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 2013-2023 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, 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 analysis was performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2,489 patients, 1,842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) received endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median 135 vs. 174min, p<.001), longer fluoroscopy time (median 23 vs. 16min, p<.001), lower estimated blood loss (median 100 vs. 123ml, 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; aOR 0.50[95%C.I., 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable spinal cord ischemia (2.9% vs. 3.5%, p=.60; 0.64[0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs. 3.3%, p=.94; 0.71[0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs. 27%, p<.001; 0.64[0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs. 8 days, p<.001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (aHR 0.85[0.64-1.13]). Sensitivity analysis 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 spinal cord ischemia, perioperative 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.

The Association between Sex and Outcomes following Thoracic Endovascular Repair for Acute Type B Aortic Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has found worse outcomes for females following endovascular repair of AAA and mixed findings following TEVAR for TAA. However, the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR for acute Type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) is not fully elucidated. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (<30 days) in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from 2014 to 2022. We excluded patients with an entry tear or stent seal within the ascending aorta or aortic arch and patients with an unknown proximal tear location. Included patients were stratified by biological sex, and we analyzed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed adjusted variables for interaction with female sex. RESULTS: We included 1,626 patients, 33% of whom were female. At presentation, females were significantly older (65 [IQR: 54,75] years vs 56 [IQR: 49,68] years; p= 0.01). Regarding indications for repair, females had higher rates of pain (85% vs 80%; p=0.02), and lower rates of malperfusion (23% vs 35%; p<0.001): specifically mesenteric, renal, and lower limb malperfusion. Females had a lower proportion of proximal repairs in zone 2 (39% vs 48%; p< 0.01). Following TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with comparable odds of perioperative mortality compared with males (8.1 vs 9.2%; Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 0.79 [95% CI: 0.51-1.20]). Regarding perioperative complications, female sex was associated with lower odds for cardiac complications (2.3% vs 4.7%; aOR: 0.52 [95%CI: 0.26-0.97]), but all other complications were comparable between sexes. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar risk for 5-year mortality (26% vs 23%; Adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR): 1.01 [95%CI: 0.77-1.32]). Upon testing variables for interaction with sex, female sex was associated with lower perioperative and 5-year mortality at older ages relative to males (aOR: 0.96 [0.93-0.99] | aHR: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) and higher odds of perioperative mortality when mesenteric malperfusion was present (OR: 2.71 [1.04-6.96]). CONCLUSION: Female patients were older, less likely to have complicated dissection, and had more distal proximal landing zones. Following TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with similar perioperative and 5-year mortality compared with male sex, but lower odds of in-hospital cardiac complications. Interaction analysis showed females were at additional risk for perioperative mortality when mesenteric ischemia was present. These data suggest that TEVAR for aTBAD overall has a similar safety profile in females as it does for males.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in eGFR<30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe CKD or on dialysis. METHODS: VQI patients undergoing TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/MI (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, CNI and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and pre-op symptoms. Chi-square and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with eGFR of <30 (2,506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3,639, dialysis 704), tfCAS (1,975, 393) or CEA (8,237, 1,409) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of stroke/death/MI (2.8% vs 3.6%, aOR 1.27 [1.00,1.61], p=.049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%, aOR 2.00 [1.31,3.05], p=.001)... Compared to TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8%vs5.8%), stroke (1.2%vs2.6%), death (0.9%vs2,4%)were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%, aOR 1.85[1.15, 2.97]p=.011) and CNI (0.3% vs 1.9%, aOR 7.23[3.28, 15.9] p<.001). Like the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death or stroke/death. While tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30: 75.1% vs 74.2%, aHR1.06, p=.3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30: 75.1% vs 70.4%, aHR1.44, p<.001) CONCLUSION: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, while patients with reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

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.

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.

Retrograde pedal access and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for salvage of an occluded vein bypass.

