Preoperative COVID-19 Vaccination is Associated with Decreased Perioperative Mortality after Major Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of corona virus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on perioperative outcomes after major vascular surgery. BACKGROUND DATA: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with decreased mortality in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. However, the effect of vaccination on perioperative mortality after major vascular surgery is unknown. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent major vascular surgery between December 2021 through August 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of index operation or prior to hospital discharge. Multivariable models were used to examine the association between vaccination status and the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 85,424 patients included, 19161 (22.4%) were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated patients were younger compared to vaccinated patients (mean age 68.44 +/- 10.37 y vs 72.11 +/- 9.20 y, P <0.001) and less likely to have comorbid conditions, including hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dialysis. After risk factor adjustment, vaccination was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.81, P <0.0001). Stratification by procedure type demonstrated that vaccinated patients had decreased odds of mortality after open AAA (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, P =0.03), EVAR (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.43-0.83, p 0.002), CAS (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P =0.004) and infra-inguinal lower extremity bypass (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P =0.03). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination is associated with reduced perioperative mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery. This association is most pronounced for patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair, carotid stenting and infrainguinal bypass.

Natural history of internal carotid artery stenosis progression.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the natural history of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis progression. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective cohort study analyzed patients diagnosed with ICA stenosis of 50% or greater on duplex ultrasound from 2015 to 2022. Subjects were drawn from our institutional Intersocietal Accreditation Commission-accredited noninterventional vascular laboratory database. Primary outcomes were incidences of disease progression, and stroke or revascularization after index study. Progression was defined as an increase in stenosis classification category. Imaging, demographic, and clinical data was obtained from our institutional electronic medical record via a database mining query. Cases were analyzed at the patient and artery levels, with severity corresponding to the greatest degree of ICA stenosis on index and follow-up studies. RESULTS: Of 577 arteries in 467 patients, mean cohort age was 73.5 ± 8.9 years at the time of the index study, and 45.0% (n = 210) were female. Patients were followed with duplex ultrasound for a mean of 42.2 ± 22.7 months. Of 577 arteries, 65.5% (n = 378) at the index imaging study had moderate (50%-69%) stenosis, 23.7% (n = 137) had severe (70%-99%) stenosis, and 10.7% (n = 62) were occluded. These three groups had significant differences in age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia prevalence, and proportion on best medical therapy. Of the 467-patient cohort, 56.5% (n = 264) were on best medical therapy, defined as smoking cessation, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, statin, and antihypertensive and glycemic agents as indicated. Mean time to progression for affected arteries was 28.0 ± 20.5 months. Of those arteries with nonocclusive disease at diagnosis, 21.3% (n = 123) progressed in their level of stenosis. Older age, diabetes, and a history of vasculitis were associated with stenosis progression, whereas antiplatelet agent use trended towards decreased progression rates. Of the 467 patients, 5.6% (n = 26) developed symptoms; of those, 38.5% (n = 10) had ischemic strokes, 26.9% (n = 7) had hemispheric transient ischemic attacks, 11.5% (n = 3) had amaurosis fugax, and 23.1% (n = 6) had other symptoms. A history of head and neck cancer was positively associated with symptom development. Of 577 affected arteries, 16.6% (n = 96) underwent intervention; 81% (n = 78) of interventions were for asymptomatic disease and 19% (n = 18) were for symptomatic disease. No patient-level factors were associated with risk of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of carotid stenosis patients experience progression of disease. Physicians should consider long-term surveillance on all patients with carotid disease, with increased attention paid to those with risk factors for progression, particularly those with diabetes and a history of vasculitis.

Prior authorization requirements in the office-based laboratory setting are administratively inefficient and threaten timeliness of care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the administrative and clinical impacts of prior authorization (PA) processes in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting. METHODS: This single-institution, retrospective analysis studied all OBL PAs pursued between January 2018 and March 2022. Case, PA, and coding information was obtained from the practice's scheduling database. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1854 OBL cases were scheduled; 8% (n = 146) required PA. Of these, 75% (n = 110) were for lower extremity arterial interventions, 19% (n = 27) were for deep venous interventions, and 6% (n = 9) were for other interventions. Of 146 PAs, 19% (n = 27) were initially denied but 74.1% (n = 7) of these were overturned on appeal. Deep venous procedures were initially denied, at 43.8% (n = 14), more often than were arterial procedures, at 11.8% (n = 13). Of 146 requested procedures, 4% (n = 6) were delayed due to pending PA determination by a mean 14.2 ± 18.3 working days. An additional 6% (n = 8) of procedures were performed in the interest of time before final determination. Of the seven terminally denied procedures, 57% (n = 4) were performed at cost to the practice based on clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS: Using PA appeals mechanisms, while administratively onerous, resulted in the overturning of most initial denials.

