The impact of aorto-uni-iliac graft configuration on outcomes of endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular aneurysm repair has improved outcomes for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) compared with open repair. We examined the impact of aorto-uni-iliac (AUI) vs standard bifurcated endograft configuration on outcomes in rAAA. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair for rAAA from January 2011 to April 2020 were included. Patient characteristics were analyzed by graft configuration: AUI or standard bifurcated. Primary and secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative major adverse events (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, mesenteric ischemia, lower extremity embolization, dialysis requirement, reoperation, pneumonia, or reintubation), and 1-year mortality. A subset propensity-score matched cohort was also analyzed. RESULTS: We included 2717 patients: 151 had AUI and 2566 had standard bifurcated repair. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, major medical comorbidities, anatomic aortic neck characteristics, or rates of conversion to open repair. Patients who underwent AUI were more commonly female (30% vs 22%, P = .011) and had a history of congestive heart failure (19% vs 12%, P = .013). Perioperatively, patients who underwent AUI had a significantly higher incidence of cardiac arrest (15% vs 7%, P < .001), greater intraoperative blood loss (1.3 L vs 0.6 L, P < .001), longer operative duration (218 minutes vs 138 minutes, P < .0001), higher incidence of major adverse events (46.3% vs 33.3%, P = .001), and prolonged intensive care unit (7 vs 4.7 days, P = .0006) and overall hospital length of stay (11.4 vs 8.1 days, P = .0003). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses demonstrated significant differences in 30-day (31.1% vs 20.2%, log-rank P = .001) and 1-year mortality (41.7% vs 27.7%, log-rank P = .001). The propensity-score matched cohort demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The AUI configuration for rAAA appears to be implemented in a sicker cohort of patients and is associated with worse perioperative and 1-year outcomes compared with a bifurcated graft configuration, which was also seen on propensity-matched analysis. Standard bifurcated graft configuration may be the preferred approach in the management of rAAA unless AUI configuration is mandated by patient anatomy or other extenuating circumstances.

Renal transplant recipients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair have increased risk of perioperative acute kidney injury but no difference in late mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Renal transplant is associated with substantial survival advantage in patients with end-stage renal disease. However, little is known about the outcomes of renal transplant recipients (RTRs) after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aimed to study the effect of renal transplant on perioperative outcomes and long-term survival after elective infrarenal EVAR. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing elective EVAR from 2003 to 2021. Functioning RTRs were compared with non-renal transplant recipients without a diagnosis of end-stage renal disease (non-RTRs). The outcomes included 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), new renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT), endoleak, aortic-related reintervention, major adverse cardiac events, and 5-year survival. A logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between RTRs and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Of 60,522 patients undergoing elective EVAR, 180 (0.3%) were RTRs. RTRs were younger (median, 71 years vs 74.5 years; P < .001), with higher incidence of hypertension (92% vs 84%; P = .004) and diabetes (29% vs 21%; P = .005). RTRs had higher median preoperative serum creatinine (1.3 mg/dL vs 1.0 mg/dL; P < .001) and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (51.6 mL/min vs 69.4 mL/min; P < .001). There was no difference in the abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter and incidence of concurrent iliac aneurysms. Procedurally, RTRs were more likely to undergo general anesthesia with lower amount of contrast used (median, 68.6 mL vs 94.8 ml; P < .001) and higher crystalloid infusion (median, 1700 mL vs 1500 mL; P = .039), but no difference was observed in the incidence of open conversion, endoleak, operative time, and blood loss. Postoperatively, RTRs experienced a higher rate of AKI (9.4% vs 2.7%; P < .001), but the need for new RRT was similar (1.1% vs 0.4%; P = .15). There was no difference in the rates of postoperative mortality, aortic-related reintervention, and major adverse cardiac events. After adjustment for potential confounders, RTRs remained associated with increased odds of postoperative AKI (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-5.76; P < .001) but had no association with other postoperative complications. A subgroup analysis identified that diabetes (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-15.14; P = .02) is associated with increased odds of postoperative AKI among RTRs. At 5 years, the overall survival rates were similar (83.4% vs 80%; log-rank P = .235). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective infrarenal EVAR, RTRs were independently associated with increased odds of postoperative AKI, without increased postoperative renal failure requiring RRT, mortality, endoleak, aortic-related reintervention, or major adverse cardiac events. Furthermore, 5-year survival was similar. As such, while EVAR may confer comparable benefits and technical success perioperatively, RTRs should have aggressive and maximally optimized renal protection to mitigate the risk of postoperative AKI.

Comparative analysis of patients undergoing lower extremity bypass using in-situ and reversed great saphenous vein graft techniques.

