Direct oral anticoagulants over warfarin at discharge associated with improved survival and patency in infra-geniculate bypasses with prosthetic conduits.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on the optimal anticoagulant regimen following lower extremity bypass. Historically, warfarin has been utilized for prosthetic or compromised vein bypasses. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly replacing warfarin in this context, but their efficacy in bypass preservation has not been well-studied. Recent studies have shown that DOACs may improve outcomes following bypasses; however, it is unclear if this is dependent upon type of bypass conduit. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether a difference exists between vein and prosthetic infra-geniculate bypasses outcomes based on the anticoagulant utilized on discharge, warfarin or DOAC. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infra-inguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who underwent an infra-geniculate bypass and were anticoagulation-naive at baseline but were discharged on either warfarin or DOACs. A survival analysis was performed for patients up to 1 year to determine whether the choice of discharge anticoagulation was associated with differences between those with vein vs prosthetic conduits in overall survival, primary patency, risk of amputation, or risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in baseline demographic factors between the groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2003-2020), 57,887 patients underwent infra-geniculate bypass. Of these, 3230 (5.5%) were anticoagulated on discharge. There was a similar distribution of anticoagulation between vein (n = 1659; 51.4%) and prosthetic conduits (n = 1571; 48.6%). Thirty-two percent were discharged on DOACs, and 68.0% were discharged on warfarin. For prosthetic conduits, being discharged on a DOAC was associated with improved outcomes on univariate and multivariable analyses revealing lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.93; P = .021), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = .003), risk of amputation (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .013), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = .048). Patients with a vein bypass had improved univariate outcomes for survival and primary patency; however, with multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in outcomes between DOAC and warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who underwent an infra-geniculate prosthetic bypass had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged on a DOAC compared with warfarin. Those with vein bypasses had similar outcomes regardless of the choice of anticoagulation.

Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants associated with improved survival and bypass graft patency compared with warfarin after infrageniculate bypass.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been reached regarding the optimal antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimen for patients after lower extremity bypass. Usually, patients who have undergone below-the-knee bypass will begin oral anticoagulation therapy. Historically, the bypass has been with prosthetic conduits and the anticoagulation therapy has been warfarin. However, the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing owing to their relative ease of dosing. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether a difference exists in the postoperative outcomes for patients who have undergone infrageniculate bypass stratified by the use of on DOACs vs warfarin. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass, been anticoagulation naive at baseline, and been discharged with anticoagulation therapy. A survival analysis was performed for patients for ≤2 years postoperatively to determine whether discharge with warfarin vs DOACs was associated with differences in overall mortality, loss of primary patency, risk of amputation, and risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in the baseline demographic factors between the two groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2007-2020) 57,887 patients had undergone infrageniculate bypass. Of these patients, 2786 had been anticoagulation naive and discharged with either warfarin (n = 1889) or DOACs (n = 897). Discharge with a DOAC was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.83; P = .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), risk of amputation (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86; P = .001), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass had had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged with a DOAC than with warfarin.

