Impact of routine surveillance duplex ultrasound and subsequent reintervention after superficial femoral artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting is a common treatment for peripheral artery disease. It is effective in the short term; however, in-stent restenosis (ISR) limits long-term success. Surveillance with duplex ultrasound (DUS) can identify patients who develop ISR leading to early reintervention, but data to support this practice is sparce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether surveillance and subsequent reintervention improves outcomes in patients with SFA stents. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study was performed with patients undergoing SFA stenting between 2005 and 2020 who had a follow-up with DUS. Five groups were identified based on the presence of ISR on DUS (ISR vs no ISR [NISR]), recurrence of symptoms (symptomatic [SX] vs asymptomatic [ASX]), and if any reintervention was performed (reintervention [R] vs no reintervention [NR]): (1) ISR+SX+R; (2) ISR+SX+NR; (3) ISR+ASX+R; (4) ISR+ASX+NR; and (5) NISR+NR. The primary endpoint was amputation-free survival, and the secondary endpoint was patency. Predictors of mortality and surveillance were identified by multivariable logistic regressions and Cox multivariate regression models. Survival curves were presented as Kaplan-Meier plots using log-rank test for subgroup comparison. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-seven patients were included in the analysis. The indication for intervention was claudication in 28% and chronic limb-threatening ischemia in 72%. A total of 161 patients (63%) underwent reintervention for ISR. Of patients who had restenosis on DUS, those who were symptomatic and did not undergo reintervention (ISR+SX+NR) did the worst, with 50% amputation rate. In contrast, those who were asymptomatic but did undergo reintervention (ISR+ASX+R) had the lowest amputation rate of 13%. Active smoking was a predictor of both loss of patency and amputation (1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-2.98; P = .050; 3.55; 95% CI, 1.53-8.25; P = .003). Post procedure dual antiplatelet therapy had a positive association with limb salvage (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.58; P = .001), whereas diabetes (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.21-6.01; P = .019), stent occlusion (HR, 17.0; 95% CI, 5.93-63.1; P < .001), and chronic limb-threatening ischemia presentations (HR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.86-11.7; P=.002) were negatively associated with limb salvage. CONCLUSIONS: Routine surveillance DUS and subsequent reintervention on ISR after SFA stenting is associated with improved patency and amputation-free survival. Surveillance DUS should be routine for patients after stenting, with reintervention strongly considered if ISR is identified for both symptomatic and asymptomatic.

The addition of a leaded arm sleeve to leaded aprons further decreases operator upper outer quadrant chest wall radiation dose during fluoroscopically guided interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer most commonly occurs in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) chest wall (CW). The effectiveness of routine leaded aprons to protect this region of the body in interventionalists during fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs) is unknown. Given the high lifetime attributable risks of prolonged occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and the increasing number of practicing female vascular surgeons and interventionalists, we sought to determine if the use of a leaded arm shield would offer additional protection to the lateral CW and axilla in operators compared with routine leaded aprons. METHODS: Effectiveness of leaded sleeves in attenuating radiation dose to the axilla and UOQ was evaluated in clinical practice and simulated scenarios. In the clinical setting, optically stimulated luminescence nanoDot detectors were placed at the UOQ lateral CW position, both over and under a standard leaded apron vest with and without the addition of an antimony/bismuth Enviro-Lite sleeve on two vascular surgeons performing FGIs. In the simulation, nanoDots were similarly placed on an anthropomorphic phantom positioned to represent a primary operator performing right femoral access. Fluorography was performed on 12-inch-thick acrylic scatter phantom at 80 kVp for an exposure of 3 Gy reference air kerma. Experiments were done with and without the sleeve. Paired Wilcoxon and χ2 tests were performed to identify the statistical significance of radiation attenuation. RESULTS: Operator UOQ CW dose was measured during 61 FGIs: 33 cases (54%) with and 28 cases (46%) without the sleeve. Median procedure reference air kerma and fluoroscopy time was 180 mGy (interquartile range [IQR], 85-447 mGy) and 21 minutes (IQR, 11-39 minutes) when the sleeve was worn vs 100 mGy (IQR, 67-270 mGy) and 11 minutes (IQR, 6.3-25 minutes) without the sleeve. Radiation dose to the operator's UOQ was reduced by 96% (IQR, 85%-96%) when the sleeve was present and by 62% (IQR, 44%-82%; P < .001) without the sleeve. In the simulated setting, the sleeve reduced the radiation dose to the UOQ compared with the apron alone (96% vs 67%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine leaded aprons do attenuate the majority of UOQ chest wall radiation dose; however, the addition of a lead-equivalent sleeve further significantly reduces this dose. Because this area of the body has a high incidence of cancer formation, additional protection, especially to female interventionalists, seems prudent. Vascular surgeons should consider using a protective sleeve with their personal protective equipment when performing complex fluoroscopically guided procedures.