OBJECTIVE: Autologous great saphenous vein (GSV) is considered the conduit of choice for lower extremity bypass (LEB). However, the optimal configuration remains the source of debate. We compared outcomes of patients undergoing LEB using in-situ and reversed techniques. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing LEB with a single-segment GSV in in-situ (ISGSV) and reversed (RGSV) configurations for symptomatic occlusive disease from 2003 to 2021. Patient demographics, procedural detail, and in-hospital and follow-up outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measures included primary patency at discharge or 30 days and one year. Secondary outcomes were secondary patency, and reinterventions at discharge or 30 days and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were created to determine the association between bypass techniques and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 8234 patients undergoing LEBs, in-situ and reversed techniques were used in 3546 and 4688 patients, respectively. The indication for LEBs was similar between the two cohorts. ISGSV was performed more frequently from the common femoral artery and to more distal targets. RGSV bypass was associated with higher intraoperative blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperatively, ISGSV cohort had higher rates of reinterventions (13.2 vs 11.1%; p = 0.004), surgical site infection (4.2 vs 3%; p = 0.003), and lower primary patency (93.5 vs 95%; p = 0.004) but a comparable rate of secondary patency (99 vs 99.1%; p = 0.675). At 1 year, in-situ bypasses had a lower rate of reinterventions (19.4% vs 21.6%; p=0.02), with similar rates of primary (82.6 vs 81.8%; p = 0.237) and secondary patency (88.7 vs 88.9%; p = 0.625). After adjusting for significant baseline differences and potential confounders, in-situ bypass was independently associated with decreased risks of primary patency loss (HR 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; p = 0.016) and reinterventions (HR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.8-0.97; p = 0.014) but a similar risk of secondary patency loss (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.16; p = 0.985) at follow-up, compared to reversed bypass. A subgroup analysis of bypasses to crural targets showed that in-situ and reversed bypasses had similar rates of primary patency loss and reinterventions at 1 year. Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, in-situ bypass was associated with a decreased risk of reinterventions but similar rates of primary and secondary patency and major amputations at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing LEBs using the GSV, in-situ configuration was associated with more perioperative reinterventions and lower primary patency rate. However, this was offset by decreased risks of loss of primary patency and reinterventions at 1 year. A thorough intraoperative graft assessment with adjunctive imaging may be performed to detect abnormalities in patients undergoing in-situ bypasses to prevent early failures. Furthermore, closer surveillance of reversed bypass grafts is warranted given the higher rates of reinterventions.

Severity of stenosis in symptomatic patients undergoing carotid interventions might influence perioperative neurologic events.

OBJECTIVE: The carotid artery plaque burden, indirectly measured by the degree of stenosis, quantifies a patient's future embolic risk. In natural history studies, patients with moderate degrees of stenosis have had a lower stroke risk than those with severe stenosis. However, patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who have experienced transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke were found to have both moderate and severe degrees of stenosis. We examined the association of carotid artery stenosis severity with the outcomes for symptomatic patients who had undergone carotid intervention, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone TFCAS, CEA, or TCAR between 2003 and 2020. The patients were stratified into two groups according to stenosis severity-nonsevere (0%-69%) and severe (≥70%). The primary end point was periprocedural neurologic events (stroke and TIA). The secondary end points were periprocedural death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite outcomes of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI in accordance with the reporting standards for carotid intervention. RESULTS: Of the 29,614 included symptomatic patients, 5296 (17.9%) had undergone TCAR, 7844 (26.5%) TFCAS, and 16,474 (55.6%) CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. In the CEA cohort, the neurologic event rate was significantly lower for the patients with severe stenosis than for those with nonsevere stenosis (2.6% vs 3.2%; P = .024). In the TCAR cohort, the periprocedural neurologic even rate was lower for those with severe stenosis than for those with nonsevere stenosis (3% vs 4.3%; P = .033). No similar difference was noted for the TFCAS cohort, with a periprocedural neurologic event rate of 3.8% in the severe group vs 3.5% in the nonsevere group (P = .518). On multivariable analysis, severe stenosis was associated with significantly decreased odds of postprocedural neurologic events after CEA (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.92; P = .007) and TCAR (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.99; P = .039) but not after TFCAS. CONCLUSIONS: Severe carotid stenosis, in contrast to more moderate stenosis degrees, was associated with decreased rates of periprocedural stroke and TIA in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR and CEA but not TFCAS. The finding of increased rates of periprocedural neurologic events in symptomatic patients with lesser degrees of stenosis undergoing TCAR and CEA warrants further evaluation with a particular focus on plaque morphology and brain physiology and their inherent risks with carotid revascularization procedures.

Beta-blocker use after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B aortic dissection is associated with improved early aortic remodeling.

OBJECTIVE: Beta-blockers (BBs) are first-line anti-impulse therapy for patients presenting with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD). However, little is understood about their effects after aortic repair. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of postoperative BB use on the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in TBAD. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD from 2012 to 2020. Aortic-related reintervention, all-cause mortality, and the effects of TEVAR on false lumen thrombosis of the treated aortic segment were assessed and compared between patients treated with and without BBs postoperatively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of BB therapy on the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1114 patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD with a mean follow-up of 18 ± 12 months were identified. The mean age was 61.1 ± 11.9 years, and 791 (71%) were men. Of the 1114 patients, 935 (84%) continued BB therapy at discharge and follow-up. The patients taking BBs were more likely to have had an entry tear originating in zones 1 to 2 (22% vs 13%; P = .022). The prevalence of acute, elective, and symptomatic aortic dissection, prevalence of concurrent aneurysms, number of endografts used, distribution of proximal and distal zones of dissection, and operative times were comparable between the two cohorts. At 18 months, significantly more complete false lumen thrombosis (58% vs 47%; log-rank P = .018) was observed for patients taking BBs, and the rates of aortic-related reinterventions (13% vs 9%; log-rank P = .396) and mortality (0.2% vs 0.7%; log-rank P = .401) were similar for patients taking and not taking BBs, respectively. Even after adjusting for clinical and anatomic factors, postoperative BB use was associated with increased complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.21; P = .012) but did not affect mortality or aortic-related reintervention. A secondary analysis of BB use for those with acute vs chronic TBAD showed a higher rate of complete false lumen thrombosis for patients with chronic TBAD and taking BBs (59% vs 38%; log-rank P = .038). In contrast, no difference was found in the rate of complete false lumen thrombosis for those with acute TBAD between the two cohorts (58% vs 51%; log-rank P = .158). When analyzed separately, postoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use did not affect the rates of complete false lumen thrombosis, mortality, and aortic-related reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: BB use was associated with promotion of complete false lumen thrombosis for patients who had undergone TEVAR for TBAD. In addition to its role in the acute setting, anti-impulse control with BBs appears to confer favorable aortic remodeling and might improve patient outcomes after TEVAR, especially for those with chronic TBAD.