Generative artificial intelligence chatbots may provide appropriate informational responses to common vascular surgery questions by patients.

OBJECTIVES: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to engage with patients. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of AI responses to common patient questions regarding vascular surgery disease processes. METHODS: OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard were queried with 24 mock patient questions spanning seven vascular surgery disease domains. Six experienced vascular surgery faculty at a tertiary academic center independently graded AI responses on their accuracy (rated 1-4 from completely inaccurate to completely accurate), completeness (rated 1-4 from totally incomplete to totally complete), and appropriateness (binary). Responses were also evaluated with three readability scales. RESULTS: ChatGPT responses were rated, on average, more accurate than Bard responses (3.08 ± 0.33 vs 2.82 ± 0.40, p < .01). ChatGPT responses were scored, on average, more complete than Bard responses (2.98 ± 0.34 vs 2.62 ± 0.36, p < .01). Most ChatGPT responses (75.0%, n = 18) and almost half of Bard responses (45.8%, n = 11) were unanimously deemed appropriate. Almost one-third of Bard responses (29.2%, n = 7) were deemed inappropriate by at least two reviewers (29.2%), and two Bard responses (8.4%) were considered inappropriate by the majority. The mean Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning Fog Index of ChatGPT responses were 29.4 ± 10.8, 14.5 ± 2.2, and 17.7 ± 3.1, respectively, indicating that responses were readable with a post-secondary education. Bard's mean readability scores were 58.9 ± 10.5, 8.2 ± 1.7, and 11.0 ± 2.0, respectively, indicating that responses were readable with a high-school education (p < .0001 for three metrics). ChatGPT's mean response length (332 ± 79 words) was higher than Bard's mean response length (183 ± 53 words, p < .001). There was no difference in the accuracy, completeness, readability, or response length of ChatGPT or Bard between disease domains (p > .05 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: AI offers a novel means of educating patients that avoids the inundation of information from "Dr Google" and the time barriers of physician-patient encounters. ChatGPT provides largely valid, though imperfect, responses to myriad patient questions at the expense of readability. While Bard responses are more readable and concise, their quality is poorer. Further research is warranted to better understand failure points for large language models in vascular surgery patient education.

Natural history of renal artery aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The existing renal artery aneurysm (RAA) literature is largely composed of reports of patients who underwent intervention. The objective of this study was to review the natural history of RAA. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective analysis studied all patients with RAA diagnosed by computed tomography imaging between 2015 and 2019, identified by our institutional radiology database. Imaging, demographic, and clinical data were obtained via the electronic medical record. He growth rate was calculated for all patients with radiological follow-up. RESULTS: The cohort consists of 331 patients with 338 RAAs. Most patients were female (61.3%), with 11 (3.3%) of childbearing age. The mean age at diagnosis was 71.5 years (range, 24-99 years). Medical comorbidities included hypertension (73.7%), prior smoking (34.4%), and connective tissue disease (3.9%). Imaging indications included abdominal pain (33.5%), unrelated follow-up (29.6%), and follow-up of an RAA initially diagnosed before the study period (10.7%). Right RAA (61.9%) was more common than left (35.1%); 3% of patients had bilateral RAA. The mean diameter at diagnosis was 12.9 ± 5.9 mm. Size distribution included lesions measuring less than <15 mm (69.9%), 15 to 25 mm (27.1%), and more than 25 mm (3.0%). Anatomic locations included the distal RA (26.7%), renal hilum (42.4%), and mid-RA (13.1%). The majority were true aneurysms (98%); of these, 72.3% were fusiform and 27.7% were saccular. Additional characteristics included calcification (82.2%), thrombus (15.9%), and dissection (0.9%). Associated findings included aortic atherosclerosis (65.6%), additional visceral aneurysms (7.3%), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (5.7%). The mean clinical follow-up among 281 patients was 41.0 ± 24.0 months. The mean radiological follow-up among 137 patients was 26.0 ± 21.4 months. Of these, 43 patients (31.4%) experienced growth, with mean growth rate of 0.23 ± 4.7 mm/year; the remainder remained stable in size. Eight patients eventually underwent intervention (5 endovascular), with the most common indications including size criteria (4/8) and symptom development (3/8). No patient developed rupture. On multivariate analysis, obesity (P = .04) was significantly associated with growth. An initial diameter of more than 25 mm was significantly associated with subsequent intervention (P = .006), but was not significantly associated with growth. Four of five RAAs with an initial diameter 30 mm or greater did not undergo intervention. The mean clinical follow-up for these patients was 24 months; none developed rupture and two remained stable in size. CONCLUSIONS: This large institutional cohort found that the majority of RAAs remained stable in size, with few patients meeting indications for repair based on societal guidelines. Current guidelines recommending intervention for asymptomatic aneurysms more than 30 mm seem to be appropriate given their slow progression.

