Transcarotid artery revascularization can safely be performed with regional anesthesia and no intensive care unit stay.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital resource use is under constant review, and the extent and intensity of postoperative care requirements for vascular surgical procedures is particularly relevant in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and its impact on staffed intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of regional anesthesia (RA) and low-intensity postoperative care for patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) at our institution. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR at a single institution from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed. Perioperative management (anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, neurovascular examination, nursing instructions) was standardized by use of an institutional protocol. Anesthetic modality was at the surgeon's preference. Patients were transferred to a postanesthesia care unit for 2 hours followed by the step-down unit, to a postanesthesia care unit for 4 hours followed by the floor, or alternatively transferred to the ICU. Intravenous (IV) blood pressure medications could be administered at all environments except the floor. Recovery location and length of stay were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. The mean age 72 ± 9 years and 59% were male. Thirty-six percent were symptomatic. RA was used for 84% with none converted to general anesthesia (GA) intraoperatively. Postoperatively, 7 of the 83 patients (8%) included in this study were monitored in an ICU overnight (decided perioperatively), mostly for patients with prior neurological symptoms, but in 1 case for postoperative neurological event and in another owing to pulseless electrical activity arrest. Six patients required IV antihypertensives and eight required IV vasoactive support postoperatively. The mean length of ICU stay was 3.7 ± 5.1 days. The mean length of hospital stay for all patients was 2.4 ± 3.3 days. The length of stay for patients undergoing TCAR with GA was higher than those undergoing TCAR with RA (4.2 ± 4.9 days vs 1.4 ± 1.2 days, respectively; P = .066). The incidence of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction was 2.4%. There was one postoperative stroke considered to be a recrudescence of prior stroke, and one respiratory arrest fatality in a frail patient with neck hematoma both of whom were treated under GA. CONCLUSIONS: Using perioperative care protocols, TCAR can safely be performed while avoiding both GA and an ICU stay in most patients.

Staging Endovascular Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repairs and the Risk of Post-operative Spinal Cord Ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Staged aortic aneurysm repair is one method used to decrease the risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following endovascular aortic intervention. Sequential sacrifice of arteries perfusing the spine may allow for improved spinal perfusion through the development of collateral networks over time. To evaluate the impact of staging endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs on SCI, we conducted a conservative analysis of Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data. METHODS: De-identified VQI data were queried for cases of endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repairs from year 2014 to 2019. Cases were selected based on inclusion criteria: aneurysmal disease, no ruptures, no prior aortic surgeries, no retreatments, and only cases with complete data on aortic zones and SCI. Chi-square, Student's t-tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for univariable analyses, as appropriate. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of outcome. RESULTS: There were 116 staged aortic repairs (SARs) (8.2%) performed out of a total of 1421 endovascular aortic repairs that fit study criteria. The overall rate of SCI within the study cohort was 3.4% (n = 48). The distribution of SARs and SCI events according to aortic zone coverage are displayed in Table 1. Patients who underwent staged endovascular aortic repairs had higher rates of SCI, pre-op spinal drain placement, non-African-American race, COPD, smoking history, positive stress tests, aspirin and statin use, increased estimated blood loss, physician-modified endografts, number of aortic zones covered, lower pre-op hemoglobin levels, larger aneurysm sac size, fusiform aneurysms, and longer total procedure times, Table 2. After adjusting for factors associated with SCI, a priori, and factors with a P < 0.1 univariable analysis, SAR was not associated with SCI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-4.50, P = 0.17). Of the six factors associated with SCI on univariable analysis, only procedure time ≥6 hours (OR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.09-5.70, P = 0.031) and the number of aortic zones covered (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.00-1.32, P = 0.047) were predictive of SCI. Staged repairs had a lower proportion of permanent SCI (38%, 3 of 8 cases) compared with repairs that were not staged (68%, 27 of 40 cases), with a relative risk reduction of 44% for those who developed SCI, P = 0.21. CONCLUSIONS: In a large national data set, SARs were performed for patients with more extensive aortic disease. SARs were only performed in about 8% of cases and the rate of SCI remained low. After adjusting for baseline comorbidities, extent of aortic disease, and other factors that may potentiate SCI, staged aortic aneurysm repair had a similar risk of SCI compared with non-staged repairs. However, there was a trend toward decreased permanent SCI risk in the SAR group.

Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasing, and understanding the different methods of management and repair is paramount. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical management and rescue of failed EVAR by either explantation or fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/B-EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective analysis (1999-2016) of 247 patients who underwent either explantation (n = 162) or F/B-EVAR (n = 85) for failed EVAR was performed. F/B-EVAR was performed under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. Demographics of the patients, clinical presentation and failure etiology, perioperative management, rate of reinterventions, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Those undergoing surgical explantation were compared with those undergoing F/B-EVAR conversion. Statistical analysis included multivariable logistic regressions, Fisher exact test, and χ2 test. RESULTS: The majority of patients were male (n = 216 [87%]), with a mean age of 75 years (range, 50-93 years). The mean time from primary EVAR was higher in F/B-EVAR (46 ± 7 months vs 69 ± 41 months; P < .001). Graft manufacturer did not differ between those requiring explantation and those having endovascular rescue (P = .170). All emergencies (n = 24 [10%]) and infections (n = 28 [11%]) were treated with open conversion. Endoleak was the most common reason for failure in both explantation and F/B-EVAR groups (75% vs 64%, respectively; P = .052). Type I endoleak was the most common endoleak reported in both groups, occurring more frequently in F/B-EVAR (64% vs 40%; P < .001); type II endoleak was more common in those undergoing open repair (28% vs 2%; P < .001). Graft migration (12% vs 26%; P = .005) and neck degeneration/disease progression (14% vs 59%; P < .001) were more prevalent in F/B-EVAR, but aneurysm enlargement was more common in explantation (68% vs 33%; P < .001). Thirty-day reintervention rates did not differ between F/B-EVAR and explantation (odds ratio, 0.6258; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.86; P = .4115); however, 30-day mortality was lower in the F/B-EVAR group (5% vs 10%; P = .0192). Similarly, aneurysm-related mortality was also lower in the F/B-EVAR group (hazard ratio, 0.0683; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.44; P = .0048). A subset analysis excluding emergencies and infections did not alter the lack of difference in terms of freedom from reinterventions (P = .1175), 30-day mortality (P = .6329), or aneurysm-related mortality (P = .7849). CONCLUSIONS: Explantation and F/B-EVAR are necessary options in treating patients with failed EVAR, and both techniques have competitive results. Different modes of failure may point to a preferred method of treatment; consequently, rescue of failed EVAR should be individualized according to each patient's presentation and resources available.

Durability of iliac artery preservation associated with endovascular repair of infrarenal aortoiliac aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated and compared the long-term clinical outcomes of endovascular repair of infrarenal aortoiliac aneurysms (EVAR) vs EVAR with preservation of antegrade internal iliac artery (IIA) perfusion using iliac branched devices (EVAR-IBDs). METHODS: From October 1998 to August 2015, patients with infrarenal aortoiliac aneurysmal (AIA) disease at high risk for conventional open surgery were enrolled in a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial. Clinical data of 75 patients treated with EVAR-IBD and 255 with standard EVAR were analyzed. Technical success, perioperative outcomes, mortality, device patency, endoleak rates, and reinterventions during a follow-up of 10 years were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 87 IBDs deployed in 75 patients. Technical success rate was 97%. Mortality at 30 days was 1.3%. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality at 3, 5, and 10 years was 99%. Freedom from a type I or III endoleak at 3, 5, and 10 years was 99%. Freedom from secondary reinterventions at 3, 5, and 10 years was 86%, 81%, and 81%, respectively. Primary patency of the IBDs at 3, 5, and 10 years was 94%, 94%, and 77%, respectively. Twenty-four percent of patients underwent EVAR for concomitant AIA disease (EVAR-AIA), and 78% were managed by staged IIA embolization before EVAR. No statistically significant difference in freedom from aneurysm-related mortality, limb occlusions, or endoleak rates was identified in patients with EVAR-AIA vs EVAR-IBD (P > .05). There were significantly more secondary reinterventions in the EVAR-AIA group compared with the EVAR-IBD group (hazard ratio, 0.476, 95% confidence interval, 0.226-1.001; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR of infrarenal AIAs with preservation of antegrade flow to the IIA using IBDs is feasible with long-term sustained durability. Serious considerations should be given to the use of IBDs in patients with infrarenal AIAs meeting appropriate anatomic criteria.

Large, single-center databases and the evolution of endovascular therapy for complex aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated and branched endograft repair of complex aortic disease has revolutionized the approach to treatment of this life-threatening problem. Several sites have developed long-standing programs evaluating the application and outcomes of this technology. These reports are based on the development of large, single-center databases. These centers have helped to pioneer the evolution of this approach, and their assessments have led to significant improvements and identified areas that require improvement in the ensuing years. METHODS: Four main centers that are known to have developed large, single-center databases were identified. A literature review was performed to collect the contributions that were made on the topic of fenestrated/branched endograft repair of complex aortic aneurysms were selected and reviewed. RESULTS: Nearly a decade and a half of progress has been made in developing endovascular treatment of complex aortic disease. The application of this technology has been limited in the United States due to its investigational nature, but has achieved commercialization in Europe. These centers that have accrued large numbers of patients and have defined the initial expected perioperative outcomes. In addition, they have identified areas of high risk for these patients including perioperative renal failure and the development of spinal cord ischemia. Long-term outcomes are being developed with a special interest in evaluating branch patency, renal function, and device and aortic durability. CONCLUSION: Endovascular approaches to treat complex aortic disease, while more than a decade old, are still in the early phases of its wide-spread application. Improvements in device design will occur throughout the next several years, which will ease the placement of these devices and improve perioperative and long-term outcomes.