Prior infrarenal aortic surgery is not associated with increased risk of spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and complex endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with prior infrarenal aortic intervention represent an increasing demographic of patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and/or complex EVAR. Studies have suggested that prior abdominal aortic surgery is a risk factor for spinal cord ischemia (SCI). However, these results were largely based on single-center experiences with limited multi-institutional and national data that had assessed the clinical outcomes for these patients. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of prior infrarenal aortic surgery on the occurrence of SCI. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients aged ≥18 years who had undergone TEVAR and/or complex EVAR from January 2012 to June 2020. Patients with previous thoracic or suprarenal aortic repair were excluded. The baseline and procedural characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared between TEVAR and/or complex EVAR with and without previous infrarenal aortic repair. The primary outcome was postoperative SCI. The secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital length of stay, bowel ischemia, renal ischemia, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent predictors of postoperative SCI. Additional analysis was performed of the patients who had undergone isolated TEVAR. RESULTS: A total of 9506 patients met the inclusion criteria: 8691 (91.4%) had not undergone prior infrarenal aortic repair and 815 (8.6%) had undergone previous infrarenal aortic repair. Patients with previous infrarenal repair were older with an increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease (P = .001) and cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and positive smoking history (P < .001). These patients also presented with a larger maximal aortic diameter (6.06 ± 1.47 cm vs 5.15 ± 1.76 cm; P < .001) and required more stent-grafts (P < .001) with increased intraoperative blood transfusion requirements (P < .001), and longer procedure times (P < .001). Univariate analysis demonstrated no differences in postoperative SCI, postoperative hospital length of stay, bowel ischemia, or renal ischemia between the two groups. The 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with prior infrarenal repair (P = .001). On multivariate regression, prior infrarenal aortic repair was not a predictor of postoperative SCI. In contrast, aortic dissection (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.16; P < .001), number of stent-grafts deployed (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.62; P < .001), and units of packed red blood cells transfused intraoperatively (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73; P = .032) were independent predictors of postoperative SCI. CONCLUSIONS: Although the patients in the TEVAR and/or complex EVAR group with prior infrarenal aortic repair constituted a sicker cohort with higher 30-day mortality, the rate of SCI was comparable to that of the patients without prior repair. Previous infrarenal repair was not associated with the risk of SCI.

Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization is associated with improved sac regression in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleaks (T2Es), often identified after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), have been associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. The number and size of the patent aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels (ie, the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries) have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2Es. Given the technical challenges associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic embolization of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels has been advocated to prevent T2Es; however, the evidence available at present is limited. We sought to examine the effects of concomitant prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization in patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years included in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included in the present study. Patients with a history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. The patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR alone vs EVAR with prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization (emboEVAR). The outcomes of interest were the in-hospital postoperative complication rates, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (≥5 mm) and T2Es, and reintervention rates during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 15,060 patients were included. Of these patients, 272 had undergone emboEVAR and 14,788 had undergone EVAR alone. No significant differences were found between the two groups in age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics, including the mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs 5.6 cm; P = .48). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs 124 minutes; P < .0001), prolonged fluoroscopy times (32 vs 23 minutes; P < .0001), increased contrast use (105 vs 91 mL; P < .0001), without a significant reduction in T2Es at case completion (17.7% vs 16.3%; P = .54). The incidence of postoperative complications (3.7% vs 4.6%; P = .56), index hospitalization reintervention rates (0.7% vs 1.3%; P = .59), length of stay (1.8 vs 2 days; P = .75), and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0%; P = 1.00) were similar between the two groups. At mid-term follow-up (14.6 ± 6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significantly greater mean reduction in the maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs 0.54 cm; P = .006), with a greater proportion experiencing sac regression of ≥5 mm (53.5% vs 48.7%). The reintervention rates were similar between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.74; P = .024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR was associated with significant sac regression compared with EVAR alone at mid-term follow-up. Although no decrease was found in the incidence of T2Es, this technique shows promise, and future efforts should focus on identifying a subset of aneurysm and outflow branch characteristics that will benefit from concomitant selective vs complete prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization.