Outcomes of great vessel debranching to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: With the expanding application of endovascular technology, the need to deploy into zone 0 has been encountered on occasion. In the present study, we evaluated the outcomes of great vessel debranching (GVD) as a method of extending the proximal landing zone to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all patients who had undergone GVD followed by TEVAR between May 2013 and December 2020. The primary outcome was primary patency of all targeted vessels, with all-cause perioperative mortality as a secondary outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to account for censoring of mortality and primary patency. The extent of hybrid aortic repairs was characterized into type I (GVD plus TEVAR without ascending aorta or aortic arch reconstruction, type II (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta reconstruction), and type III (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta and aortic arch reconstruction with an elephant trunk (soft [surgical] or frozen [endovascular]]). RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (23 men [54.8%]; mean age, 62.2 ± 11.2 years) had undergone GVD, with 122 vessels revascularized (42 innominate, 42 left common carotid, and 38 left subclavian arteries). The indication for TEVAR was aneurysmal degeneration from aortic dissection in 32 patients (76.2%), a thoracic aneurysm in 9 patients (21.4%), and a perforated aortic ulcer in 1 patient (2.4%). The median duration between GVD and TEVAR was 82 days. The mean follow-up period was 25.7 ± 23.5 months. Type I repair was performed in 4, type II in 16, and type III in 22 patients. The perioperative mortality, stroke, and paraplegia rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 2.4%, respectively. Neither the extent of repair (P = .80) nor a history of aortic repair (P = .90) was associated with early mortality. Of the 38 patients who had survived the perioperative period, 6 had died >30 days postoperatively. At 36 months, the survival estimate was 68.6% (95% confidence interval, 45.7%-83.4%). The overall primary patency of the innominate artery, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery was 100%, 89.5%, and 94.1%, respectively. The primary-assisted patency rate was 100% for all the vessels. CONCLUSIONS: We found GVD to be a safe and effective method of extending the proximal landing zone into zone 0 with outstanding primary patency rates. Further studies are required to confirm the safety and longer term durability for these patients.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral arterial devices are associated with improved overall survival and limb salvage in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Paclitaxel (PTX)-coated peripheral arterial devices have been shown to decrease femoropopliteal artery restenosis and the need for reintervention compared with non-PTX-coated devices. The data regarding PTX efficacy and safety come from randomized controlled trials that almost exclusively enrolled patients with claudication. The outcomes of PTX treatment in patients who present with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes in patients with CLTI treated with and without PTX. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 983 patients with CLTI treated with femoropopliteal artery angioplasty, atherectomy, stent, or combination between 2011 and 2019. Procedures were performed with additional proximal or distal tibial interventions as needed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-regression analysis compared overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from major amputation (ff-MA), and freedom from target vessel revascularization (ff-TVR) between patients treated with and without PTX. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, and Rutherford class were similar between 574 PTX (58.5%) and 409 non-PTX (41.6%) patients except that non-PTX patients were more likely to be male (56.2% vs 49.7%), dialysis dependent (19.6% vs 14.3%), and have higher average creatinine (2.3 vs 1.8 mg/dL). Through 4-year follow-up, the PTX group demonstrated a significant increase in OS (56.2% vs 43.9%, P = .013), AFS (52.6% vs 36.1%, P < .0001), ff-MA (87.4% vs 78.7%, P = .0007), and ff-TVR (77.6% vs 70.6%, P = .012). Multivariable Cox-regression analysis demonstrated that PTX treatment was associated with improved OS, AFS, ff-MA, and ff-TVR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLTI, treatment with a PTX-coated device is associated with improved OS, AFS, ff-MA, and ff-TVR through 4-year follow-up. PTX-coated devices may be especially beneficial in patients who present with CLTI.

Paclitaxel-Coated Peripheral Arterial Devices are Associated with Reduced Mortality in Younger Patients.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-coated devices have been shown to decrease restenosis when used in the femoropopliteal artery. Recent reports have suggested a possible risk of increased late mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel. It has been suggested that younger patients and those with limited comorbidities may be at higher risk. Our objective was to analyze long-term mortality based on patient age comparing treatment with paclitaxel to uncoated devices. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 1,170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous intervention by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. Patients were grouped by age at the time of procedure: <60 years old (n = 244, 20.9%), 60-80 years old (n = 635, 54.3%), and >80 years old (n = 291, 24.9%). Within each group, patients were further divided by use of paclitaxel. The primary outcome measure was survival assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Differences between the groups were analyzed with analysis of variance. Multivariable analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of the 1,170 patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous intervention, 654 (55.9%) received a paclitaxel-coated device during treatment and 516 (44.1%) did not. Mean age of the overall patient cohort was 70.4 ± 12.6 years and 663 (56.7%) were male. When comparing the groups by age we found an increase in age but a decrease in the proportion of patients who smoke. The use of paclitaxel-coated devices was similar across the groups (<60 years old, 56.2%; 60-80 years old, 57.0%; >80 years old, 52.6%; P = 0.45). Demographics and comorbidities were similar between the patients treated with and without paclitaxel within each age group except more males in the <60-year-old group treated without paclitaxel and more patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia in the >80-year-old group treated with paclitaxel. In patients <60 and 60-80 years old paclitaxel use was associated with increased survival at 4 years: <60 (80.7% vs. 64.4%; P = 0.04); 60-80 (63.2% vs. 55.1%; P = 0.04). Survival was similar in the >80-year-old group (46.6% vs. 32.8%; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of paclitaxel-coated arterial devices is not associated with increased mortality. On the contrary, our data show that younger patients treated with paclitaxel show improved survival compared with those treated without paclitaxel. Paclitaxel-coated devices may be used with continued caution especially in patients at high risk for restenosis.