Managing occlusions in a lower extremity bypass is challenging, although several surgical methods and percutaneous devices are available for treatment. A 64-year-old man presented with subacute failure of his infrainguinal vein bypass. Because we were unable to access the bypass in an antegrade fashion, we accessed the bypass graft via retrograde pedal access. The occluded vein graft was salvaged with the Pounce percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy system (Surmodics) with the use of a 0.014-in. through and through buddy wire to maintain access in the bypass alongside the Pounce system to allow multiple passes of the nitinol baskets to retrieve thrombus.

Factors Associated with Urgent Amputation Status and Its Impact on Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day mortality is higher after urgent major lower extremity amputations compared to elective lower extremity amputations. This study aims to identify factors associated with urgent amputations and to examine their impact on perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality. METHODS: Patients undergoing major lower limb amputation from 2013 to 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. Urgent amputation was defined as occurring within 72 hr of admission. Associations with sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes including postoperative complication, inpatient death, and long-term survival were compared using univariable tests and multivariable logistic regression. Long-term survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of the 12,874 patients included, 4,850 (37.7%) had urgent and 8,024 (62.3%) had elective amputations. Non-White patients required urgent amputation more often than White patients (39.8% vs. 37.9%, P = 0.03). A higher proportion of Medicaid and self-pay patients presented urgently (Medicaid: 13.0% vs. 11.0%; self-pay: 3.4% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001). Patients requiring urgent amputation were less often taking aspirin (55.6% vs. 60.1%, P < 0.001) or statin (62.2% vs. 67.2%, P < 0.001), had fewer prior revascularization procedures (41.0% vs. 48.8%, P < 0.001), and were of higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 4-5 (50.9% vs. 40.1%, P < 0.001). Urgent amputations were more commonly for uncontrolled infection (48.1% vs. 29.4%, P < 0.001) or acute limb ischemia (14.3% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were higher after urgent amputations (34.7% vs. 16.6%, P < 0.001), including need for return to operating room (23.8% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001) and need for higher revision (15.2% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001). Inpatient mortality was higher after urgent amputation (8.9% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed non-White race, self-pay, homelessness, current smoking, ASA class 4-5, and amputations for uncontrolled infection or acute limb ischemia were associated with urgent status, whereas living in a nursing home or prior revascularization were protective. Furthermore, urgent amputation was associated with an increased odds of postoperative complication or death (odds ratio 1.86 [1.69-2.04], P < 0.001) as well as long-term mortality (odds ratio: 1.24 [1.13-1.35], P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis corroborated that elective status was associated with improvement of long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring urgent amputations are more often non-White, uninsured, and less frequently had prior revascularization procedures, revealing disparities in access to care. Urgency was associated with a higher postoperative complication rate, as well as increased long-term mortality. Efforts should be directed toward reducing these disparities to improve outcomes following amputation.

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.

Sex disparities in patients with acute aortic dissection: A scoping review.

Disparities in outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease and those undergoing cardiac or vascular operations are well-established. These disparities often span several dimensions and persist despite advancements in medical and surgical care; sex is among the most pervasive. Specifically, females sex has been implicated as a predictor of poor outcomes in both patients with acute type A aortic dissections (ATAADs) and type B aortic dissections (TBADs). For instance, one study, using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection database, found that females with acute aortic dissection-including ATAAD and TBAD that were either medically or surgically managed-had 40% higher odds of in-hospital mortality than men. Notably, both types of acute aortic dissections affect men more commonly than females and can be life-threatening without prompt, appropriate treatment. The underlying mechanisms for these disparities are unclear but are thought to be multifactorial. The association of sex with patterns of disease and outcomes in patients with ATAAD or TBAD remains unclear, with conflicting reports from different studies. Thus, we sought to review the literature regarding sex disparities in patients with ATAAD and TBAD.

Open aneurysmorrhaphy for repair of a massive iliac vein aneurysm and review of the recent literature.