Non-reversed and Reversed Great Saphenous Vein Graft Configurations Offer Comparable Early Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Infrainguinal Bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Data on the efficacy of non-reversed and reversed great saphenous vein bypass (NRGSV and RGSV) techniques are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing open infrainguinal revascularisation using NRGSV and RGSV from a multi-institutional database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing infrainguinal bypasses using NRGSV and RGSV for symptomatic occlusive disease from January 2003 to February 2021. The primary outcome measures included primary and secondary patency at discharge and one year. Secondary outcomes were re-interventions at discharge and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the impact of graft configuration on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 7 123 patients, 4 662 and 2 461 patients underwent RGSV and NRGSV, respectively. At one year, the rates of primary patency (78% vs. 78%; p = .83), secondary patency (90% vs. 89%; p = .26), and re-intervention (16% vs. 16%; p = .95) were similar between the RGSV and NRGSV cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on outflow bypass target and indication for revascularisation did not show differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. Multivariable analysis confirmed that RGSV (NRGSV as the reference) configuration was not independently associated with increased risk of primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 - 1.13; p = .80), secondary patency loss (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81 - 1.10; p = .44), and re-intervention (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 - 1.16; p = .67) at follow up. CONCLUSION: The study shows that RGSV and NRGSV grafting techniques have comparable peri-operative and one year primary and secondary patency and re-intervention rates. This effect persisted when stratified by outflow targets and indication for revascularisation. Therefore, optimal selection of vein grafting technique should be guided by the patient's anatomy, vein conduit availability, and surgeon's experience.

Safety and Efficacy of Drug Eluting Stents for Treatment of Transplant Renal Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS) after renal transplantation is a common cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Endovascular intervention in the form of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting has rapidly become the dominant treatment modality for the TRAS. There is a paucity of clinical data on the use of drug-eluting stent (DES) for TRAS. We investigated the outcomes of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing DES placement. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing PTA with DES placement from June 2014 to April 2021 was conducted. Patients treated for TRAS exhibited uncontrolled hypertension and/or unexplained allograft dysfunction. Patient demographics, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes were collected. Primary endpoints were the in-stent primary patency and graft survival. Secondary endpoints were freedom from reintervention, primary-assisted patency, and access-related complications. RESULTS: Thirteen TRAS in 12 patients with graft function alteration were treated with DES. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR), 48-63 years), and 9 (70%) patients were male. The median follow-up was 9 months (IQR, 4-52 months). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (100%), coronary artery disease (83%), and diabetes. The median time from deceased donor transplant to intervention was 5.8 months (IQR, 3.5-6.7 months). TRAS was most commonly found at the juxta-ostial segment (77%). The procedure was performed with carbon dioxide angiography with minimal amount of iodinated contrast (median, 3 mL) under local anesthesia in 9 (69%), and general anesthesia in 4 (31%) patients. The median stent diameter was 4.5 mm (IQR, 4-5 mm), and the median stent length was 15 mm (IQR, 15-18 mm). No intraoperative complications occurred. The rates of stenosis-free primary patency of the DES and graft survival were 76% and 100%, respectively. All 3 reinterventions for restenosis resulted from the kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the DES, which were treated by extending the stent more proximally 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery. There were no access-related complications. The median time to reintervention was 0.9 months (range, 0.23-2 months). Freedom from reintervention and primary-assisted patency were 76% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that DES is a safe and effective treatment modality in patients with TRAS at short to mid-term follow-up. As all reinterventions after DES were performed due to kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the stent, bridging of the DES 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery is recommended.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcers and intramural hematomas is associated with poor outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs) of the aorta has not been well described. Although repair is warranted for rupture, unremitting chest pain, or growth, no threshold has been established for treating those found incidentally. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers an attractive approach for treating these pathologic entities. However, the periprocedural and postoperative outcomes have not been well defined. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone TEVAR for PAUs and/or IMHs from January 2011 to February 2020 were included. We identified 1042 patients, of whom 809 had follow-up data available. The patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed to identify the risk factors for major adverse events (MAEs) and postoperative and late mortality. RESULTS: The cohort was 54.8% female, and 69.9% were former smokers, with a mean age of 71.1 years. Comorbidities were prevalent, with 57.8% classified as having American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4. Of the 1042 patients, 89.8% had hypertension, 28.3% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17.9% coronary artery disease, and 12.2% congestive heart failure. Patients were predominately symptomatic (74%), and 44.5% had undergone nonelective repair. The MAE incidence was 17%. The independent predictors of MAEs were a history of coronary artery disease, nonwhite race, emergent procedural indication, ruptured presentation, and deployment of two or more endografts. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Of the index hospitalization mortalities, 73% were treatment related. For the 809 patients with follow-up (mean, 25.1 ± 19 months), the all-cause mortality was 10.6%. The predictors of late mortality during follow-up included age >70 years, ruptured presentation, and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and end-stage renal disease. A subset analysis comparing symptomatic (74%) vs asymptomatic (26%) patients demonstrated that the former were frequently women (58.2% vs 45.3%; P < .001), with a greater incidence of MAEs (20.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001), including higher in-hospital reintervention rates (5.9% vs 1.5%; P = .002) and mortality (5.6% vs 0.7%; log-rank P = .015), and a prolonged length of stay (6.9 vs 3.7 days; P < .0001), despite similar procedural risks. During follow-up, late mortality was greater in the symptomatic cohort (12.2% vs 6.5%; log-rank P = .025), with all treatment-related mortalities limited to the symptomatic group. CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly greater morbidity and mortality in symptomatic patients undergoing repair compared with asymptomatic patients, despite similar baseline characteristics. Asymptomatic patients treated with TEVAR had no treatment-related mortality during follow-up, with the overall prognosis largely dependent on preexisting comorbidities. These findings, in conjunction with increasing evidence highlighting the risk of disease progression and attendant morbidity associated with these aortic entities, suggest a need for natural history studies and definitive guidelines on the elective repair of IMHs and PAUs.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not affect aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of evidence regarding the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications on aortic remodeling for aortic dissection after endovascular repair. We investigated whether anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications affect aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS: Records of the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR registry (2012-2020) were reviewed. Procedures performed for TBAD were included. Aortic reintervention, false lumen thrombosis of the treated aorta, and all-cause mortality at follow-up were compared between patients treated with and without anticoagulation medications. A secondary analysis was performed to assess the effect of antiplatelet therapy in patients not on anticoagulation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies on outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1210 patients (mean age, 60.7 ± 12.2 years; 825 males [68%]) were identified with a mean follow-up of 21.2 ± 15.7 months (range, 1-94 months). One hundred sixty-six patients (14%) were on anticoagulation medications at discharge and at follow-up. Patients on anticoagulation were more likely to be older (mean age, 65.5 vs 60 years; P < .001) and Caucasian (69% vs 55%; P = .003), with higher proportions of coronary artery disease (10% vs 3%; P < .001), congestive heart failure (10% vs 2%; P < .001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15% vs 9%; P = .017). There were no differences in the mean preoperative thoracic aortic diameter or the number of endografts used. At 18 months, the rates of aortic reinterventions (8% vs 9%; log-rank P = .873), complete false lumen thrombosis (52% vs 45%; P = .175), and mortality (2.5% vs 2.7%; P = .209) were similar in patients with and without anticoagulation, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the Cox regression method, anticoagulation use was not independently associated with a decreased rates of complete false lumen thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-1.1; P = .132), increased need for aortic reinterventions (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.62-1.68; P = .934), and mortality (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.47; P = .514). On a secondary analysis, antiplatelet medications did not affect the rates of aortic reintervention, complete false lumen thrombosis, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not appear to negatively influence the midterm endpoints of aortic reintervention or death in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. Moreover, it did not impair complete false lumen thrombosis. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications do not adversely affect aortic remodeling and survival in this population at midterm.

