Five-year outcomes of endovascular treatment for aortic dissection from the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is an International prospective multicenter registry collecting real-world data on performance of Gore aortic endografts. The purpose was to analyze the long-term outcomes and patient survival rates, as well as device performance in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic and complicated or uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS: From August 2010 to October 2016, 5014 patients were enrolled in the GREAT registry. The study population were patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair for TBAD through 5-year follow-up (days 0-2006). The primary outcomes for this analysis were all-cause and aortic-related mortality, stroke, aortic rupture, endoleaks, migration, fracture, compression, and any reintervention through 5 years. RESULTS: We identified 265 patients. The mean age was 60.9 ± 11.9 years (range, 19-84 years; 211 males [79.6%]). Devices used were the Gore TAG and Conformable Gore TAG Thoracic Endoprosthesis. There were 228 patients (86.0%) who underwent primary endovascular treatment (144 off-label [54.3%]); 22 (8.3%) underwent reintervention after prior endovascular procedure and 15 (5.7%) underwent reintervention after prior open procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71.1%. Freedom from aortic-related mortality through 5 years was 95.8%. There was no significant difference in freedom from all-cause mortality during the follow-up period in complicated or uncomplicated disease. At 30 days and through 5 years, respectively, for all the following outcomes, the aortic rupture rate was 1.1% (n = 3) and 1.9% (n = 5). The stroke rate was 1.1% (n = 3) and 4.2% (n = 11). The spinal cord ischemic event rate was 1.5% (n = 4) and 2.6% (n = 7). Reinterventions were required in 6.4% (n = 17) and 21.1% (n = 56) of patients. The need for conversion to open repair was 0.4% (n = 1) and 2.6% (n = 7). Additional graft placement was required in 3 patients (1.1%) and 16 patients (6.0%). The endoleak rate at 30 days was 3.4% (n = 9); type IA (n = 1 [0.4%]), type IB (n = 4 [1.5%]), type II (n = 1 [0.4%]), type III (n = 1 [0.4%]), and unspecified (n = 4 [1.6%]). Through 5 years, the endoleak rate was 12.1% (n = 32); type IA (n = 7 [2.6%]), type IB (n = 10 [3.8%]), type II (n = 9 [3.4%]), type III (n = 2 [0.8%]), and unspecified (n = 12 [4.5%]). There were no cases of stent migration, compression or fracture through 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Results at the 5-year follow-up demonstrate that the use of the Gore TAG and Conformable Gore TAG Thoracic Endoprosthesis can be supported in treatment of TBAD (acute, chronic, complicated, and uncomplicated). These data demonstrate strong device durability, beneficial patient outcomes, and support for the treatment of thoracic aortic dissection with an endovascular approach. Complete 10-year follow-up in GREAT as planned will be advantageous.

Spinal cord ischemia and reinterventions following thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: The technical aspects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), specifically the location of proximal seal zone (PSZ) (need to cover the left subclavian artery [LSA]), distal seal zone (DSZ) (length of aortic coverage), benefit of LSA revascularization, and prophylactic lumbar drainage are still debated. Each of these issues has potential benefits but also has known risks. This study aims to identify factors associated with reintervention and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following TEVAR for acute TBAD with a zone 3 entry tear. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for TEVARs performed for acute TBAD with zone 3 entry tear, zone 3 proximal zone of disease, treated with TEVAR extending between zone 2 and zone 5. The primary outcomes were SCI and related reintervention. Secondary outcomes were stroke, arm ischemia, and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD). The exposure variables were PSZ 2 vs 3, DSZ 4 vs 5, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA revascularization. Univariate analyses were conducted with χ2 analysis, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate association with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 583 patients who met inclusion criteria, 266 had PSZ 2 and 317 had PSZ 3. On univariate analysis, PSZ 2 was associated with a higher rate of reintervention, but PSZ2 was not significant on multivariable analysis after accounting for age, sex, race, smoking, PSZ, DSZ, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA patency. PSZ 2 was not associated with SCI, arm ischemia, or RTAD. PSZ 2 was associated with a trend towards a higher rate of stroke. DSZ 4 and DSZ 5 were performed in 161 and 422 TEVARs, respectively, and DSZ 5 was associated with a higher rate of SCI on univariate (3 [1.9%] vs 39 [9.2%]; P = .01) and multivariable (odds ratio, 7.384; 95% confidence interval, 2.193-24.867; P = .001) analyses. Prophylactic lumbar drain placement was not statistically significantly associated with SCI, but lack of postoperative LSA patency was associated with SCI (odds ratio, 2.966; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-8.656; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that PSZ 2 was not associated with lower reinterventions or higher rates of SCI but trended towards a higher rate of stroke than PSZ 3. Additionally, DSZ 5 was strongly associated with SCI when compared with DSZ 4, highlighting the importance of limiting aortic coverage to coverage of the proximal entry tear when possible.