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.

Postoperative disability and one-year outcomes for patients suffering a stroke after carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Although post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) strokes are rare, they can be devastating. The degree of disability that patients develop after such events and its effects on long-term outcomes are unclear. Our goal was to assess the extent of postoperative disability in patients suffering strokes after CEA and evaluate its association with long-term outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA registry (2016-2020) was queried for CEAs performed for asymptomatic or symptomatic indications in patients with preoperative modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0 to 1. The mRS grades stroke-related disability as 0 (none), 1 (not significant), 2 to 3 (moderate), 4 to 5 (severe), and 6 (dead). Patients suffering postoperative strokes with recorded mRS scores were included. Postoperative stroke-related disability based on mRS and its association with long-term outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 149,285 patients undergoing CEA, there were 1178 patients without preoperative disability who had postoperative strokes and reported mRS scores. Mean age was 71 ± 9.2 years, and 59.6% of patients were male. Regarding ipsilateral cortical symptoms within 6 months preoperatively, 83.5% of patients were asymptomatic, 7.3% had transient ischemic attacks, and 9.2% had strokes. Postoperative stroke-related disability was classified as mRS 0 (11.6%), 1 (19.5%), 2 to 3 (29.4%), 4 to 5 (31.5%), and 6 (8%). One-year survival stratified by postoperative stroke-related disability was 91.4% for mRS 0, 95.6% for mRS 1, 92.1% for mRS 2 to 3, and 81.5% for mRS 4 to 5 (P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that while severe postoperative disability was associated with increased death at 1 year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.89; P = .002), moderate postoperative disability had no such association (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.45-2; P = .88). One-year freedom from subsequent ipsilateral neurological events or death stratified by postoperative stroke-related disability was 87.8% for mRS 0, 93.3% for mRS 1, 88.5% for mRS 2 to 3, and 77.9% for mRS 4 to 5 (P < .001). Severe postoperative disability was independently associated with increased ipsilateral neurological events or death at 1 year (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.25-4.38; P = .01). However, moderate postoperative disability exhibited no such association (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.46-1.82; P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients without preoperative disability who suffered strokes after CEA developed significant disability. Severe stroke-related disability was associated with higher 1-year mortality and subsequent neurological events. These data can improve informed consent for CEA and guide prognostication after postoperative strokes.

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.

Outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P < .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P < .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P < .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention.

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.

Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were reported. Since the 2011 guidelines, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been reported, and the role of medical management has been reemphasized. In the present publication, we have updated and expanded on the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: (1) is CEA recommended over maximal medical therapy for low-risk patients; (2) is CEA recommended over transfemoral CAS for low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; (3) the timing of carotid intervention for patients presenting with acute stroke; (4) screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (5) the optimal sequence of intervention for patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) approach, as was used for other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low-risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate for symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and should be performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely <14 days after symptom onset. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients with an increased risk of carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% to 99%, who require both CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting, we suggest CEA before, or concomitant with, coronary artery bypass grafting to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on the clinical presentation and institutional experience.