Contemporary outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients deemed unfit for open surgical repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been preferred to open surgical repair (OSR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in high-risk patients. We compared the perioperative and long-term outcomes of EVAR for patients designated as unfit for OSR using a large national dataset. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients who had undergone elective EVAR for AAAs >5 cm from 2013 to 2019. The patients were stratified into two cohorts according to their suitability for OSR (fit vs unfit). The primary outcomes included perioperative (in-hospital) major adverse events, perioperative mortality, and mortality at 1 and 5 years. Patient demographics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed to identify the predictors of perioperative and long-term mortality. RESULTS: Of 16,183 EVARs, 1782 patients had been deemed unfit for OSR. The unfit cohort was more likely to be older and female, with a greater proportion of hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and larger aneurysm diameters. Postoperatively, the unfit cohort was more likely to have experienced cardiopulmonary complications (6.5% vs 3%; P < .001), with greater perioperative mortality (1.7% vs 0.6%; P < .001) and 1- and 5-year mortality (13% and 29% for the unfit vs 5% and 14% for the fit cohorts, respectively; P < .001). A subgroup analysis of the unfit cohort revealed that those deemed unfit because of a hostile abdomen had significantly lower 1- and 5-year mortality (6% and 20%, respectively) compared with those considered unfit because of cardiopulmonary compromise and frailty (14% and 30%, respectively; P = .451). Reintervention-free survival at 1 and 5 years was significantly greater in the fit cohort (93% and 82%, respectively) compared with that for the unfit cohort (85% and 68%, respectively; P < .001). The designation as unfit for OSR was an independent predictor of both perioperative (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.46; P = .038) and long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.69-2.17; P < .001). Advanced age (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.28-6.66; P = .011) was the strongest determinant of perioperative mortality, and end-stage renal disease (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.78-3.55; P < .001) was the strongest predictor of long-term mortality. Statin use (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87; P < .001) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93; P < .001) were protective of long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite low perioperative mortality, the long-term mortality of those designated by operating surgeons as unfit for OSR was rather high for patients undergoing elective EVAR, likely owing to the competing risk of death from medical frailty. An unfit designation because of a hostile abdomen did not confer any additional risks after EVAR. Judicious estimation of the patient's life expectancy is essential when considering the treatment options for this subset of patients deemed unfit for OSR.

Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy may decrease wound complications in major lower extremity amputations.

OBJECTIVE: Wound complications after major lower extremity amputations (LEAs) are a cause of significant morbidity in vascular surgery patients. Recent publications have demonstrated the efficacy of the closed incision negative pressure dressing at preventing surgical site infections (SSIs); however, there are few data on its use in major LEAs. This study sought to assess if closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would decrease the risk of complications as compared with a standard dressing in patients with peripheral vascular disease undergoing major LEA. METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patient limbs with a history of peripheral arterial disease underwent below-knee or above-knee amputations. This was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database from January 2018 to December 2019, and it included 23 amputations in the NPWT group and 31 amputations in the standard dressing group. NPWT using the PREVENA system was applied intraoperatively at the discretion of the operating surgeon and removed 5 to 7 days postoperatively. The standard group received a nonadherent dressing with an overlying compression dressing. Amputation incisions were assessed and wound complications were recorded. Student's t-test and two-sample proportion z-test were used for statistical analysis. A P value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: For comorbidities, there was a higher incidence of tobacco use in the NPWT as compared with the standard group (44% vs 13%; P = .011), as well as trends toward increased prior amputations, anemia, hyperlipidemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder in the NPWT group. For risk factors, there were more dirty wounds in the NPWT as compared with the standard group (52% vs 26%; P = .046). For outcomes, there were fewer wound complications in the NPWT as compared with the standard group (13% vs 39%; P = .037). The types of wound-related complications in the NPWT group included one wound dehiscence with a deep SSI, one superficial SSI, and one incision line necrosis. In the standard group, there were four wound dehiscences with deep SSI, three superficial SSIs, four incision line necroses, and one stump hematoma. The rates of perioperative mortality and amputation revision did not differ significantly between the NPWT and the standard groups (3% vs 4% and 4.3% vs 10%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Closed incision NPWT may decrease the incidence of wound complications in vascular patients undergoing major LEA. This held true even among a population that was potentially at higher risk. This therapy may be considered for use in lower extremity major amputations.

