A decade's experience with retrograde open mesenteric stenting for acute mesenteric ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Retrograde open mesenteric stenting (ROMS) is an alternative to mesenteric bypass in patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) with variable reported 30-day mortality rates. Large studies evaluating patient outcomes following ROMS are scarce. Our study aims to assess the results of this approach among patients presenting with AMI. METHODS: We reviewed all the patients with AMI who were treated with ROMS (2011-2022). Patient demographics, presentation, operative details, and outcomes were analyzed. Primary end points were in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimate for 1-year mortality and primary patency loss were generated. Secondary end points included postoperative 30-day complications. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2022, ROMS was attempted on a total of 42 patients. The median age was 70 ± 15 years and the majority of patients were female. Pain out of proportion to the physical examination was the most common presenting symptom (n = 18, 42.9%) followed by peritonitis (n = 14, 33.4%). All patients underwent preoperative intravenous contrast computed tomography imaging. In situ thrombosis was identified as the etiology of AMI in 36 patients (85.7%). Technical success was achieved in 40 patients (95.2%). Conventional, non-hybrid operating rooms were used for the majority of cases. Revascularization of all 40 patients involved angioplasty and stenting of superior mesenteric artery. A single stent was placed in 35 patients (87.5%) and the reminder had more than one stent. Eighty percent of patients required bowel resection. A second-look laparotomy was required in 34 patients (85.0%). The mean operative time, including both the general surgery and vascular surgery portions of the index procedure, was 192 ± 57 minutes. Sepsis was the most common complication observed within 30 days, occurring in 8 patients (20.0%). In terms of mortality, 13 patients (32.5%) died during their index hospitalization, and 9 died (22.5%) within 30 days. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 1-year overall patient survival rate was 58.6%, and the primary patency rate for stents was 51.4%. CONCLUSIONS: ROMS has an excellent technical success rate in management of AMI with lower than traditionally reported mortality rates for AMI. The dual benefits of rapid revascularization and bowel evaluation should make this surgical modality an alternative approach for treatment of AMI.

Female Gender is a Predictor of Lower Iliac Vein Stenting Patency Rates.

BACKGROUND: Iliac venous stenting (IVS) for thrombotic and nonthrombotic venous disease is increasingly used as evidence of the safety, efficacy and durability of these interventions increases. Female gender has been implicated as a predictor of failure in arterial endovascular interventions. We hypothesize that female gender could be predictive of patency rates of iliac vein stenting. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent IVS for thrombotic or nonthrombotic venous disease at our institution from 2007 until 2019 were identified and divided into groups based on gender. Operative notes, venograms, and the electronic health record were then queried to obtain operative details, co-morbid conditions, postoperative outcomes and stent patency. Study outcome was long term patency rate. The data was analyzed using chi-square, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 200 consecutive patients (231 limbs) were identified in our retrospective analysis, with a mean age of 48.8 ± 17.3, and BMI of 31.6 ± 8.6. Of those, 119 (59.5%) patients, (131 [56.8%] limbs) were female. Comparisons between the gender groups revealed no difference in age, BMI, or preoperative comorbidities. There was no difference in type of venous disease between male (85% thrombotic, 15% nonthrombotic) and female (84% thrombotic, 16% nonthrombotic), P= 0.830. The male cohort was more likely to present with leg ulceration (17% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.002), and the female cohort was more likely to present with leg edema (98.5% vs. 93.0%, P= 0.03). The male cohort had a higher rate of caval (48% vs. 33.6%, P= 0.027) and infrainguinal stent extension. (11% vs. 6.9%, P= 0.02). Females had a higher rate of left sided stenting (80.9% vs. 66/0%, P= 0.010). There was no difference in the median stent diameter used between the cohorts. Primary patency at 5 years was significantly higher for the male cohort (94.1% vs. 74.4%, P= 0.01) On adjusted multivariable cox regression female gender was a predictor of loss of primary patency within 5 years (HR, 4.04; P= 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center retrospective analysis of IVS, male patients were found to have better primary stent patency compared to female.