An iliac vein aneurysm is a rare vascular anomaly, scarcely reported in the vascular literature. We present the case of a 72-year-old man with a history of a remote heart transplant complicated by severe tricuspid regurgitation and traumatic abdominal injury, who was incidentally found to have a 10-cm right common iliac vein aneurysm. Because of the size and risk of rupture, we elected to treat him with surgical iliac vein aneurysmorrhaphy. His iliac venous diameter and flow continued to be stable at subsequent follow-up.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

International Multi-Institutional Experience with Presentation and Management of Aortic Arch Laterality in Aberrant Subclavian Artery and Kommerell's Diverticulum.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch. METHODS: Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions. RESULTS: 288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of insurance has been independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, possibly due to worse control of comorbidities and delays in diagnosis and treatment. Medicaid expansion has improved insurance rates and access to care, potentially benefiting these patients. We sought to assess the association between Medicaid expansion and outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases data from 14 states between 2012 and 2018 was conducted. The sample was restricted to first-record abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in adults under age 65 in states that expanded Medicaid on January 1, 2014 (Medicaid expansion group) or had not expanded before December 31, 2018 (non-expansion group). The Medicaid expansion and non-expansion groups were compared between pre-expansion (2012-2013) and post-expansion (2014-2018) time periods to assess baseline demographic and operative differences. We used difference-in-differences multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient factors, open vs endovascular repair, and standard errors clustered by state. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Outcomes were stratified by insurance type. RESULTS: We examined 8995 patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, including 3789 (42.1%) in non-expansion states and 5206 (57.9%) in Medicaid expansion states. Rates of Medicaid insurance were unchanged in non-expansion states but increased in Medicaid expansion states post-expansion (non-expansion: 10.9% to 9.8%; P = .346; expansion: 9.7% to 19.7%; P < .001). One in 10 patients from both non-expansion and Medicaid expansion states presented with ruptured aneurysms, which did not change over time. Rates of open repair decreased in both non-expansion and Medicaid expansion states over time (non-expansion: 25.1% to 19.2%; P < .001; expansion: 25.2% to 18.4%; P < .001). On adjusted difference-in-differences analysis between expansion and non-expansion states pre-to post-expansion, Medicaid expansion was associated with a 1.02% absolute reduction in in-hospital mortality among all patients (95% confidence interval, -1.87% to -0.17%; P = .019). Additionally, among patients who were either on Medicaid or were uninsured (ie, the patients most likely to be impacted by Medicaid expansion), a larger 4.17% decrease in in-hospital mortality was observed (95% confidence interval, -6.47% to -1.87%; P < .001). In contrast, no significant difference-in-difference in mortality was observed for privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among all patients and particularly among patients who were either on Medicaid or were uninsured. Our results provide support for improved access to care for patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair through Medicaid expansion.

Contemporary outcomes after treatment of aberrant subclavian artery and Kommerell's diverticulum.