Outcomes of translumbar embolization of type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Presence of an endoleak can compromise aneurysm exclusion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Type II endoleaks (T2Es) are most common and may cause sac expansion. We report outcomes of translumbar embolization (TLE) of T2Es following EVAR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with T2E after EVAR treated with TLE from 2011 to 2018 at a single academic institution. Treatment indications were the presence of persistent T2E and aneurysm growth ≥5 mm. Sac stabilization was defined as growth ≤5 mm throughout the follow-up period. RESULTS: Thirty consecutive patients were identified. The majority were men (n = 24), with a mean age of 74.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9-77.6 years). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (83.3%) and coronary artery disease (54.0%). The mean maximal sac diameter at T2E discovery was 5.8 cm (95% CI, 5.4-6.2 cm). The mean time to intervention from endoleak discovery was 33.7 ± 28 months with a mean growth of 0.84 cm (95% CI, 0.48-1.2 cm) during that time period. The mean follow-up time after TLE was 19.1 months (95% CI, 11.1-27.2 months). Twenty-eight patients were treated with cyanoacrylate glue (CyG) alone, and two were treated with CyG plus coil embolization (CE). There was immediate complete endoleak resolution as assessed intraoperatively, and sac stabilization in 15 cases (50.0%). Eleven patients (36.7%) had evidence of persistent T2E on initial imaging after the embolization procedure; additional follow-up revealed eventual sac stabilization at a mean of 21.3 ± 7.2 months, and therefore, these patients did not require further intervention. In the remaining four cases (13.3%), there was persistent T2E after the initial TLE, requiring a second intervention. Repeat TLE stabilized growth in three of these four patients after a mean of 17.6 ± 12.9 months. One patient required open sacotomy and ligation of lumbar vessels due to continued persistence of the T2E and continued aneurysm growth. There were no ischemic complications related to the embolization procedures. Factors associated with persistent endoleak after initial embolization were larger aneurysm diameter at the time of initial endoleak identification (P < .001) and the use of antiplatelet agents (P < .02). The use of anticoagulation was not a significant risk factor for endoleak recurrence or aneurysm growth after TLE. CONCLUSIONS: TLE of T2E is a safe and effective treatment option for T2E with aneurysm growth following EVAR. Patients taking antiplatelet medication and those with larger aneurysms at the time of endoleak identification appear to be at increased risk for persistent endoleak and need for subsequent procedures following initial TLE. These patients may require more intensive monitoring and follow-up.

Endovascular treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms has comparable long-term outcomes to open repair with shorter lengths of stay.

OBJECTIVE: During the past two decades, the treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has undergone a transformation. Although open surgical repair (OR) has remained the reference standard for treatment, endovascular repair (ER) has become an attractive alternative for select patient populations. The objective of the present study was to compare the outcomes of OR vs ER of PAAs at a single institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the medical records for all patients who had undergone repair for PAAs from 1998 to 2017. The baseline patient, anatomic, and operative characteristics and outcomes were compared between the OR and ER cohorts. Intervention and treatment were at the discretion of the surgeon. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2017, 64 patients had undergone repair of 73 PAAs at our tertiary care center. Of the 69 patients (73 PAAs), 29 (33 PAAs) had undergone OR and 35 (40 PAAs) had undergone ER. When comparing the two cohorts, no statistically significant differences were found in the demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or number of runoff vessels. Significantly more patients in the ER group (n = 21; 53%) than in the OR group (n = 7; 21%) had had hyperlipidemia (P = .008) and a previous carotid intervention (6% vs 0%; P = .029). Overall, the presence of symptoms was similar between the two groups. However, the OR group had a significantly higher number of patients who had presented with acute ischemia (P = .01). The length of stay was significantly shorter for the ER cohort (mean, 1.8 days; range, 1-11 days) than for the OR group (mean, 5.4 days; range, 2-13 days; P < .0001). No significant difference was found in the primary or secondary patency rates between the two groups. In the ER group, good runoff (two or more vessels) was a positive predictor for primary patency at 1 year (odds ratio, 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-11.25). However, it was not in the OR group. Postoperative single and/or dual antiplatelet therapy did not affect primary patency in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have demonstrated that ER of PAAs is a safe and durable option with patency rates comparable to those with OR and a decreased length of stay, with good runoff a positive predictor for primary patency in the ER cohort.

Comparison of Outcomes for Open Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Repair Using Vein and Prosthetic Conduits.