Utilization and Outcomes of Radial Artery Access for Lower Extremity Endovascular Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Radial artery access has become popular for cardiac interventions, but its role in lower extremity interventions is not well defined. We aimed to describe current utilization and outcomes of transradial access for lower extremity interventions. METHODS: Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) from 2016-2020 where transradial access was employed in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry were studied. Cases before 2016 were excluded as documentation of transradial access was not possible in earlier years. PVIs involving radial artery access were evaluated with regard to access guidance, access-site complications, target vessels treated and the technical success of these interventions. RESULTS: Of 167,098 PVIs, 1,096 (0.66%) involved radial access. Utilization varied significantly by region (P < 0.01). The left radial artery was used in 66.9% of cases. Ultrasound-guided access was documented in 72.7% of cases. There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, or sex between the transradial group and other PVIs. In 450 procedures, a second access site was utilized, most commonly a retrograde femoral access (60.0%) or retrograde pedal access (16.7%). The largest sheath was 6-Fr in 78.0%. Interventions documenting radial-only access more commonly treated the aortoiliac segment (49.4% vs. 29.5%, P < 0.001) and less commonly treated the tibial segments (7.1% vs. 32.1%, P < 0.001). Technical success was 94.0%, with inability to cross the lesion (3.1%) and residual stenosis after treatment (2.2%) being most common. There were access-site complications in 2.9%, with hematoma (2.4%) being most common. DISCUSSION: Radial access is associated with high technical success rates and low access-site complication rates. Advances in device profile and shaft length may overcome shortcomings of transradial access and lead to further utilization of this access site.

Nationwide trends in drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent utilization in the femoropopliteal arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) have significantly altered treatment paradigms for femoropopliteal lesions. We aimed to describe changes in practice patterns as a result of the infusion of these technologies into the treatment of peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2010 to 2017 for all peripheral vascular interventions involving the superficial femoral artery and/or the popliteal artery. Cases were divided into a PRE and a POST era with a cutoff of September 2016, when specific device identity was first recorded in Vascular Quality Initiative. For each artery, a primary treatment was identified as either plain balloon angioplasty, atherectomy, DCB, bare-metal stent, or DES. The relative distribution of primary treatments between the PRE and POST eras was evaluated, as were lesion characteristics associated with DCB and DES use and regional variability in the adoption of these new technologies. RESULTS: Of 210,666 arteries in the dataset, 91,864 femoropopliteal arteries (across 74,842 procedures in 55,437 patients) were included. Each artery received 1.5 ± 0.6 treatments. Primary treatment use changed from 40% balloon angioplasty, 45% stenting, and 15% atherectomy in the PRE era to 22% plain balloon angioplasty, 26% bare-metal stent, 8% atherectomy, 37% DCB, and 8% DES in the POST era (P < .001). Forty-three percent of arteries received a drug-containing device as a primary or adjunctive therapy and 1.3% received both a DCB and DES in the POST era. DCB use as the primary treatment was highest in lesions with length 10.0 to 19.9 cm (42%), TransAtlantic InterSociety A, B, or C lesions (38%), and lesions with mild to no calcification (38%). DES use was highest in lesions with a length of 20 cm or more (12%), TransAtlantic InterSociety D lesions (13%), and lesions with moderate to severe calcification (9%). The range of use across 18 regions was 125 to 40% for DCB and 1% to 14% for DES. Regional variability was greater for DES (SD 4% vs mean 8%) than for DCB (SD 7% vs mean 29%). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a rapid dissemination of DCB and DES technology in the femoropopliteal vessels, with nearly one-half of arteries receiving a drug-containing therapy in modern practice. DCBs are most used in medium length, minimally calcified lesions and DESs are most used in longer, more heavily calcified lesions. There is significant regional variability in adoption, especially with DES.

Occult type I or III endoleaks are a common cause of failure of type II endoleak treatment after endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Most type II endoleaks have a benign natural history, but 6% to 8% are associated with sac enlargement and respond poorly to treatment. Our aim was to evaluate whether these enlargements are associated with delayed or occult type I and III endoleaks. METHODS: Patients with interventions for endoleak after endovascular aortic repair from 2000 to 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, comorbidities, endoleak type, secondary procedures, aortic sac growth (≥5 mm), and mortality were collected. Successful treatment was defined as endoleak resolution with no further aortic sac growth. Secondary procedures, ruptures, endograft explant, and death were captured. RESULTS: There were 130 patients diagnosed with a primary type II endoleak after endovascular aortic repair at a median of 1.3 months (interquartile range, 1.0-13.3 months). One hundred eighteen had their initial treatment for a primary type II. Twelve of the 130 were initially stable and observed, but were treated for a delayed type I or III endoleak. The 130 patients underwent 279 procedures for endoleaks (mean of 2.2 ± 1.3) over 6.9 ± 3.8 years of follow-up. Of the 118 patients treated for primary type II endoleaks, 26 (22.0%) later required interventions for delayed type I and III endoleaks. The mean time to intervention for a delayed type I or III endoleak was 5.4 ± 2.8 years. Overall, there were 16 type IA, 11 type IB, 2 type III, 7 combined type IA/IB, and 2 type IA/III delayed endoleaks. The odds of harboring a delayed type I or III endoleak was 22.0% before the first attempt at type II endoleak treatment, 35.1% before the second, 44.8% before the third, and 66.6% before the fourth attempts. Rapid aortic sac growth of ≥5 mm/y before initial endoleak treatment was associated with increased risk for delayed type I or III endoleak (47.8 vs 14.1%; P = .003). Patients with delayed type I or III endoleaks had a lower successful treatment rate (8.3% vs 52.3%; P = .001) than those with only type II endoleaks. Late rupture was increased with delayed type I or III endoleak (P = .002), whereas mortality (P = .96) and aortic-related mortality (P = .46) were similar. Graft explant (P = .06) trended toward an increase with a delayed type I or III endoleak, but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Failed attempts treating type II endoleaks and/or a rapid aortic sac growth of 5 mm/y or greater should raise the suspicion of a delayed or occult type I or III endoleak. Occult endoleaks are associated with decreased chance of endoleak resolution.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of Outcomes After Open Surgical and Endovascular Lower Extremity Revascularisation Among End Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis.

