Hybrid repair of symptomatic aberrant right subclavian artery and Kommerell's diverticulum.

INTRODUCTION: An aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA) with or without an associated Kommerell's diverticulum (KOD) is a rare vascular anomaly. Patients with an ARSA may present with a variety of symptoms, including rupture. Options for repair include open, endovascular, and a hybrid approach, with no clear consensus on which is best because of the rarity of the anomaly. We present 2 cases that underwent hybrid repair and a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed from 2000-2012 searching for patients with ARSA with or without KOD who underwent endovascular repair. Twenty-four articles were identified, including a few case reports and small case series, for a total of 31 patients. A chart review was also performed on 2 patients at our institution who underwent a hybrid repair for symptomatic ARSA. RESULTS: We report the presenting history, management, and follow-up of 2 symptomatic patients with ARSA with associated KOD. Both patients underwent a hybrid approach for repair, with no reported complications. After postoperative imaging and clinical follow-up, both patients remained in good general condition without signs of vascular complications. Our systematic literature review identified 31 reported cases of patients with ARSA who underwent endovascular repair (10 patients without an associated KOD and 21 patients with a KOD). The patients ranged in age from 21-82 years of age (average: 56 years). Of these patients, 17 (55%) were women. The presenting symptoms varied, and some patients had multiple symptoms noted on presentation, including dysphagia, dyspnea, or asymptomatic patients. In those patients with an associated KOD, the average size of the diverticulum was 3.3 cm (range: 2.3-7 cm). A number of operative strategies were used in the reported cases, depending on the presence of absence of an associated KOD. The average reported duration of hospital stay was 5.4 days (range: 1-60 days). Seven patients had postoperative complications (22%). There were 3 mortalities reported (10%). Only 1 of these could be directly related to the surgical procedure. Reported decrease in aneurysm size was between 25-50%, although this was not reported for most patients. Four of 31 patients (13%) had an endoleak (1 type I endoleak, 2 type II endoleaks, and 1 type IV endoleak). The range of reported follow-up varied between 6 weeks and 92 months, with 9 patients having no follow-up reported. CONCLUSION: Hybrid approach to repair of an ARSA with associated KOD appears to be feasible, safe, and effective. Despite the poor quality and heterogeneity of the evidence available in the literature for this rare condition, we believe that this could be the preferred treatment option for an ARSA either with or without KOD.

Risk Factors for Hospital Readmission Following Noncardiac Surgery: International Cohort Study.

Objective: To determine timing and risk factors associated with readmission within 30 days of discharge following noncardiac surgery. Background: Hospital readmission after noncardiac surgery is costly. Data on the drivers of readmission have largely been derived from single-center studies focused on a single surgical procedure with uncertainty regarding generalizability. Methods: We undertook an international (28 centers, 14 countries) prospective cohort study of a representative sample of adults ≥45 years of age who underwent noncardiac surgery. Risk factors for readmission were assessed using Cox regression (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00512109). Results: Of 36,657 eligible participants, 2744 (7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-7.8) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Rates of readmission were highest in the first 7 days after discharge and declined over the follow-up period. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that 9 baseline characteristics (eg, cancer treatment in past 6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.30-1.59), 5 baseline laboratory and physical measures (eg, estimated glomerular filtration rate or on dialysis; HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75), 7 surgery types (eg, general surgery; HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.61-2.16), 5 index hospitalization events (eg, stroke; HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.24-3.94), and 3 other factors (eg, discharge to nursing home; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) were associated with readmission. Conclusions: Readmission following noncardiac surgery is common (1 in 13 patients). We identified perioperative risk factors associated with 30-day readmission that can help frontline clinicians identify which patients are at the highest risk of readmission and target them for preventive measures.

Mortality and reintervention following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to provide an up-to-date meta-analysis on the short- and long-term mortality rates of elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) via the open and endovascular approaches. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, conference proceeding from major vascular meetings were searched for randomized trials comparing open vs elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of AAAs. A random-effects model was used for analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of open vs EVAR were calculated for short- and long-term mortality and reintervention rates. RESULTS: The analysis encompassed four randomized controlled trials with a total of 2783 patients. The open repair group resulted in significantly increased 30-day postoperative all-cause mortality compared with EVAR repair group (3.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.60-4.94); however, there is no statistical difference in the long-term all-cause mortality between both groups (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). Interestingly, fewer patients underwent reintervention procedures in the open repair group compared with those who had EVAR repair (9.3% vs 18.9%; RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40-0.60), but this finding is doubtful due to the large heterogeneity. Lastly, no statistical difference in long-term mortality rates attributable to cardiovascular disease (CVD), aneurysm related, or stroke were found between the two types of repair. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the 30-day all-cause mortality rate is higher with open than with EVAR repair; however, there is no statistical difference in the long-term all-cause and cause-specific mortality between both groups. The reintervention rate attributable to procedural complication was higher in the EVAR group. Because of the equivalency of long-term outcomes and the short-term benefits of EVAR, an endovascular-first approach to AAAs can be supported by the meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis of nontumescent-based versus tumescent-based endovenous therapies for patients with great saphenous insufficiency and varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the nontumescent-based endovenous therapies with the standard tumescent-based endovenous therapies in regard to clinical effectiveness and procedural outcomes in patients with saphenofemoral incompetence and varicose veins. METHODS: The following databases were searched for studies that were randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing nontumescent-based endovenous procedures with those requiring tumescence: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1950-January 2017), MEDLINE (1946-January 2017), and Embase (1950-January 2017). There were no restrictions based on language or publication status. In the case of ongoing studies, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the online ClinicalTrials.gov registry were also searched. We also reviewed reference lists of articles relevant to our study to ensure a more complete review. Two authors independently screened and selected studies to be included. These two authors also independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were extracted and pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of nine studies were found in the literature search, of which five were included in analysis. Four outcomes were reviewed. A significant difference was found between the comparator groups for mean intraprocedural pain score (effect estimate, -0.66), favoring nontumescent-based therapies. There was no difference for Venous Clinical Severity Score (effect estimate, -0.21) for clinical assessment and the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score (effect estimate, 0.27) for the disease-specific quality of life between the groups. The outcome of failure of truncal ablation at 30 days had no significant difference between the groups (risk ratio, 1.27), although a subgroup analysis demonstrated a trend toward improved results with the novel nontumescent-based treatments (risk ratio, 0.21) compared with the old nontumescent-based treatments (risk ratio, 8.6). CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence from reasonable-quality clinical trials comparing tumescent-based with non-tumescent-based endovenous therapies shows no overall difference between the groups on a number of outcomes. Mean intraprocedural pain score appears to favor nontumescent-based interventions. Newer randomized trials comparing the treatment modalities are needed to further clarify the benefits of nontumescent-based therapies, particularly with regard to long-term outcomes.