Early outcomes from the pivotal trial of a four-branch off-the shelf solution to treat complex abdominal and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: This study reports the 30-day outcomes of the primary arm of the GORE EXCLUDER Thoracoabdominal Branch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) pivotal trial for complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: This multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective study of the TAMBE device included patients enrolled in the primary study arm of extent IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and pararenal aneurysms. Technical success and major adverse events were analyzed per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. RESULTS: The 102 patients of the primary arm who underwent endovascular repair using the TAMBE device were a mean age of 73 ± 6.4 years (range, 58-82 years) and 84 (84.2%) were male. The mean body mass index was 28.3 ± 5.0 kg/m2. Fifty-nine patients (57.8%) were treated for extent IV and 43 (42.2%) pararenal aneurysms; the mean maximum diameter of the aneurysms was 59.4 ± 7.8 mm. A prophylactic cerebral spinal fluid drain was used in 10 patients (9.8%). Technical success was achieved in 99% of patients, with the single failure owing to unsuccessful cannulation of the left renal artery. Mean procedure time was 315 ± 103 minutes (range, 163-944 minutes), estimated blood loss was 300 ± 296 mL (range, 10-2000 mL), and contrast administration was 153.6 ± 73.5 mL (range, 16-420 mL). The intensive care unit length of stay was 58.7 ± 52.7 hours (range, 1-288 mL). In 28 patients (27.5%), a total of 32 additional endovascular components were deployed to manage procedural complications including aortic and target vessel dissections and injuries not related to access. Bridging stent grafts were deployed to incorporate 407 target vessels (mean 1.6/per vessel; range, 1-4). Postoperative transfusion was required in 14 patients (13.7%). Major adverse events occurred in seven patients (6.9%) through 30 days. Events included respiratory failure (n = 2), disabling stroke (n = 1), new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis (n = 2), and paraplegia (n = 2). At 30 days, there was one patient with intraoperative rupture; no severe bowel ischemia or lesion-related/all-cause mortality were reported. The Core lab-reported patency was 100% in the aortic component, superior mesenteric artery, and celiac artery, and 95.9% in the left renal and 99.0% in the right renal branch components through 30 days of follow-up. Reinterventions through 30 days were performed in 9 of 96 patients (9.4%) and were all minor. CONCLUSIONS: Early TAMBE device outcomes demonstrate a high technical success rate, no 30-day lesion-related mortality, and a low rate of safety events within 30 days of the index procedure.

Long-term outcomes of staged iliofemoral endoconduits prior to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Adverse iliofemoral anatomy may preclude complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In our practice, staged iliofemoral endoconduits (ECs) are planned prior to complex EVAR to improve vascular access and decrease operative time while allowing the stented vessel to heal. This study describes the long-term results of iliofemoral ECs prior to complex EVAR. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2023, 59 patients (44% male; median age, 75 ± 6 years) underwent ECs before complex EVAR using self-expanding covered stents (Viabahn). For common femoral artery (CFA) disease, ECs were delivered percutaneously from contralateral femoral access and extended into the CFA to preserve the future access site for stent graft delivery. Internal iliac artery patency was maintained when feasible. During complex EVAR, the EC extended into the CFA was directly accessed and sequentially dilated until it could accommodate the endograft. Technical success was defined as successful access, closure, and delivery of the endograft during complex EVAR. Endpoints were vascular injury or EC disruption, secondary interventions, and EC patency. RESULTS: Unilateral EC was performed in 45 patients (76%). ECs were extended into the CFA in 21 patients (35%). Median diameters of the native common iliac, external iliac, and CFA were 7 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 6-8 mm), 6 mm (IQR, 5-7 mm), and 6 mm (IQR, 6-7 mm), respectively. Internal iliac artery was inadvertently excluded in 10 patients (17%). Six patients (10%) had an intraoperative vascular injury during the EC procedure, and six patients (10%) had EC disruption during complex EVAR, including five EC collapses requiring re-stenting and one EC fracture requiring open cut-down and reconstruction with patch angioplasty. In 23 patients (39%), 22 Fr OD devices were used; 20 Fr were used in 22 patients (37%), and 18 Fr in 14 patients (24%). Technical success for accessing EC was 89%. There was no difference in major adverse events at 30 days between the iliac ECs and iliofemoral ECs. Primary patency by Kaplan-Meier estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 97.5%, 89%, and 82%, respectively. There was no difference in primary patency between iliac and iliofemoral ECs. Six secondary interventions (10%) were required. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 27 months; no limb loss or amputations occurred during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ECs improve vascular access, and their use prior to complex EVAR is associated with low rates of vascular injury, high technical success, and optimal long-term patency. Complex EVAR procedures can be performed percutaneously by accessing the EC directly under ultrasound guidance and using sequential dilation to avoid EC disruption.

Impact of head and neck radiation on long-term outcomes after carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis (RICS) is a well-described phenomenon seen after head and neck cancer radiation. Previously published literature suggests that, compared with atherosclerotic disease, RICS may result in worse long-term outcomes and early restenosis. This study aims to evaluate the effect of radiation on long-term outcomes after various carotid revascularization techniques using a multi-center registry database. METHODS: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry for carotid artery intervention (carotid endarterectomy [CEA]; transfemoral carotid artery stenting [CAS]; transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]), who are 65 years or older were included in the study. VQI Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) Medicare-linked database was used to obtain long-term procedure-specific outcomes. Primary endpoints were 3-year death, stroke, and reintervention. We performed propensity matching between patients with prior radiation and those without. Kaplan-Meier analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model were used to analyze the outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 56,472 patients had undergone carotid revascularization (CEA, n = 48,307; TCAR, n = 4593; CAS, n = 3572), 1244 patients with prior radiation and 54,925 patients without prior radiation. The prior radiation group was more likely to be male (71.9% vs 60.3%; P < .01), to receive a stent (47.5% vs 13.5%; P < .01), and to be on P2Y12 inhibitor (55.2% vs 38.3%; P < .01). Propensity matching was performed on 1223 patients (CEA, n = 655; TCAR, n = 292; CAS, n = 287). There were no significant differences in 30-day outcomes for death, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular events for all three procedures. The prior radiation group had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (3.7% vs 1.8%; P = .04) and 90-day readmission (23.5% vs 18.3%; P = .01) after CEA. For long-term outcomes, prior radiation significantly increased mortality risk for CEA and CAS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.27 and HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.02-2.36, respectively). The 3-year risk of stroke for CEA in radiated patients was also significantly higher (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.09) compared with non-radiated patients. Prior radiation did not significantly affect death and stroke in patients undergoing TCAR. Prior radiation also did not impact the rates of short and long-term reintervention after CEA, CAS, or TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: Prior head and neck radiation significantly increases the risk for mortality and stroke for CEA and the risk for mortality after CAS. Long-term outcomes for TCAR are not significantly affected by prior radiation. TCAR may be the preferred treatment modality for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis.