Endovascular treatment for thoracic aortic disease from the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is an international prospective multicenter registry collecting real-world data on performance of W. L. Gore thoracic and abdominal aortic endografts. This analysis evaluated the long-term differences in patient survival and device performance in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for any thoracic aortic pathology. METHODS: From August 2010 to October 2016, 5014 patients were enrolled in GREAT. The population of interest was comprised of only patients treated for thoracic aortic pathologies. Through 5 years, primary outcomes were all-cause and aortic-related mortality, stroke, aortic rupture, endoleaks, migration, fracture, compression, paraplegia, and any reintervention through 5 years, grouped by pathology. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rate and freedom from serious device- and aortic-related events. RESULTS: The 578 patients with thoracic aortic pathologies enrolled in GREAT and identified for this analysis were categorized by common pathologies: thoracic aneurysm (n = 239), thoracic dissection (n = 203), arch (n = 26), and other (n = 110). The mean age of this population was 66.1 ± 12.8 years, and 64.7% were male. Procedure survival was 99.7%. In the overall group, at index procedure to 30 days and 31 days to 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from all-cause mortality were 99.6% and 66.4%, respectively, and for aortic-related mortality were 97.7% and 94.6%, respectively. Aortic rupture rate was 0.5% (n = 3) at 30 days and 1.4% (n = 8) through 5 years. Stroke and spinal cord ischemic events were 1.9% (n = 11) and 1.6% (n = 9) at 30 days and at 5 years were 3.6% (n = 20), 0.5% (n = 3), respectively. Reinterventions were required in 7.3% (n = 42) at 30 days and 12.4% (n = 69) through 5 years. The number of patients with endoleaks at 30 days was 2.1% (n = 12): n = 3 (1.1%) for each of types IA, 1B, and II; n = 2 (0.3%) for type III; and n = 4 (0.7%) for unspecified. Through 5 years, the percentage of patients was 8.3% (n = 40): n = 15 (3.1%) for type IA; n = 10 (2.1%) for type IB; n = 11 (2.3%) for type II; and n = 9 (1.9%) for unspecified. One patient (0.2%) had stent migration at 30 days (aneurysm group); none were reported through 5 years. There were no incidents of stent compression or fracture from index procedure through 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Data herein demonstrates durability and support for treatment of thoracic aortic disease with the GORE TAG conformable thoracic stent graft, including no incidents of stent compression/fracture and high freedom from aortic-related mortality. The planned analysis of follow-up to 10 years in GREAT will be beneficial.

Prospective assessment of dynamic changes in frailty and its impact on early clinical outcomes following physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty, a predictor of poor outcomes, has been widely studied as a screening tool in surgical decision-making. However, the impact of frailty on the outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FBEVARs) is less well established. In addition, the changes in frailty during recovery after FBEVAR are unknown. We aim to assess the impact of frailty on outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing physician-modified FBEVARs for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, as well as the changes in frailty during follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in a single-center prospective Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption protocol (FDA# G200159) were evaluated. In addition to the baseline characteristics, frailty was assessed using the Hopkins Frailty Score (HFS) and frailty index (FI) measured by the Frailty Meter. Sarcopenia was measured by L3 total psoas muscle area (PMA). These measurements were repeated during follow-up. The follow-up HFS and FI were compared with baseline scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, whereas follow-up PMA measurements were compared with the baseline using the paired t test. The association between baseline frailty and morbidity was evaluated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Seventy patients were analyzed in a prospective Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption study from February 9, 2021, to June 2, 2023. At baseline, HFS identified 54% of patients as not frail, 43% as intermediately frail, and 3% as frail. Technical success of FBEVAR was 94% with one in-hospital mortality. Early major adverse events were seen in 10 (14.3%) patients. No difference in baseline FI was seen between patients with early morbidity and those without. Patients who were not frail per HFS were less likely to experience early morbidity (P = .033), and there was a significantly lower baseline PMA in patients who experienced early morbidity (P = .016). At 1 month, patients experienced a significant increase in HFS and HFS category (P = .001 and P = .01) and a significant decrease in sarcopenia (mean PMA: -96 mm2, P = .005). At 6 months, HFS and HFS category as well as PMA returned toward baseline (P = .42, P = .38, and mean PMA: +4 mm2, P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative frailty and sarcopenia were associated with early morbidity after physician-modified FBEVAR. During follow-up, patients became more frail and sarcopenic by 1 month. Recovery from this initial decline was seen by 6 months, suggesting that frailty and sarcopenia are reversible processes rather than a unidirectional phenomenon of continued decline.