Anatomic criteria in the selection of treatment modality for atherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Three procedures are currently available to treat atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis: carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Although there is considerable debate evaluating each of these in a head-to-head comparison to determine superiority, little has been mentioned concerning the specific anatomic criteria that make one more appropriate. We conducted a study to define anatomic criteria in relation to inclusion and exclusion criteria and relative contraindications. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 448 carotid arteries from 224 consecutive patients who underwent a neck and head computed tomography arteriography (CTA) scan before carotid intervention for significant carotid artery stenosis. Occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) occurred in 15, yielding 433 arteries for analysis. Anatomic data were collected from CTA images and demographic and comorbidities from chart review. Eligibility for CEA, TF-CAS, and TCAR was defined on the basis of anatomy, not by comorbidity. RESULTS: CTA analysis revealed that 92 of 433 arteries (21%) were ineligible for CEA because of carotid lesions extending cephalad to the second cervical vertebra. Overall, 26 arteries (6.0%) were not eligible for any type of carotid artery stent because of small ICA diameter (n = 11), heavy circumferential calcium (n = 14), or combination (n = 1). An additional 126 arteries were ineligible for TF-CAS on the basis of a hostile aortic arch (n = 115) or severe distal ICA tortuosity (n = 11), yielding 281 arteries (64.9%) that were eligible. In addition to the 26 arteries ineligible for any carotid stent, TCAR was contraindicated in 39 because of a clavicle to bifurcation distance <5 cm (n = 17), common carotid artery diameter <6 mm (n = 3), or significant plaque at the TCAR sheath access site (n = 20), yielding 368 arteries (85.0%) that were eligible for TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients who present with carotid artery stenosis have anatomy that makes one or more carotid interventions contraindicated or less desirable. Anatomic factors should play a key role in selecting the most appropriate procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis. Determination of superiority for one procedure over another should be tempered until anatomic criteria have been assessed to select the best procedural options for each patient.

Frequency of perigraft hygroma after open aortic reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of perigraft hygroma (PGH) development after aortic reconstruction remains poorly defined and its clinical relevance is questionable. This study was designed to establish the incidence of and determine the risk factors associated with PGH formation and its outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent open aortic reconstruction for either aneurysmal or occlusive disease with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) or polyester graft from 2004 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 262). Only those who had follow-up imaging 3 or more months after repair were included. Patients with mixed graft types were excluded. PGH was defined as a perigraft fluid collection of 30 mm or greater in diameter with a radiodensity of 30 or fewer Hounsfield units on computed tomography at a minimum of 3 postoperative months. Analysis was conducted between patients with and without PGH. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients met the inclusion criteria: 88 were treated with ePTFE and 52 with polyester grafts. Twenty-three patients (16.4%) were found to have radiologic evidence of PGH. PGH developed more frequently in patients with ePTFE (21/88 [23.9%]) compared with those with polyester grafts (2/52 [3.8%]) (P = .002). Mean PGH size was 63.5 ± 36.4 mm (range, 33-153 mm) and the average time to PGH detection 27.7 months (range, 3-112 months). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Patients who developed PGH had larger aneurysms, more often received ePTFE grafts, had larger graft diameters, and had bifurcated grafts. The overall mortality was 32.1% at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. The 5-year mortality rates were similar between patients with and without PGH (26.1% vs 18.8%; P = .41). Of the 23 patients with PGH, 4 (all with ePTFE) presented with symptoms related to the PGH. The average size of symptomatic and asymptomatic PGH were 11.5 and 4.8 cm, respectively. Mortality rates overall were similar between those with and without symptoms (50.0% vs 36.8%; P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-quarter of aortic reconstructions with ePTFE are associated with PGH formation compared with 4% with polyester. Clinically significant PGH-related symptom development occurs in 20%. Patient education and close surveillance are warranted. Manufacturer's device modification is needed.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral artery devices are not associated with increased mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term safety concerns have been raised that the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents is linked to excess mortality. Our objective was to compare outcomes in patients treated with paclitaxel vs uncoated devices and to analyze long-term mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-institution review of 1170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous revascularization by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Groups were divided into patients who received paclitaxel (n = 652) and those who did not (n = 518). Categorical variables were assessed using χ2 analysis and continuous variables with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A multivariable analysis was performed using multivariable logistic regression models. Mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Demographics, risk factors, and Rutherford class were similar between the groups, except that the paclitaxel group was more likely to have diabetes (60.9% vs 55.0%; P = .04), was less likely to be on dialysis (10.7% vs 14.9%; P = .04), and had lower average creatinine concentration (1.6 ± 1.8 mg/dL vs 2.0 ± 2.3 mg/dL; P = .003). There were no differences in all-cause mortality through 2 years between paclitaxel and no-paclitaxel cohorts (25.5% vs 30.3%; log-rank, P = .098). At 3 years and 3.5 years, mortality was significantly lower in the paclitaxel group: year 3, 32.1% vs 39.4% (log-rank, P = .041); year 3.5, 35.2% vs 43.9% (log-rank, P = .027). Survival rates were not significantly different in examining subgroups by diabetes, chronic kidney disease, presence of chronic limb-threatening ischemia, or paclitaxel-coated balloon manufacturer. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that age, dialysis, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas paclitaxel use was associated with lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents does not increase mortality compared with uncoated devices out to 3.5 years. Paclitaxel-coated devices can be used with continued caution, especially in patients at increased risk of restenosis. Further long-term studies are needed to determine the risk of late mortality.