Preoperative risk factors for 1-year mortality in patients undergoing fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the US Aortic Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Early survival (1-year) after elective repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) can be used as an indicator of successful repair and provides a reasonable countermeasure to the annual rupture risk based on diameter. We aimed to identify preoperative factors associated with 1-year mortality after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) and develop a predictive model for 1-year mortality based on patient-specific risk profiles. METHODS: The US-Aortic Research Consortium database was queried for all patients undergoing elective F/BEVAR for complex AAA (cAAA) or TAAA from 2005 to 2022. The primary outcome was 1-year survival based on preoperative risk profile. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine preoperative variables associated with 1-year mortality overall and by extent of aortic pathology. Logistic regression was performed to build a predictive model for 1-year mortality based on number of risk factors present. RESULTS: A total of 2099 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (cAAA: n = 709 [34.3%]; type 1-3 TAAA: n = 777 [37.6%]; type 4-5 TAAA: n = 580 [28.1%]). Multivariable Cox regression identified the following significant risk factors associated with 1-year mortality: current smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), aortic diameter >7 cm, age >75 years, extent 1-3, creatinine >1.7 mg/dL, and hematocrit <36%. When stratified by extent of aortic involvement, multivariable Cox regression revealed risk factors for 1-year mortality in cAAA (CHF maximum aortic diameter >7 cm, hematocrit <36 mg/dL, and current smoking status), type 1-3 TAAA (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CHF, and age >75 years), and type 4-5 TAAA (age >75 years, creatinine >1.7 mg/dL, and hematocrit <36 mg/dL). Logistic regression was then used to develop a predictive model for 1-year mortality based on patient risk profile. Appraisal of the model revealed an area under the curve of 0.64 (P < .001), and an observed to expected ratio of 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes multiple risk factors associated with an increase in 1-year mortality after F/BEVAR. Given that elective repair of cAAA or TAAA is offered to some patients in whom future rupture risk outweighs operative risk, these findings suggest that highly comorbid patients with smaller aneurysms may not benefit from repair. Descriptive and predictive models for 1-year mortality based on patient risk profiles can serve as an adjunct in clinical decision-making when considering elective F/BEVAR.

Early Experience with Patient-Specific Unibody Bifurcated Fenestrated-Branched Devices for Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Short distances between the lowest visceral/renal artery and the aortic bifurcation are technically challenging during complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), particularly after previous infrarenal repair. Traditionally, inverted limb bifurcated devices have been used in addition to fenestrated-branched (FB) endografts, but short overlap, difficult cannulation, and potential crushing of bridging stents are limitations for their use. This study reviews the early experience of patient-specific company manufactured devices (PS-CMD) with a unibody bifurcated FB design for complex EVAR. METHODS: Consecutive complex EVAR procedures over a 34-month period with unibody bifurcated FB-devices as part of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at two institutions were reviewed. Unibody bifurcated FB-designs included fenestrated-branched bifurcated or fenestrated inverted limb devices. Endpoints included technical success, survival, frequency of type I or III endoleaks, limb occlusion, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: Among 168 patients undergoing complex EVAR, 33 (19.6%) patients (78.7% male; mean age 77) received unibody bifurcated FB PS-CMDs. Fenestrated-branched bifurcated and fenestrated inverted limb devices were used in 31 (93.9%) and 2 (6.06%) patients, respectively. Median maximum aneurysm diameter was 61 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 55-69). Prior EVAR was reported by 29 (87.9 %) patients, of which 2 (6.06%) had suprarenal stents. A short distance between the lowest renal artery and aortic bifurcation was demonstrated in 30 (90.9%) patients, with median distance of 47 mm (IQR 38-54). Preloaded devices were used in 23 patients (69.7%). A total of 128 fenestrations were planned; 22 (17.2%) were preloaded with guidewires, and 5 (3.9%) with catheters. The median operative time was 238 min (226-300), with a median fluoroscopy time of 65.5 min (IQR 56.0-77.7) and a median dose area product of 147 mGy*cm2 (IQR 105-194). Exclusive femoral access was used in 14 (42.4%) procedures. Technical success was 100%. Target vessel primary patency was 100% at median follow-up time of 11.7 months (IQR 3.5-18.6). Two (6.06%) patients required reintervention for iliac occlusion; one patient required stenting and the other a femoral-femoral bypass. No aortic-related deaths occurred after the procedure. During follow-up, 11 (33.3 %) type II endoleaks and one (3.03%) type Ib endoleak were detected; the latter was treated with leg extension. No type Ia or III endoleaks occurred. CONCLUSION: Complex EVAR using unibody bifurcated FB-PS-CMDs is a simple, safe, and cost-effective alternative for the treatment of patients with short distances between the renal arteries and the aortic bifurcation. Further studies are required to assess benefits and durability of unibody bifurcated FB-devices.