OBJECTIVES: End stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at high risk of complications following open surgical revascularisation (OSR). Endovascular revascularisation (ER) is an option, but its role is unclear. This study sought to characterise the outcomes of ER and OSR in ESRD patients treated for claudication or critical limb ischaemia (CLI). METHODS: The United States Renal Data System was used to investigate outcomes after lower extremity ER and OSR from 2005 to 2011. Primary outcomes were mortality, amputation, and peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI). Kaplan-Meier (K-M) estimates were generated for mortality and amputation, logistic regression models for 30 day predictors, and proportional hazards models for long-term predictors. RESULTS: A total of 20,347 patients underwent OSR and ER (20.3% OSR, 79.7% ER). CLI was the indication in 80.8% of ER and 88.4% of OSR. The unadjusted major amputation rate at 30 days was higher after ER compared with OSR (8.8% vs. 6.4%, p < .001). Conversely, the unadjusted mortality rate at 30 days was lower after ER compared with OSR (8.0% vs. 10.5%, p < .001). Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for medical covariables and CLI versus claudication status demonstrated increased 30 day mortality risk with OSR compared with ER (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.43-1.79, p < .001), MI (OR 1.38, 1.23-1.54, p < .001), and the combined endpoint of mortality and major amputation (OR 1.57, 1.16-2.12, p = .004), but lower odds of 30 day major amputation alone (OR 0.67, 0.58-0.77, p < .001). Proportional hazards models demonstrated increased long-term mortality risk with OSR compared with ER (HR 1.05, 1.00-1.09, p = .037), without a difference in major amputation (HR 0.99, 0.93-1.05, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of an administrative database, ESRD patients suffer from high mortality and amputation rates following lower extremity revascularisation. Compared with ER, OSR is associated with higher mortality. OSR has better 30 day limb salvage, although long-term outcomes are similar.

High mortality rates after both open surgical and endovascular thoracic aortic interventions in patients with end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality have improved with the evolution of endovascular techniques (thoracic endovascular aortic repair [TEVAR]) for thoracic aortic disease, but results after aortic intervention in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of open and endovascular descending thoracic aortic repair in dialysis-dependent patients. METHODS: We identified 352 patients with ESRD on dialysis undergoing open repair (n = 136) or TEVAR (n = 216) of the thoracic aorta from 2005 to 2008 using the United States Renal Data System database. Acute presentation was defined as ruptured aneurysm, dissection, or traumatic injury; all other interventions were considered elective. End points were 30-day mortality, overall survival, rates of perioperative complications, and procedural trends over time. Between-group comparisons and survival analysis used standard statistical methods. Logistic regression and Cox regression were performed using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: TEVAR subjects were older than those undergoing open repair (68.2 ± 11.5 vs 60.8 ± 13.2 years; P < .001); no other demographics differed. There were 303 patients who had thoracic or thoracoabdominal aneurysms; 47 (13.4%) were ruptured on presentation. There were 44 patients (12.5%) who had aortic dissection and 5 (1.4%) with aortic trauma. Overall 30-day mortality was 21.3% (n = 75), and it was greater for open repair (n = 41 [30.1%]) than for TEVAR (n = 34 [15.7%]; P = .002). Elective 30-day mortality for open repair (n = 27 [29.3%]) was also greater than for TEVAR (n = 24 [14.3%]; P = .005). Those with acute presentation trended toward higher mortality for open repair (n = 14 [31.8%] vs n = 10 [15.7%]; P = .17). Respiratory failure was higher for open repair (n = 69 [50.7%] vs n = 56 [25.9%]; P < .001); postoperative stroke was higher with TEVAR (n = 21 [9.7%] vs n < 10 [<7%]; P = .02). Estimated 1-year survival was 50% and did not differ between groups (44% for open repair, 53% for TEVAR). In multivariate analysis, TEVAR decreased odds of 30-day mortality compared with open repair (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.71) but failed to demonstrate long-term survival advantage. CONCLUSIONS: In ESRD patients, TEVAR provides short-term mortality benefits compared with open repair, but long-term mortality remains high regardless of treatment modality. Elective intervention for thoracic aortic disease in this population remains high risk and should be approached with caution.