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) are rare vascular anomalies that may be associated with lifestyle-limiting and life-threatening complications. The aim of this study is to report contemporary outcomes after invasive treatment of ASA/KD using a large international dataset. METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment for ASA/KD (2000-2020) were identified through the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration to investigate uncommon vascular disorders. We report the early and mid-term clinical outcomes including stroke and mortality, technical success, and other operative outcomes including reintervention rates, patency, and endoleak. RESULTS: Overall, 285 patients were identified during the study period. The mean patient age was 57 years; 47% were female and 68% presented with symptoms. A right-sided arch was present in 23%. The mean KD diameter was 47.4 mm (range, 13.0-108.0 mm). The most common indication for treatment was symptoms (59%), followed by aneurysm size (38%). The most common symptom reported was dysphagia (44%). A ruptured KD was treated in 4.2% of cases, with a mean diameter of 43.9 mm (range, 18.0-100.0 mm). An open procedure was performed in 101 cases (36%); the most common approach was ASA ligation with subclavian transposition. An endovascular or hybrid approach was performed in 184 patients (64%); the most common approach was thoracic endograft and carotid-subclavian bypass. A staged operative strategy was employed more often than single setting repair (55% vs 45%). Compared with endovascular or hybrid approach, those in the open procedure group were more likely to be younger (49 years vs 61 years; P < .0001), female (64% vs 36%; P < .0001), and symptomatic (85% vs 59%; P < .0001). Complete or partial symptomatic relief at 1 year after intervention was 82.6%. There was no association between modality of treatment and symptom relief (open 87.2% vs endovascular or hybrid approach 78.9%; P = .13). After the intervention, 11 subclavian occlusions (4.5%) occurred; 3 were successfully thrombectomized resulting in a primary and secondary patency of 95% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 39 months. Among the 33 reinterventions (12%), the majority were performed for endoleak (36%), and more reinterventions occurred in the endovascular or hybrid approach than open procedure group (15% vs 6%; P = .02). The overall survival rate was 87.3% at a median follow-up of 41 months. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 4.2% and 4.9%, respectively. Urgent or emergent presentation was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 19.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-116.6), overall mortality (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-11.2) and intraoperative complications (OR, 8.3; 95% CI, 2.8-25.1). Females had a higher risk of reintervention (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-6.5). At an aneurysm size of 44.4 mm, receiver operator characteristic curve analysis suggested that 60% of patients would have symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of ASA/KD can be performed safely with low rates of mortality, stroke and reintervention and high rates of symptomatic relief, regardless of the repair strategy. Symptomatic and urgent operations were associated with worse outcomes in general, and female gender was associated with a higher likelihood of reintervention. Given the worse overall outcomes when symptomatic and the inherent risk of rupture, consideration of repair at 40 mm is reasonable in most patients. ASA/KD can be repaired in asymptomatic patients with excellent outcomes and young healthy patients may be considered better candidates for open approaches versus endovascular or hybrid modalities, given the lower likelihood of reintervention and lower early mortality rate.

Racial Differences in Isolated Aortic, Concomitant Aortoiliac, and Isolated Iliac Aneurysms: This is a Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe the racial and ethnic differences in presentation, baseline and operative characteristics, and outcomes after aortoiliac aneurysm repair. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic differences in prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms and showed more complex iliac anatomy in Asian patients. METHODS: We identified all White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients undergoing aortoiliac aneurysm repair in the VQI from 2003 to 2019. We compared baseline comorbidities, operative characteristics, and perioperative outcomes by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: In our 60,435 patient cohort, Black patients, followed by Asian patients, were most likely to undergo repair for aortoiliac (W:23%, B:38%, A:31%, H:22%, P < 0.001) and isolated iliac aneurysms (W:1.0%, B:3.1%, A:1.5%, H:1.6%, P < 0.001), and White and Hispanic patients were most likely to undergo isolated aortic aneurysm repair (W:76%, B:59%, A:68%, H:76%, P < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to undergo symptomatic repair and underwent rupture repair at a smaller aortic diameter. The iliac aneurysm diameter was largest in Black and Asian patients. Asian patients were most likely to have aortic neck angulation above 60 degree, graft oversizing above 20%, and completion endoleaks. Also, Asian patients were more likely to have a hypogastric artery aneurysm and to undergo hypogastric coiling. CONCLUSION: Asian and Black patients were more likely to undergo repair for aortoiliac and isolated iliac aneurysms compared to White and Hispanic patients who were more likely to undergo repair for isolated aortic aneurysms. Moreover, there were significant racial differences in the demographics and anatomic characteristics that could be used to inform operative approach and device development.