Risk factors for stroke in penetrating cerebrovascular injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Penetrating cerebrovascular injuries (PCVI) are associated with a high incidence of mortality and neurological events. The optimal treatment strategy of PCVI, especially when damage control measures are required, remains controversial. The aim of this study was to describe the management of PCVI and patient outcomes at a level 1 trauma center where vascular injuries are managed predominantly by trauma surgeons. METHODS: An institutional trauma registry was queried for patients with PCVI from 2011 to 2021. Patients with common carotid artery (CCA), internal carotid artery (ICA), or vertebral artery injuries were included for analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital stroke or death. A subgroup analysis was completed of arterial repair (primary repair or interposition graft) vs ligation or embolization vs temporary intravascular shunting at the index procedure. RESULTS: We analyzed 54 patients with PCVI. Overall, the in-hospital stroke rate was 17% and in-hospital mortality was 26%. Twenty-one patients (39%) underwent arterial interventions for PCVI. Ten patients underwent arterial repair, six patients underwent ligation or embolization, and five patients underwent intravascular shunting as a damage control strategy with a plan for delayed repair. The rate of in-hospital stroke was 30% after arterial repair, 0% after arterial ligation or embolization, and 80% after temporary intravascular shunting. There was a significant difference in the stroke rate between the three subgroups (P = .015). Of the 32 patients who did not have an intervention to the CCA, ICA, or vertebral artery, 1 patient with ICA occlusion and 1 patient with CCA intimal injury developed in-hospital stroke. The mortality rate was 0% after arterial repair, 50% after ligation or embolization, and 60% after intravascular shunting. The rate of stroke or death was 30% in the arterial repair group, 50% in the ligation or embolization group, and 100% in the temporary intravascular shunting group. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of stroke and mortality were seen in patients requiring damage control after PCVI. In particular, temporary intravascular shunting was associated with a high incidence of in-hospital stroke and a 100% rate of stroke or death. Further investigation is needed into the factors related to these finding and whether the use of temporary intravascular shunting in PCVI is an advisable strategy.

Epidemiology, repair technique, and predictors of stroke and mortality in penetrating carotid artery injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Penetrating carotid artery injuries (PCAI) are significantly morbid and deadly, often presenting in extremis with associated injuries and central nervous system deficit. Repair may be challenging with arterial reconstruction vs ligation role poorly defined. This study evaluated contemporary outcomes and management of PCAI. METHODS: PCAI patients in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2018 were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between repair and ligation groups after additionally excluding external carotid injuries, concomitant jugular vein injuries, and head/spine Abbreviated Injury Severity score of ≥3. Primary end points were in-hospital mortality and stroke. Secondary end points were associated injury frequency and operative management. RESULTS: There were 4723 PCAI (55.7% gunshot wounds, 44.1% stab wounds). Gunshot wounds more frequently had associated brain (73.8% vs 19.7%; P < .001) and spinal cord (7.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001) injuries; stab wounds more frequently had jugular vein injuries (19.7% vs 29.3%; P < .001). The overall in-hospital mortality was 21.9% and the stroke rate was 6.2%. After exclusion criteria, 239 patients underwent ligation and 483 surgical repair. Ligation patients had lower presenting Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) than repair patients (13 vs 15; P = .010). Stroke rates were equivalent (10.9% vs 9.3%; P = .507); however, in-hospital mortality was higher after ligation (19.7% vs 8.7%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality was higher in ligated common carotid artery injuries (21.3% vs 11.6%; P = .028) and internal carotid artery injuries (24.5% vs 7.3%; P = .005) compared with repair. On multivariable analysis, ligation was associated with in-hospital mortality, but not with stroke. A history of neurological deficit before injury lower GCS, and higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) were associated with stroke; ligation, hypotension, higher ISS, lower GCS, and cardiac arrest were associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PCAI are associated with a 22% rate of in-hospital mortality and a 6% rate of stroke. In this study, carotid repair was not associated with a decreased stroke rate, but did have improved mortality outcomes compared with ligation. The only factors associated with postoperative stroke were low GCS, high ISS, and a history of neurological deficit before injury. Beside ligation, low GCS, high ISS, and postoperative cardiac arrest were associated with in-hospital mortality.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes after open conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair versus primary open aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: The use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, significant rates of late reintervention and aneurysm rupture have been reported after EVAR, resulting in the need for conversion to OAR (C-OAR). To assess the relative effects of C-OAR on patients, we compared the outcomes of these patients to those of patients who had undergone P-OAR. METHODS: The data from all patients who had undergone C-OAR and P-OAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database from 2003 to 2018 were queried. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the perioperative long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4763 patients were included (91.4%, P-OAR; 8.6%, C-OAR). C-OAR was associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7; P = .027) and renal complications (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2; P = .004) vs P-OAR. At 5 years, conversion was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001), aneurysmal rupture (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .007), and reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97; P = .022) compared with P-OAR. These results also persisted at 10 years, with conversion associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001), rupture (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .018), and reintervention (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have demonstrated that C-OAR is associated with a significantly higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with P-OAR. We found a significant increase in mortality, aneurysm rupture, and reintervention at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.