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic and therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular techniques have transformed the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a prevalent and devastating complication. Prophylactic drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is among the proposed strategies for prevention of SCI. Although prophylactic CSF drainage is widely used and conceptually attractive, prophylactic CSF drains have not been demonstrated to definitively prevent the occurrence nor mitigate the severity of SCI in endovascular TAAA repair. Whether or not outcomes of prophylactic drains are superior to therapeutic drains remains unknown. This pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial designed to investigate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair using branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FBEVAR). METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter randomized pilot clinical trial conducted at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and The University of Massachusetts. Twenty patients were enrolled and randomized to either the prophylactic drainage or therapeutic drainage groups, prior to undergoing FBEVAR for extensive TAAAs and arch aortic aneurysms. This was a pilot feasibility study that was not powered to detect statistical differences in clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was feasibility of randomization and compliance with a shared lumbar drain protocol. Secondary outcomes included rate of drain complications and SCI. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled and successfully randomized, without any crossovers, to either the control cohort (n = 10), without prophylactic drains, or the experimental cohort (n = 10), with prophylactic drains. There were no differences in age, comorbidities, or history of prior aortic surgery across the cohorts. All patients were treated with FBEVAR. Aneurysm classifications were as follows: Extent I (10%), Extent II (50%), Extent III (35%), and Extent IV (5%). The average length of aortic coverage was 207 ± 21.6 mm. The length of aortic coverage did not vary across cohorts, nor did procedural times or blood loss volume. Compliance with the SCI prevention protocol was 100% across both groups. Within the prophylactic drain cohort, one patient experienced an adverse event related to lumbar drain placement, manifested as an epidural hematoma requiring laminectomy, without neurologic deficit (n = 1/10; 10%). There was one SCI event (n = 1/20; 5%), which occurred in the prophylactic drain cohort on postoperative day 9 following an episode of hypotension related to a gastrointestinal bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The role of prophylactic CSF drains for the prevention of SCI following endovascular TAAA repair is a topic of ongoing research, with many current practices based on expert opinion and experience, rather than rigorous scientific data. This study demonstrates the feasibility of a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair.

Impact of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease on outcomes after complex endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease are traditionally associated with worse outcomes after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and open aneurysm repair (OAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, there needs to be more data on complex AAA repair involving the aorta's visceral segment. This study stratifies complex AAA repair outcomes by CKD severity and dialysis dependence. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective OAR and fenestrated/branched EVAR (F-BEVAR) for complex AAA with preoperative renal function data captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative between January 2003 and September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were stratified by CKD class as follows: normal/mild (CKD 1 and 2), moderate (CKD class 3a), moderate to severe (CKD 3b), severe (CKD class 4 and 5), and dialysis. Only patients with clamp sites above one of the renal arteries were included for complex OAR. For F-BEVAR, patients with proximal landing zones below zone 5 (above celiac artery) were included, and distal landing zones between zones 1 and 5 were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year mortality. Predictors of mortality were identified by Cox multivariate regression models. RESULTS: We identified 7849 elective complex AAA repairs: 4230 (54%) complex OARs and 3619 (46%) F-BEVARs. Most patients were White (89%) and male (74%), with an average age of 72 ± 8 years. The patients who underwent F-BEVAR were older and had more comorbidities. Elective F-BEVAR for complex AAA started in 2012 and increased from 1.4% in 2012 to 58% in 2020 (P < .001). The OAR cohort had more perioperative complications, but less 1-year mortality. The normal/mild CKD cohort had the highest 1-year survival compared with other groups after both complex OAR and F-BEVAR. On Cox regression analysis, when compared with CKD 1-2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3b: hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-3.40; P < .001; CKD 4-5: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.16-3.26; P = .011; and dialysis: HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.53-7.72; P < .001) were independently associated with 1-year survival after F-BEVAR. After complex OAR, worsening CKD stage but not dialysis was associated with 1-year mortality compared with CKD 1-2 (CKD 3b: HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.13-2.35; P = .009; CKD 4-5: HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.03-5.79; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CKD severity is an essential predictor of perioperative and 1-year mortality after complex AAA repair, irrespective of the treatment modality, which may reflect the natural history of CKD. Consideration should be given to raising the threshold for elective AAA repair in patients with moderate to severe CKD and end-stage renal disease, given the high 1-year mortality rate.

Practice patterns of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy are commonly prescribed after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). However, the optimal regimen remains unknown. We sought to characterize practice patterns and outcomes of antiplatelet and anticoagulant use in patients who underwent F/BEVAR. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled (2012-2023) as part of the United States Aortic Research Consortium (US-ARC) from 10 independent physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies were evaluated. The cohort was characterized by medication regimen on discharge from index F/BEVAR: (1) Aspirin alone OR P2Y12 alone (single-antiplatelet therapy [SAPT]); (2) Anticoagulant alone; (3) Aspirin + P2Y12 (dual-antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]); (4) Aspirin + anticoagulant OR P2Y12 + anticoagulant (SAPT + anticoagulant); (5) Aspirin + P2Y12 + anticoagulant (triple therapy [TT]); and (6) No therapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to compare 1-year outcomes including survival, target artery patency, freedom from bleeding complication, freedom from all reinterventions, and freedom from stent-specific reintervention. RESULTS: Of the 1525 patients with complete exposure and outcome data, 49.6% were discharged on DAPT, 28.8% on SAPT, 13.6% on SAPT + anticoagulant, 3.2% on TT, 2.6% on anticoagulant alone, and 2.2% on no therapy. Discharge medication regimen was not associated with differences in 1-year survival, bleeding complications, composite reintervention rate, or stent-specific reintervention rate. However, there was a significant difference in 1-year target artery patency. On multivariable analysis comparing with SAPT, DAPT conferred a lower hazard of loss of target artery patency (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.84; P = .01). On sub-analyses of renal stents alone or visceral stents alone, DAPT no longer had a significantly lower hazard of loss of target artery patency (renal: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.35-1.27; P = .22; visceral: HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.05-1.9; P = .21). Lastly, duration of DAPT therapy (1 month, 6 months, or 1 year) did not significantly affect target artery patency. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns for antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimens after F/BEVAR vary widely across the US-ARC. There were no differences in bleeding complications, survival or reintervention rates among different regimens, but higher branch vessel patency was noted in the DAPT cohort. These data suggest there is a benefit in DAPT therapy. However, the generalizability of this finding is limited by the retrospective nature of this data, and the clinical significance of this finding is unclear, as there is no difference in survival, bleeding, or reintervention rates amongst the different regimens. Hence, an "optimal" regimen, including the duration of such regimen, could not be clearly discerned. This suggests equipoise for a randomized trial, nested within this cohort, to identify the most effective antiplatelet/anticoagulant regimen for the growing number of patients being treated globally with F/BEVAR.