Anatomic Utility of Single Branched Thoracic Endograft During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Single branched thoracic endografts (SBTEs) have been designed for pathology requiring zone 2 seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Numerous criteria must be met to allow for their implantation. Our aim was to analyze anatomic suitability for a next generation SBTE. METHODS: We reviewed 150 TEVAR procedures between 2015 and 2019. Proximal seal was: zone 0 in 21 (16%), zone 1 in 4 (3%), zone 2 in 52 (40%), zone 3 in 45 (35%), and zone 4 or distal in 7 (5%). We analyzed the Zone 2 patient's angiograms and CT angiograms using centerline software to measure arterial diameters and length in relation to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), left subclavian artery (LSA) and proximal extent of aortic disease to determine if patients met anatomic criteria of a novel SBTE. RESULTS: Zone 2 average age was 64.4 ± 16.3 years; 34 patients were male (65%). Indications for repair were aneurysm (N = 9, 17%), acute dissection (N = 14, 27%), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (N = 7, 13%), intramural hematoma (N = 9, 17%), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 5, 10%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI, N = 8, 15%). LSA revascularization occurred in 27 patients (52%). Overall, 20 (38.5%) of the zone 2 patients met anatomic criteria. Patients with dissection met anatomic criteria less frequently than aneurysm (33% [10 of 30] vs 64% [9 of 14]). Patients treated for BTAI rarely met the anatomic criteria (1 of 8, 13%). The main anatomic constraints were an inadequate distance from the LCCA to the LSA takeoff and from the LCCA to the start of the aortic disease process. CONCLUSION: Less than half of patients who require seal in zone 2 met criteria for this SBTE. Patients with aneurysms met anatomic criteria more often than those with dissection. The device would have little applicability in treating patients with BTAI.

Treatment of Carotid Restenosis Using Transcarotid Revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection System (Silk Road Medical) is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment modality for stroke risk reduction in the setting of carotid artery stenosis. The goal of this investigation was to define the real-world outcomes associated with the application of this technique to patients presenting with restenosis after previous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively maintained institutional databases capturing all nontrial TCARs performed between August 2013 and July 2018 using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection System was completed at 3 unaffiliated hospital systems and unified for descriptive outcomes analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 237 combined TCARs were performed at our respective institutions. Of these procedures, 55 stents were implanted for the indication of restenosis after previous carotid revascularization (47 CEA, 8 TF-CAS). Within the 30-day perioperative period, we observed no ipsilateral strokes or deaths; one patient experienced perioperative myocardial infarction (MI; 1.8%). We noted a 4.8% incidence of postoperative hematoma, but none of these events were clinically significant as no reinterventions were performed in any of the 55 patients. Additionally, we did not observe any cases of stent thrombosis or pulmonary embolus. Mean length of stay was 2.2 ± 2.8 days. Our mean follow-up duration was 15.0 ± 9.2 months. Throughout the follow-up period, we did not observe any additional stroke or MI events. Additionally, there were no cases of in-stent restenosis, thrombosis, or reinterventions. CONCLUSION: Transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed in patients with restenotic carotid arteries with acceptable rates of ipsilateral stroke, MI, and death as demonstrated in this small multi-institutional series.