Effects of Gender Differences on Short-term Outcomes in Patients with Type B Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Gender-related differences in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) presentation and outcomes are not well understood. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of gender on short-term outcomes in patients with TBAD. METHODS: Patients with TBAD were identified from the National Inpatient Sample datasets from 2009 to 2012 according to previously published methods. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and major complications (renal, cardiac, pulmonary, paraplegia, and stroke related) between men and women. An inverse propensity-weighted regression was used to balance comorbid and clinical presentation differences. Subgroup analyses were performed on those undergoing endovascular (thoracic endovascular aortic repair [TEVAR]) and open repair, and for elderly patients over the age of 70. RESULTS: We identified 9855 patients with TBAD; women were fewer (43.6%, n = 4293) and presented at a later age (69.8 ± 15.5 vs. 62.8 ± 15.6, P < 0.001). Women had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser 4 [interquartile range, IQR 2-5] vs. 3 [IQR 2-5], P < 0.001) and were more often managed nonoperatively (87.4% vs. 81.8%, P < 0.001) compared with men. For those undergoing intervention, 58% (n = 903) had open repair and TEVAR rates were higher in women compared with men (45.6% vs. 40.0%, P < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality rates did not differ significantly by gender (male: 11.6% vs. female: 10.7%). In an adjusted propensity-weighted regression, gender did not significantly affect in-hospital mortality or stroke rates, but women were less likely to have acute renal failure during their hospitalization and more likely to experience cardiac events when undergoing open repair. Elderly women were also less likely to experience acute renal failure but had higher odds of cardiac events regardless of intervention compared with elderly men. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with men, women with TBAD presented at a later age, were more likely to undergo TEVAR, sustain a perioperative cardiac event with open surgery, and were less likely to experience acute renal complications overall. Elderly women were additionally more likely to sustain a cardiac event regardless of operative status. Future studies should attempt to identify anatomic and epidemiologic reasons for these differences.

Contemporary Applications of Ultrasound in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Management.

Ultrasound (US) is a well-established screening tool for detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and is currently recommended not only for those with a relevant family history but also for all men and high-risk women older than 65 years of age. The advent of minimally invasive endovascular techniques in the treatment of AAAs [endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)] has increased the need for repeat imaging, especially in the postoperative period. Nevertheless, preoperative planning, intraoperative execution, and postoperative surveillance all mandate accurate imaging. While computed tomographic angiography and angiography have dominated the field, repeatedly exposing patients to the deleterious effects of cumulative radiation and intravenous nephrotoxic contrast, US technology has significantly evolved over the past decade. In addition to standard color duplex US, 2D, 3D, or 4D contrast-enhanced US modalities are revolutionizing AAA management and postoperative surveillance. This technology can accurately measure AAA diameter and volume, and most importantly, it can detect endoleaks post-EVAR with high sensitivity and specificity. 4D contrast-enhanced US can even provide hemodynamic information about the branch vessels following fenestrated EVARs. The need for experienced US operators and accredited vascular labs is mandatory to guarantee the reliability of the results. This review article presents a comprehensive overview of the literature on the state-of-art US imaging in AAA management, including post-EVAR follow-up, techniques, and diagnostic accuracy.

Treatment of asymptomatic carotid disease with stenting: pro.

The assumptions upon which the decisions to treat asymptomatic patients are founded on landmark studies, such as the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerotic Study (ACAS), the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study (VA), and the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgical Trial (ACST). In total, these trials randomized more than 5,000 patients to surgical vs. medical therapy. These trials were based on 60% stenosis and basically "no-risk" entry criteria. The carotid stent trials and registries, however, were based on 80% stenosis and all high-risk entry criteria. With a wide range of operator experience, and patient enrollment based on surgical risk criteria, Carotid ACCULINK/ACCUNET Post Approval Trial to Uncover Rare Events II (CAPTURE) II, Emboshield and Xact Post Approval Carotid Stent Trial (EXACT), and the Carotid Artery Revascularization Using the Boston Scientific EPI FilterWire EX/EZ and the EndoTex NexStent (CABERNET) trials were able to meet the American Heart Association guidelines of 3% procedural events in the asymptomatic subset. Carotid stenting is presently in the first and second generation of devices, and as the technology improves, procedural event rates should also improve. An understanding of the plaque composition and presence or absence of plaque vulnerability will separate those patients best suited for stenting versus endarterectomy. Asymptomatic patients cannot be grouped, but rather require individualization. Those patients with anatomical risks, preocclusive stenosis, and an incomplete Circle of Willis with a poorly collateralized hemisphere, are best managed with stenting versus endarterectomy or best medical management. Those patients, however, with