Postdissection aortic aneurysm sac enlargement after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVES: Aneurysm sac changes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FBEVAR) for postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (PD-TAAs) are poorly understood. Partial thrombosis of the false lumen and endoleaks may impair sac regression. To characterize sac changes after FBEVAR for PD-TAAs, this study examined midterm results and predictors for sac enlargement. METHODS: FBEVARs performed for PD-TAAs in 10 physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies from 2008 to 2023 were analyzed. The maximum aortic aneurysm diameter was compared between the 30-day computed tomography angiogram and follow-up imaging studies. Aneurysm sac enlargement was defined as an increase in diameter of ≥5 mm. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to evaluate sac enlargement and midterm FBEVAR outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3296 FBEVARs, 290 patients (72.4% male; median age, 68.4 years) were treated for PD-TAAs. Most aneurysms treated were extent II (72%) and III (12%). Mean aneurysm diameter was 66.5 ± 11.2 mm. Mortality at 30 days was 1.4%. At a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 1.9 years, at least one follow-up imaging study revealed sac enlargement in 43 patients (15%), sac regression in 115 patients (40%), and neither enlargement nor regression in 137 (47%); 5 (2%) demonstrated both expansion and regression during follow-up. Freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement was 93%, 82%, and 80% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Overall, endoleaks were detected in 27 patients (63%) with sac enlargement and 143 patients (58%) without enlargement (P = .54). Sac enlargement was significantly more frequent among older patients (mean age at the index procedure, 70.2 ± 8.9 years vs 66.5 ± 11 years; P = .04) and those with type II endoleaks at 1 year (74% vs 52%; P = .031). Cox regression revealed age >70 years at baseline (hazard ratio [HR], 2.146; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.167-3.944; P = .010) and presence of type II endoleak at 1 year (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.07-4.79; P = .032) were independent predictors of sac enlargement. Patient survival was 92%, 81%, and 68% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Cumulative target vessel instability was 7%, and aneurysm-related mortality was 2% at 5 years. At least 42% of patients required secondary interventions. Sac enlargement did not affect patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Aneurysm sac enlargement occurs in 15% of patients after FBEVAR for PD-TAAs. Elderly patients (>70 years at baseline) and those with type II endoleaks at 1 year may need closer monitoring and secondary interventions to prevent sac enlargement. Despite sac enlargement in some patients, aneurysm-related mortality at 5 years remains low and overall survival was not associated with sac enlargement.

Effect of Family History of Aortic Disease on Outcomes of Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical significance of family history (FH) of aortic disease on the outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR) has not been well described. This study aimed to assess how FH of aortic disease affects outcomes following FB-EVAR for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs). METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in 10 ongoing, prospective, non-randomised, physician sponsored, investigational device exemption studies to evaluate FB-EVAR (2005 - 2022) in the United States Aortic Research Consortium database. Patients were stratified by presence or absence of FH of any aortic disease in any relative. Patients with confirmed genetically triggered aortic diseases were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events (MAEs) and late survival. Secondary outcomes included late secondary interventions and aneurysm sac enlargement. RESULTS: During the study period, 2 901 patients underwent FB-EVAR. A total of 2 355 patients (81.2%) were included in the final analysis: 427 (18.1%) with and 1 928 (81.9%) without FH of aortic disease. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and aneurysm extent were similar between the groups. Patients with FH of aortic disease more frequently had prior open abdominal aortic repair, but less frequently had prior endovascular aneurysm repair (p < .050). There were no statistically significant differences in 30 day mortality (4% vs. 2%; p = .12) and MAEs for patients with or without FH of aortic disease (12% vs. 12%; p = .89). Three year survival estimates were 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 - 0.78%) and 71% (95% CI 0.68 - 0.74%), respectively (p = .74). Freedom from secondary intervention and aneurysm sac enlargement were also not statistically significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: A family history of aortic disease had no impact on 30 day and midterm outcomes of FB-EVAR of CAAs. In the absence of an identified genetically triggered aortic disease, treatment selection for CAAs should be based on clinical risk and patient anatomy rather than FH of aortic disease.

Mid-term Renal and Mesenteric Artery Outcomes During Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Complex Abdominal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the United States Aortic Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To report mid-term outcomes of renal-mesenteric target arteries (TAs) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. BACKGROUND: TA instability (TAI) is the most frequent indication for reintervention after FB-EVAR. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients enrolled in 9 prospective nonrandomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 were reviewed. TA outcomes through 5 years of follow-up were analyzed for vessels incorporated by fenestrations or directional branches (DBs), including TA patency, endoleak, integrity failure, reintervention, and instability. RESULTS: A total of 1681 patients had 6349 renal-mesenteric arteries were targeted using 3720 fenestrations (59%), 2435 DBs (38%), and 194 scallops (3%). Mean follow was 23 ± 21 months. At 5 years, TAs incorporated by fenestrations had higher primary (95 ± 1% vs 91 ± 1%, P < 0.001) and secondary patency (98 ± 1% vs 94 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and higher freedom from TAI (87 ± 2% vs 84 ± 2%, P = 0.002) compared with TAs incorporated by DBs, with no differences in other TA events. DBs targeted by balloon-expandable stent-grafts had significantly lower freedom from TAI (78 ± 4% vs 88 ± 1%, P = 0.006), TA endoleak (87 ± 3% vs 97 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and TA reintervention (83 ± 4% vs 95 ± 1%, P < 0.001) compared with those targeted by self-expandable stent-grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of renal and mesenteric TA during FB-EVAR is safe and durable with high 5-year patency rates and low freedom from TAI. DBs have lower patency rates and lower freedom from TAI than fenestrations, with better performance for self-expandable stent grafts as compared with balloon-expandable stent grafts.

