulation-as in a Type III arch-is associated with higher aortic PWV and blood pressures and this may negatively influence cardiovascular health.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy. METHODS: The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed. CONCLUSION: The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Geographic variation in aortic stenosis treatment and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has changed the landscape of aortic stenosis (AS) management. AIM: To describe and evaluate geographic variation in AS treatment and outcomes among a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data was conducted on a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 and older with a diagnosis of AS (2015-2018). Estimates of demographic, comorbidity, and healthcare resources were obtained from Medicare claims and the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care at the hospital referral region (HRR), which represents regional tertiary medical care markets. Linear regression was used to explain HRR-level variation in rates of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, and 1-year mortality and readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 740,899 beneficiaries with AS were identified with a median prevalence of AS of 39.9 per 1000 Medicare beneficiary years. The average HRR-level rate of SAVR was 26.3 procedures per 1000 beneficiary years and the rate of TAVR was 20.3 procedures per 1000 beneficiary years. HRR-level comorbidities and number of TAVR centers were associated with a lower SAVR rate. Demographics and comorbidities explained most of the variation in HRR-level 1-year mortality (15.2% and 18.8%) and hospitalization rates (20.5% and 16.9%), but over half of the variation remained unexplained. CONCLUSION: Wide regional variation in the treatment and outcomes of AS was observed but were largely unexplained by patient factors and healthcare utilization. Understanding the determinants of AS treatment and outcomes can inform population health efforts for these patients.

Patients' Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: To investigate associations between patient characteristics, intraprocedural complexity factors, and radiation exposure to patients during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Elective standard EVAR procedures between January 2015 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics and intraprocedural data (i.e., type of device, endograft configuration, additional procedures, and contralateral gate cannulation time [CGCT]) were collected. Dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time were considered as measurements of radiation exposure. Furthermore, effective dose (ED) and doses to internal organs were calculated using PCXMC 2.0 software. Descriptive statistics, univariable, and multivariable linear regression were applied to investigate predictors of increased radiation exposure. RESULTS: The 99 patients were mostly male (90.9%) with a mean age of 74 ± 7 years. EVAR indications were most frequently abdominal aortic aneurysm (93.9%), penetrating aortic ulceration (2.0%), focal dissection (2.0%), or subacute rupture of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (2.0%). Median fluoroscopy time was 19.6 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 14.1-29.4) and median DAP was 86,311 mGy cm2 (IQR, 60,160-130,385). Median ED was 23.2 mSv (IQR, 17.0-34.8) for 93 patients (93.9%). DAP and ED were positively correlated with body mass index (BMI) and CGCT. Kidneys, small intestine, active bone marrow, colon, and stomach were the organs that received the highest equivalent doses during EVAR. Higher DAP and ED values were observed using the Excluder endograft, other bi- and tri-modular endografts, and EVAR with ≥2 additional procedures. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that BMI, ≥2 additional procedures during EVAR, and CGCT were independent positive predictors of DAP and ED levels after accounting for endograft type. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-related and procedure-related factors such as BMI, ≥2 additional procedures during EVAR, and CGCT resulted predictors of radiation exposure for patients undergoing EVAR, as quantified by higher DAP and ED levels. The main intraprocedural factor that increased radiation exposure was CGCT. These data can be of importance for better managing radiation exposure during EVAR.