BACKGROUND: Autologous vein is considered the preferred conduit for lower extremity bypass. There is, however, limited literature regarding conduit choice for open popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair. We sought to compare outcomes of PAA repair using vein versus prosthetic conduits. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2019) was queried for patients with PAAs undergoing elective conventional revascularization originating from the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. Conduits were categorized as vein or prosthetic. Primary outcomes were primary graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb event (MALE) and MALE-free survival at 2-years. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for estimation and comparison of patency. RESULTS: A total of 1,146 limbs in 1,065 patients underwent elective open revascularization for PAA. Vein was used in 921 limbs (80%), and prosthetic in 225 (20%). Patients in the prosthetic cohort had a shorter procedure time, were older, and had a higher prevalence of COPD. Postoperatively, prosthetic patients were more likely to be started and maintained on anticoagulation without increased incidence of hematoma. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (2% vs. 2%; P = 0.946). There was an increased tendency toward more symptomatic patients in the vein cohort although not statistically significant (49% vein vs. 41% prosthetic; P = 0.096). On a mean follow-up of 13 ± 5 months, the incidence of MALE and MALE-free survival were comparable between the two groups. The 2-year primary and secondary patency rates were similar, 87% and 96% in the vein, and 91% and 95% in the prosthetic groups, respectively. At multivariable analysis, outflow bypass targets to the infrapopliteal arteries (HR 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-3.65; P = 0.014) and symptomatic aneurysm (HR 1.81; 95% CI, 1.04-3.15; P = 0.037) were independently associated with loss of primary patency. Conduit type did not make a difference in MALE-free survival, or primary graft patency at 2-years. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that conventional open PAA repair with prosthetic conduit yields results comparable to those with vein conduit with regard to primary and secondary patency and MALEs at 2-years for targets to the popliteal artery. However, when the distal target was infrapopliteal, worse outcomes were observed with prosthetic conduit. Our results suggest that vein conduit should be preferentially used for infrapopliteal targets, while prosthetic conduit confers comparable outcomes in a subset of patients who do not have suitable autologous vein conduits.

Smaller Superficial Femoral Artery is Associated with Worse Outcomes after Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for De Novo Atherosclerotic Disease.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential increase in the use of endovascular techniques in the treatment of peripheral artery disease, our understanding of factors that affect intervention failures continues to grow. We sought to assess the outcomes of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for isolated de novo superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease based on balloon diameter. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing percutaneous balloon angioplasty for isolated de novo atherosclerotic SFA disease. Based on the diameter of the angioplasty balloon as a surrogate measure of arterial diameter, patients were stratified into 2 groups: group 1, balloon diameter <5 mm (354 patients) and group 2, balloon diameter ≥5 mm (1,550 patients). The primary patency and major adverse limb event (MALE) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test, based on vessel diameter. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with the primary patency. RESULTS: From January 2010 through December 2018, a total of 1,904 patients met criteria for analysis, with a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 4.5 months. The mean balloon diameters were 3.92 ± 0.26 mm and 5.47 ± 0.55 mm in group 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean length of treatment and distribution of TASC lesions were not statistically different between the groups. Primary patency at 18 months was significantly lower in group 1, compared with group 2 (55% vs. 67%; log-rank P < 0.001). The MALE rate was higher in group 1 than group 2 (33% vs. 26%; log-rank P < 0.001). Among patients with claudication, there was no significant difference in the primary patency (61% vs 68%; log-rank P = 0.073) and MALE (27% vs. 22%; log-rank P = 0.176) at 18 months between groups 1 and 2, respectively. However, in patients with CLTI, group 1 had significantly lower 18-month primary patency (47% vs. 64%; log-rank P < 0.014) and higher MALE rates (41% vs. 35%; log-rank P = 0.012) than group 2. Cox proportional hazard analysis confirmed that balloon diameter < 5 mm was independently associated with increased risks of primary patency loss (HR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72; P = 0.021) and MALE (HR 1.29; 95% CI, 1-1.67; P = 0.048) at 18-months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing isolated SFA balloon angioplasty for CLTI, smaller SFA (<5 mm) was associated with worse primary patency and MALE. Using balloon size as a surrogate, our findings suggest that patients with a smaller SFA diameter appear to be at increased risk for treatment failure and warrant closer surveillance. Furthermore, these patients may also be considered for alternative approaches, including open revascularization.

Interplay of Diabetes Mellitus and End-Stage Renal Disease in Open Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) confers a significant survival disadvantage and is associated with a high major amputation rate. Moreover, diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor for developing CLTI. However, the interplay between end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and DM on outcomes after peripheral revascularization for CLTI is not well established. Our goal was to assess the effect of DM on outcomes after an infrainguinal bypass for CLTI in patients with ESRD. METHODS: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative dataset from January 2003 to March 2020, records for all primary infrainguinal bypasses for CLTI in patients with ESRD were included for analysis. One-year and perioperative outcomes of all-cause mortality, reintervention, amputation-free survival (AFS), and major adverse limb event (MALE) were compared for patients with DM versus those without DM. RESULTS: Of a total of 1,058 patients (66% male) with ESRD, 726 (69%) patients had DM, and 332 patients did not have DM. The DM group was younger (median age, 65 years vs. 68 years; P = 0.002), with higher proportions of obesity (body-mass index>30 kg/m2; 34% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) and current smokers (26% vs. 19%; P = 0.013). The DM group presented more frequently with tissue loss (76% vs. 66%; P < 0.001). A distal bypass anastomosis to tibial vessels was more frequently performed in the DM group compared to the non-DM group (57% vs. 45%; P < 0.001). DM was independently associated with higher perioperative MALE (OR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.68; P = 0.013), without increased risks of loss of primary patency and composite outcomes of amputation or death. On the mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 5.5 months, DM patients had a significantly higher rate of one-year MALEs (43% vs. 32%; P = 0.001). However, the one-year primary patency and AFS did not differ significantly. After adjusting for confounders, the risk-adjusted hazards for MALE (HR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.68; P = 0.013) were significantly increased in patients with DM. However, DM was not associated with increased risk of AFS (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.91-1.47; P = 0.238), or loss of primary patency (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.79-1.37; P = 0.767). CONCLUSIONS: DM and ESRD each independently predict early and late major adverse limb events after an infrainguinal bypass in patients presenting with CLTI. However, in the presence of ESRD, DM may increase perioperative adverse events but does not influence primary patency and AFS at one year. The risk profile associated with ESRD appears to supersede that of DM, with no additive effect.