Selection criterion for endovascular aortic repair in those with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is the preferred method of repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a high-risk group, and it is unknown which patients with CKD benefit from EVAR vs continued surveillance. The purpose of this study was to identify which patients with advanced CKD may benefit from EVAR. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative Database was utilized to identify elective EVARs for AAAs. Patients were excluded if they underwent urgent or emergent repairs. CKD stages were categorized based on preoperative estimated glomular filtration rate (eGFR) and dialysis status. Predicted 1-year mortality of untreated AAAs was calculated by modifying a validated comorbidity score that predicts 1-year mortality (Gagne Index) without repair. The primary outcome was actual 1-year mortality, which was compared with the predicted 1-year mortality without repair. RESULTS: A total of 34,926 patient met study criteria. There were differences in Gagne Indices among the varying classes of CKD. Patients with CKD 4 and CKD 5 had the highest 1-year mortality rates, followed by CKD 3b, which was significantly higher than those with CKD 1 and CKD 2. Patients with CKD 4 had no differences between actual 1-year mortality with EVAR and predicted 1-year survival without EVAR across all AAA sizes. Those with CKD 5 had worse actual 1-year survival with EVAR than predicted 1-year survival without EVAR for AAAs <5.5 cm. Patients with CKD 5 only experienced an actual mortality benefit with EVAR compared with predicted 1-year mortality without EVAR for AAAs ≥7.0 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The current data suggest that patients with CKD 3b, 4, and 5 represent a high-risk group who may not benefit from elective EVAR utilizing traditional size criteria. Patients with CKD 4 and 5 with AAAs <5.5 cm do not benefit from elective EVAR. In patients with CKD 5, elective EVAR may need to be reserved for AAAs ≥7.0 cm unless there are other concerning anatomic characteristics.

Outcomes of carotid stenting in patients with fibromuscular dysplasia.

OBJECTIVE: Fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) is a noninflammatory arterial disease that affects the extracranial carotid arteries in young patients. The ideal treatment of FMD has continued to be debated, and the role of carotid artery stenting (CAS) is controversial. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of CAS for patients with FMD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone CAS was performed using the Vascular Quality Initiative database from December 2012 to May 2021. Patients who had undergone CAS for atherosclerosis and FMD were included and matched 1:1 by age, gender, and clinical presentation. The demographics, clinical parameters, and procedural data were analyzed. The end points included postoperative stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA), and adverse events (perioperative and 1-year mortality, neurologic changes, access site complications, hematoma or bleeding, infection, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, reperfusion symptoms), and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: After matching, 55 patients had undergone CAS for FMD (mean age, 58.7 ± 14 years; 62% women; 69% White; mean body mass index, 28 ± 6 kg/m2). Most of these procedures (69%) were elective. The FMD group had had a lower rate of hypertension (55% vs 82%; P = .002), smoking (35% vs 80%; P < .001), diabetes (13% vs 45%; P < .001), and coronary artery disease (9% vs 45%; P < .001) compared with the non-FMD group. In the FMD group, prior TIA and stroke was identified in 39 (71%) and 31 (57%) patients, respectively. The mean interval from a prior stroke or TIA to the index surgery was 160 days. Additionally, 23 patients (42%) had had anatomically high lesions above the level of the second cervical vertebra. In the FMD group, the transfemoral approach was used for 43 patients (78%), with distal embolic protection used for 40 patients (93%). Flow reversal was used for nine patients (23%). Most cases were performed with local anesthesia (58%). Three patients (6%) in the FMD group had had access site complications that were managed nonoperatively. No differences were found between the FMD and non-FMD groups in perioperative stroke, TIA, or 30-day mortality. The length of stay was similar between the two groups, and the 1-year survival was 100% for both groups. All the patients in the FMD group were discharged without neurologic complications, and 50 patients (91%) were receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. The median follow-up was 328 days (interquartile range, 1-732 days) with no mortality or reinterventions during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CAS for FMD is a feasible and safe procedure with favorable technical success, a low incidence of neurologic complications, and good clinical outcomes at 1 year of follow-up.