Presentation, Diagnosis and Management of Innominate Artery Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: Acute thromboembolic disease of the innominate artery (IA) poses a unique set of therapeutic challenges, owing to its contribution to both the cerebral and upper extremity circulation, and risks of distal embolization via the carotid and subclavian arteries, respectively. Herein, we present a 74-year-old female who presents with acute IA thrombus treated successfully with right axillary and common carotid exposure and aspiration catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy (CDT). Furthermore, an emerging use of CDT and its application in acute thromboembolism are outlined. CASE REPORT: A 74-year-old female with history of right lung transplant for pulmonary fibrosis with severe pulmonary hypertension, and stage IIIA left lung adenocarcinoma status post left lower lobectomy undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy presented with acute IA thrombus and right-sided stroke. She was treated successfully with right axillary and common carotid exposure and aspiration CDT. Computed tomography angiography performed 1 month postoperatively confirmed patent IA with no evidence of residual or recurrent thrombus. CONCLUSION: There are currently no standard guidelines on the management of acute IA thromboembolism, with mostly individual cases reported in the literature describing this rare entity. Nevertheless, this unique clinical entity mandates expeditious diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in order to avoid permanent neurologic deficits from distal embolization. Our case demonstrates that aspiration CDT may be an effective treatment modality for patients with acute IA thrombus.

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.

Anticoagulation Therapy is Associated with Increased Access-related Wound Infections after Hemodialysis Access Creation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of anticoagulation therapy (AC) on hemodialysis access patency and related complications is not well defined. Patients on long-term or chronic AC due to their underlying comorbid conditions may be particularly susceptible to access-related bleeding and complications from repetitive cannulation. Our goal is to assess the effect of anticoagulation therapy on outcomes after access creation. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database was queried for patients undergoing arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG) placement, from 2011 to 2019. Only patients with data on post-procedural AC status were included. Anticoagulation use was defined as patients on warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban after access creation at postoperative follow up. Demographic and procedural details were analyzed. Wound infection and patency rates at six months were assessed. Binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association of anticoagulation use with these outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 27,757 patients underwent access creation, with the majority undergoing AVF creation (78.8%). The average age was 61.4 years and 55.3% were male. 12.9% of patients were on postoperative AC. The wound infection rate was 2.3- 3.8% in the no AC and AC cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001). At six months follow-up, patency was 85.7- 84.3% in the no AC and AC cohorts, respectively (P = 0.044). Expectedly, grafts had lower patency rates compared to AVF; those within the no AC cohort had a patency of 83.0% compared to 81.2 % in those on AC (P = 0.106). On multivariable analysis, anticoagulation use was associated with a higher risk of wound infections (odds ratio [OR] 1.513, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.160-1.973, P = 0.002). AC use did not significantly affect access patency. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation therapy was associated with a higher rate of wound infections but did not affect short-term access patency within six-months. These patients warrant close surveillance of their access for signs of infection. Furthermore, long-term implications of anticoagulation needs further evaluation.

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.

Low-frequency avoidable errors during transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) seems to be a safe and effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). The TCAR system represents a paradigm shift in the management of carotid artery stenosis with potential for a significant decrease in periprocedural morbidity. However, as with CEA or TF-CAS, TCAR is associated with infrequent complications related to user technical error, most of which are preventable. Our goal is to describe these low-frequency events, and to provide guidelines for avoiding them. METHODS: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that all medical device manufacturers create a system for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints (Code 21 of Federal Regulations 820.198). Silk Road Medical, Inc (Sunnyvale, Calif), has established a process by which all feedback, including complaints that may not meet FDA criteria, is captured and stored in a database for detailed analysis. More than 13,300 cases have been performed; submitted complaints were reviewed for incidents of serious injury and periprocedural complications, above and beyond the device-related events that must be reported to the FDA. RESULTS: A total of 13,334 patients have undergone TCAR worldwide between early 2011 and December 2019 using the SilkRoad device. Reported complications included 173 dissections (1.4% overall rate) of the common carotid artery at the access point, of which 22.5% were managed without intervention or with medical therapy alone and 24.3% were converted to CEA (considered failing safely). Errors in the location of stent deployment occurred in 16 cases (0.13%), with the most common site being the external carotid artery (75%). One wrong side carotid artery stent was placed in a patient with a high midline pattern of the bovine arch. Cranial nerve injury was reported in 11 cases (0.08%), only one of which persisted beyond 3 months. There have been three reported pneumothoraces and one reported chylothorax. Many of these errors can be recognized and prevented with careful attention to detail. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients requiring treatment for carotid artery stenosis, TCAR has been proven as an alternative to TF-CAS with an excellent safety profile. As with CEA or TF-CAS, this procedure has the potential for infrequent complications, often as a result of user technical error. Although significant, these events can be avoided through a review of the collective experience to date and recognition of potential pitfalls, as we have described.