Increased ischemic complications in fenestrated and branched endovascular abdominal aortic repair compared with standard endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Ischemic complications (including in the lower extremity, visceral, spinal, and pelvic territories) following standard endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) are well recognized but fortunately uncommon. The incidence of such complications following fenestrated and branched aortic repair (F/BEVAR) has not been well defined in the literature. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of ischemic complications between EVAR and F/BEVAR and to elucidate potential risk factors for these complications. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent EVAR from 2003 to 2017 or F/BEVAR from 2012 to 2017 in the national Vascular Quality Initiative database. We assessed differences in perioperative ischemic outcomes with methods including logistic regression and inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting, using a composite end point of lower extremity ischemia, intestinal ischemia, stroke, or new dialysis as the primary end point. RESULTS: The data comprised 35,379 EVAR patients and 3374 F/BEVAR patients. F/BEVAR patients were more likely to be female, have had previous aneurysm repairs, and be deemed unfit for open aneurysm repair; they were less likely to have ruptured aneurysms; and they had higher estimated blood losses, contrast volumes, and fluoroscopy and procedure times. The incidence of any ischemic event (7.7% vs 2.2%) as well as the incidences of the component end points of lower extremity ischemia (2.3% vs 1.0%), intestinal ischemia (2.7% vs 0.7%), stroke (1.5% vs 0.3%), and new hemodialysis (3.1% vs 0.4%) were all significantly increased (all P < .001) in F/BEVAR compared with standard EVAR. After propensity adjustment, F/BEVAR conferred increased odds of any ischemic complication (1.8), intestinal ischemia (2.0), lower extremity ischemia (1.3), new hemodialysis (10.2), and stroke (2.3). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of lower extremity ischemia, intestinal ischemia, new dialysis, and stroke each range from 0% to 1% for standard EVAR and 1% to 3% for F/BEVAR. The incidence of perioperative ischemic complications following F/BEVAR is significantly increased compared to EVAR. The real-world data in this study should help guide decision-making for surgeons and patients as well as serve as one metric for progress in device and technique development. Improvements in ischemic complications may come from continued technology development such as smaller sheaths, improved imaging to decrease procedure time and contrast volume, embolic protection, and increased operator skill with wire and catheter manipulation.

Clinical significance of reversal of flow in the vertebral artery identified on cerebrovascular duplex ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Reversal of flow in the vertebral artery (RFVA) is an uncommon finding on cerebrovascular duplex ultrasound examination. The clinical significance of RFVA and the natural history of patients presenting with it are poorly understood. Our objective was to better characterize the symptoms and outcomes of patients presenting with RFVA. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all cerebrovascular duplex ultrasound studies performed at our institution between January 2010 and January 2016 (N = 2927 patients). Individuals with RFVA in one or both vertebral arteries were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (74/2927 patients [2.5%]) with RFVA were identified. Half of the patients were male. Mean age at the time of the first ultrasound study demonstrating RFVA was 71 years (range, 27-92 years); 78% of patients had hypertension, 28% were diabetic, and 66% were current or former smokers. Indications for the ultrasound examination were as follows: 44% screening/asymptomatic, 7% anterior circulation symptoms, 20% posterior circulation symptoms, 28% follow-up studies after cerebrovascular intervention, and 5% upper extremity symptoms. At the time of the initial ultrasound examination, 21 patients (28%) had evidence of a prior carotid intervention (carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting), 21 patients had evidence of moderate (50%-79%) carotid artery stenosis (CAS) in at least one carotid artery, and 12 patients (16%) had evidence of severe (>80%) CAS. Of the 15 patients presenting with posterior circulation symptoms, 11 (73%) had evidence of concomitant CAS. In contrast, 22 of the 59 patients (37%) without posterior circulation symptoms had duplex ultrasound findings of CAS (P = .01). The mean duration of follow-up was 28 ± 22 months. Follow-up data were available for 63 patients (85%), including the 15 patients who presented with posterior circulation symptoms. Of these 15 patients, 5 underwent subclavian artery revascularization, including balloon angioplasty and stenting in 4 patients and open/hybrid revascularization in 1 patient. Five individuals were awaiting intervention. Three patients underwent carotid endarterectomy for CAS, with resultant improvement in posterior circulation symptoms. Finally, one patient was deemed too high risk for intervention, and one patient was found to have an alternative cause for symptoms. The remaining 59 patients continued to be asymptomatic during follow-up. One patient progressed to vertebral artery occlusion, and six patients had progression of CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic RFVA responds well to intervention, including subclavian artery stenting and carotid intervention in patients with CAS. The majority of patients with this finding are asymptomatic at the time of presentation. Although progression of vertebral artery disease is rare, these patients may benefit from monitoring for progression of CAS with surveillance ultrasound.