Chronic kidney disease impacts outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease are traditionally associated with worse outcomes after endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This study stratifies outcomes of AAA repair by approach, CKD severity, and dialysis dependence. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective infrarenal open aneurysm repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with preoperative renal function data captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative between January 2003 and September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were stratified by CKD class as follows: CKD stages 1 and 2, CKD stage 3a, CKD stage 3b, CKD stages 4 and 5, and dialysis. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year mortality. Predictors of survival were identified by Cox multivariate regression models. RESULTS: In total, 53,867 elective AAA repairs were identified: 5396 (10%) OARs and 48,471 (90%) EVARs. Most patients were White (90%) and male (81%), with a mean age of 73 ± 9 years. Patients who underwent EVAR were older and had more comorbidities. The use of elective EVAR for AAA increased from 52% in 2003 to 91% in 2020 (P < .001). The OAR cohort had more perioperative complications and short-term mortality. The CKD 1 and 2 group had the highest 1-year survival compared with the other groups after both OAR and EVAR. On Cox regression analysis, after EVAR, compared with CKD 1 and 2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3a: hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.68; P = .13; CKD 3b: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.45; P < .050; CKD 4-5: HR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.13-4.88; P < .001), and dialysis (HR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.90-10.6; P < .001) were independently associated with worse 1-year survival rates. After OAR, compared with CKD 1 and 2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3a: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96-1.20; P = .20; CKD 3b: HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.41-1.81; P < .001; CKD 4-5: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.39-3.41; P < .001), and dialysis (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 3.01-4.76; P < .001) were independently associated with worse 1-year survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the treatment approach, CKD severity is an important predictor of perioperative and 1-year mortality rates after infrarenal AAA repair and may reflect the natural history of CKD. Open repair is associated with high perioperative mortality risk in patients with CKD stages 4 and 5, as well as end-stage renal disease. Individualization of patient decision-making is especially important in patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 45 and perhaps consideration should be given to raising the threshold for elective AAA repair in these patients. Further studies focusing on appropriate size threshold for repair in these patients may be warranted.

Severity of acute kidney injury is associated with decreased survival after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently in complex aortic surgery and has been implicated in perioperative and long-term survival. This study sought to characterize the relationship between AKI severity and mortality after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR). METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled by the US Aortic Research Consortium in 10, prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies evaluating F/B-EVAR, between 2005 and 2023, were included in this study. Perioperative AKI during hospitalization was defined by and staged using the 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. Determinants of AKI were evaluated with backward stepwise mixed effects multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Survival was analyzed with conditionally adjusted survival curves and backward stepwise mixed effects Cox proportional hazards modelling. RESULTS: In the study period, 2413 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 74 years (IQR, 69-79 years) underwent F/B-EVAR. The median follow-up duration was 2.2 years (IQR, 0.7-3.7 years). The median baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine were 68 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR, 53-84 mL/min/1.73 m2) and 1.1 mg/dL (IQR, 0.9-1.3 mg/dL), respectively. Stratification of AKI identified 316 patients (13%) with stage 1 injury, 42 (2%) with stage 2 injury, and 74 (3%) with stage 3 injury. Renal replacement therapy was initiated during the index hospitalization in 36 patients (1.5% of cohort, 49% of stage 3 injuries). Thirty-day major adverse events were associated with AKI severity (all P ≤ .0001). Multivariable predictors of AKI severity included baseline eGFR (proportional odds ratio, 0.9 per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95 per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2]; P < .0001), baseline serum hematocrit (0.58 per 10% [95% CI, 0.48-0.71 per 10%]; P < .0001), renal artery technical failure during aneurysm repair (3 [95% CI,1.61-5.72]; P = .0006), and total operating time (1.05 per 10 minutes [95% CI, 1.04-1.07 per 10 minutes]; P < .0001). One-year unadjusted survivals for AKI severity strata were 91% (95% CI, 90%-92%) for no injury, 80% (95% CI, 76%-85%) for stage 1 injury, 72% (95% CI, 59-87%) for stage 2 injury, and 46% (95% CI, 35-59%) for stage 3 injury (P<.0001). Multivariable determinants of survival included AKI severity (stage 1, hazard ratio [HR], 1.6 [95% CI, 1.3-2]); stage 2, HR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.4-3.4]); stage 3 HR, 4 [95% CI, 2.9-5.5]; P < .0001), decreased eGFR (HR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.9-1.3]; P = .4), patient age (HR, 1.6 per 10 years [95% CI, 1.4-1.8 per 10 years]; P < .0001), baseline chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.3-1.8]; P < .0001), baseline congestive heart failure (HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.6-2.1]; P < .0001), postoperative paraplegia (HR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.1-4]; P = .02), and procedural technical success (HR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: AKI, as defined by the 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria, occurred in 18% of patients after F/B-EVAR. Greater severity of AKI after F/B-EVAR was associated with decreased postoperative survival. The predictors of AKI severity identified in these analyses suggest a role for improved preoperative risk mitigation and staging of interventions in complex aortic repair.

Aneurysm extent-based mortality differences in complex endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative and the United States Aortic Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular management of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAA) is becoming more common. Technological advances including custom devices under the Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption (PS-IDE), physician-modified endografts (PMEG), and parallel stenting techniques have expanded the extent of disease that is amenable to endovascular treatment. Patients within the PS-IDE studies are a highly selected group of patients, whereas patients treated with PMEG as captured within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI) represent a real-world experience. Research within both the SVS VQI on PMEG and the US Aortic Research Consortium (US-ARC) has demonstrated a relationship between extent of aneurysmal disease and mortality after complex endovascular TAAA repair, but no direct comparison of these cohorts has been conducted. In this study, we sought to compare outcomes of custom PS-IDE devices with off-label uses of commercially available devices for the endovascular management of TAAAs. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients presenting for elective endovascular TAAA repair for asymptomatic disease between 2011 and 2019 was conducted within both the SVS VQI registry and the US-ARC. Patients within the SVS VQI registry were treated with either PMEG or with parallel stenting techniques. Patients within the US-ARC were treated with PS-IDE custom devices. The extent of aneurysm disease was defined by the deployment zones documented for the devices entered in the registry using Crawford extents I to V. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 3212 patients were included in the study: 1571 PMEG/parallel stenting within the VQI registry and 1641 with PS-IDE within the US-ARC database. The majority of patients presented with extent IV aneurysms (n = 1827 [57%]), with extent IV aneurysms being slightly more prevalent within the US-ARC cohort. Maximal aneurysm diameter within each extent did not vary between the US-ARC and VQI cohorts. Across all patients, the 30-day mortality was 4.4% and the 1-year mortality was 12.2%. Unadjusted mortality at 30-days was 6.7% within the VQI, and 2.2% in the US-ARC (P < .001). The unadjusted 1-year mortality was 14.3% within the VQI and 10.2% within the US-ARC (P < .001). When adjusted for aneurysm extent, similar differences in 30-day and 1-year survivals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated in PS-IDE studies had better 30-day and 1-year survival rates compared with those treated with a similar extent of disease using off-label approaches in a real-world registry. These differences are complex and likely associated with a number of factors, including arterial anatomy, patient comorbidities, device construct, and volume outcomes, as well as complex and unmeasurable surgeon- and patient-specific factors.