In-hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy for stroke stratified by modified Rankin scale score and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Although the benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating symptomatic carotid stenosis are well known, the optimal timing of intervention after acute stroke and whether the optimal timing will vary with preoperative stroke severity has remained unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effect of stroke severity and timing of the intervention on the postoperative outcomes for patients who had undergone CEA for stroke. METHODS: We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone CEA from 2012 to 2020 for prior stroke. The patients were stratified using the preoperative modified Rankin scale score (mRS score, 0-5) and time to CEA after stroke onset (≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, 91-180 days). After univariate comparisons, the patients were stratified into the following mRS cohorts for further analysis: 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death. RESULTS: We identified 15,601 patients, of whom 30% had had an mRS score of 0, 34% an mRS score of 1, 17% an mRS score of 2, 11% an mRS score of 3, 8% an mRS score of 4, and 1% an mRS score of 5. Overall, 9.3% of the patients had undergone CEA within ≤2 days, 46% within 3 to 14 days, 36% in 15 to 90 days, and 8.4% within 90 to 180 days. A decreasing mRS score and an increasing time to CEA were associated with lower rates of perioperative stroke/death (Ptrend < .01). After risk adjustment, with CEA at 3 to 14 days as the comparator group, the mRS score 0 to 1 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (3.6% vs 2.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.7). The mRS score 2 group had had a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.3) but a lower incidence after CEA at 15 to 90 days (2.1% vs 3.9%; OR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96). The mRS score 3 to 4 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (8.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9) but a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA at 15 to 90 days (3.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3). For the mRS score 5 group, the stroke/death rates were ≥6.5% across all the time to CEA groups. However, the low sample size limited meaningful comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with minimal disability after stroke (mRS score, 0-1) seemed to benefit from CEA within 3 to 14 days. However, those with severe disability (mRS score 5) have a very high risk from CEA at any time point given the poor outcomes. In contrast to the current guidelines, patients with mild disability (mRS score 2) could benefit from delaying CEA to 15 to 90 days, and those with moderate disability (mRS score 3-4) might benefit from CEA within 3 to 90 days given the acceptable in-hospital outcomes. These data should be considered within the context of the clinical situation in the weeks after index event to determine the net benefit of delayed CEA.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

The traveling pelvic bullet: a case of retrograde ballistic migration through the venous system.

Migration of a ballistic missile through the vasculature is rare but important to recognize. It can lead to diagnostic confusion and seemingly unexplainable bullet trajectories. We have described the case of a young man with a gunshot wound to the axillary vein and initial embolus to the inferior vena cava. The bullet subsequently migrated to the right common iliac vein, allowing for straightforward retrieval.

Association between anaesthesia type and arteriovenous fistula maturation.

Background: Whereas general anaesthesia is commonly used for haemodialysis fistula creation, regional or local anaesthesia has been posited to lead to better fistula maturation outcomes. We sought to measure the association between anaesthesia type and arteriovenous fistula maturation. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Hemodialysis Fistula Maturation study, a multicentre prospective cohort study of advanced chronic kidney disease patients who underwent single-stage upper extremity fistula creation between 2010 and 2013. We evaluated the relationship between anaesthesia type and unassisted (without maturation-facilitating interventions) or overall (unassisted or assisted) fistula maturation using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 602 participants, 336 (55.8%) received regional/local anaesthesia and 266 (44.2%) received general anaesthesia. Unassisted maturation occurred in 164/309 patients (53.1%) after regional/local vs 91/226 patients (40.3%) after general anaesthesia (P=0.003). After adjustment for patient factors and fistula type, regional/local anaesthesia was associated with greater odds of unassisted maturation than general anaesthesia (odds ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.24-2.39; P=0.001). However, after further adjustment for clinical centre fixed effects, odds of unassisted maturation did not differ by anaesthesia type (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.36; P=0.830). Similar findings were observed for overall maturation and composite endpoints accounting for potential survivorship bias. Conclusions: Regional/local anaesthesia was associated with increased odds of fistula maturation when adjusting for patient factors and fistula type. However, this association did not persist after adjusting for centre fixed effects. Future research is needed to better understand the relationship between anaesthesia type and centre factors to optimise outcomes after fistula surgery.