Comparison of upper extremity and transfemoral access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The use of upper extremity (UE) access is an accepted and often implemented approach for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR). The advent of steerable sheaths has enabled the performance of F-BEVAR using a total transfemoral (TF) approach without UE access, potentially decreasing the risks of cerebral embolic events. The purpose of the present study was to assess the outcomes of F-BEVAR using UE vs TF access. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from nine physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at U.S. centers were analyzed using a standardized database. All patients were treated for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using industry-manufactured fenestrated and branched stent grafts between 2005 and 2020. The outcomes were compared between patients who had undergone UE vs total TF access. The primary composite outcome was stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) and 30-day or in-patient mortality during the perioperative period. The secondary outcomes included technical success, local access-related complications, and perioperative mortality. RESULTS: Among 1681 patients (71% men; mean age, 73.43 ± 7.8 years) who had undergone F-BEVAR, 502 had had CAAAs (30%), 535 had had extent IV TAAAs (32%), and 644 had had extent I to III TAAAs (38%). UE access was used for 1103 patients (67%). The right side was used for 395 patients (24%) and the left side for 705 patients (42%). UE access was preferentially used for TAAAs (74% vs 47%; P < .001). In contrast, TF access was used more frequently for CAAAs (53% vs 26%; P < .01). A total of 38 perioperative cerebrovascular events (2.5%), including 32 strokes (1.9%) and 6 TIAs (0.4%), had occurred. Perioperative cerebrovascular events had occurred more frequently with UE access than with TF access (2.8% vs 1.2%; P = .036). An individual component analysis of the primary composite outcome revealed a trend for more frequent strokes (2.3% vs 1.2%; P = .13) and TIAs (0.54% vs 0%; P = .10) in the UE access group. On multivariable analysis, total TF access was associated with a 60% reduction in the frequency of perioperative cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 0.39; P = .029). No significant differences were observed between UE and TF access in the technical success rate (96.5% vs 96.8%; P = .72), perioperative mortality (2.9% vs 2.6%; P = .72), or local access-related complications (6.5% vs 5.5%; P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: In the present large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, a total TF approach for F-BEVAR was associated with a lower rate of perioperative cerebrovascular events compared with UE access. Although the cerebrovascular event rate was low with UE access, the TF approach offered a lower risk of stroke and TIA. UE access will continue to play a role for appropriately selected patients requiring more complex repairs with anatomy not amenable to the TF approach.

Effect of bridging stent graft selection for directional branches on target artery outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair in the United States Aortic Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of directional branches (DBs) bridging stent choice on target artery (TA) outcomes during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Patients enrolled in nine prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies in the United States between 2005 and 2020 were analyzed. All patients who had at least one TA incorporated by DB using either self-expandable (SESGs), balloon-expandable (BESGs), or hybrid stent graft combinations (HSGs). Endpoints were TA patency and freedom from TA endoleak, instability, and reintervention. RESULTS: There were 800 patients with 2426 renal-mesenteric arteries incorporated by DBs. DB stent selection was SESGs in 1205 TAs (50%), BESGs in 1095 TAs (45%), and HSGs in 126 TAs (5%). SESGs were predominantly used in the first three quartiles of the study period, whereas BESGs comprised 75% of all stents between 2017 and 2020. The median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 6-35 months). At 5 years, BESGs had significantly lower freedom from TA instability (78% ± 4% vs 88% ± 1% vs 96% ± 2%; log-rank P =.010), freedom from TA endoleaks (87% ± 3% vs 97% ± 1% vs 99% ± 1%; log-rank P < .001), and freedom from TA reintervention (83% ± 4% vs 95% ± 1% vs 99% ± 2%; log-rank P <.001) compared with SESGs or HSGs, respectively. For renal arteries, there was no difference in freedom from TA instability for BESGs, SESGs, or HSGs. However, freedom from TA endoleaks and reintervention were lower for renal arteries targeted by BESGs compared with DBs targeted by SESGs and HSGs (83% ± 6% vs 98% ± 1% vs 100%; log-rank P < .001; and 70% ± 10% vs 92% ± 1% vs 96% ± 4%; log-rank P = .022). For mesenteric arteries, DBs targeted by BESGs had lower freedom from TA instability, endoleak, and reintervention than SESGs or HSGs. In stent-specific analysis, iCAST BESGs had the lowest freedom from TA instability either for renal or mesenteric arteries, primarily due to higher rates of TA endoleaks. There was no difference in patency in any scenario. Independent predictors of TA instability were age (+1-year: hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.99), stent diameter (+1 mm: HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80), and BESG (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9). CONCLUSIONS: DBs incorporated using BESGs had lower freedom from TA instability, TA endoleak, and TA reintervention compared with SESGs and HSGs. The patency of DBs was not affected by the type of stent construction. The observed performance disadvantage associated with BESGs appears to have largely been driven by iCAST usage.