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.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of post-dissection and degenerative complex abdominal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has become a favorable treatment strategy for patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) who are high risk for open repair. Compared with degenerative aneurysms, post-dissection aneurysms can pose additional challenges for endovascular repair. Literature on physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for post-dissection aortic aneurysms is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR for degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. METHODS: A single-center institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients that underwent PM-FBEVAR between 2015 and 2021. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and clinical outcomes were compared between degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included technical success, major complications, endoleak, target vessel instability, and reintervention. RESULTS: Of the 183 patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR in the study, 32 had aortic dissections, and 151 had degenerative aneurysms. There was one 30-day death (3.1%) in the post-dissection group and eight 30-day deaths (5.3%) in the degenerative aneurysm group (P = .99). Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast usage were similar between the post-dissection and degenerative groups. Reintervention during follow-up (28% vs 35%; P = .54) and major complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Endoleak was the most common reason for reintervention, with the post-dissection group having a higher rate of type IC, II, and IIIA endoleaks (31% vs 3%; P < .0001; 59% vs 26%; P = .0002; and 16% vs 4%; P = .03). During the mean follow-up of 14 months, all-cause mortality was similar between the groups (12.5% vs 21.9%; P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: PM-FBEVAR is a safe treatment for post-dissection cAAAs and TAAAs with high technical success. However, endoleaks requiring reintervention were more frequent in post-dissection patients. The impact of these reinterventions on long-term durability will be assessed with continued follow-up.

Risk Factors for Cerebral Hyperperfusion Syndrome following Carotid Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) is a rare but known complication of carotid revascularization that can result in severe postoperative disability and death. CHS is a well-described sequela of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and, more recently, of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), but its incidence after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has not been delineated. The aims of this study were to determine the impact of procedure type (CEA versus TCAR versus TFCAS) on the development of CHS as well as to identify perioperative risk factors associated with CHS. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients aged ≥18 years who underwent CEA, TCAR, or TFCAS from 2015-2021. Emergent procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was postoperative development of CHS, defined as the presence of postoperative seizures, intracerebral hemorrhage due to hyperperfusion, or both. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with CHS. RESULTS: 156,003 procedures were included (72.7% CEA, 12.4% TCAR, and 14.9% TFCAS). The incidence of CHS after CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS were 0.15%, 0.18%, and 0.53%, respectively. There was no significant difference in risk of CHS after TFCAS compared to CEA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.92; P = 0.416), nor was there a difference between TCAR and CEA (OR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.57-1.45; P = 0.691). Perioperative risk factors associated with an increased risk of CHS included previous history of transient ischemic attack or stroke (OR: 2.50; 95% CI 1.69-3.68; P < 0.0001), necessity for urgent intervention within 48 hr (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.43-2.89; P < 0.0001), treatment of a total occlusion (OR: 3.80; 95% CI 1.16-12.47; P = 0.028), and need for postoperative intravenous blood pressure medication (OR: 5.45; 95% CI 3.97-7.48; P < 0.0001). Age, preoperative hypertension, degree of ipsilateral stenosis less than or equal to 99%, and history of prior carotid procedures were not statistically associated with an increased risk of CHS. Discharging patients on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker was associated with a decreased risk of developing CHS (OR: 0.47; 95% CI 0.34-0.65; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CEA, TCAR and TFCAS were not statistically associated with an increased risk of postoperative CHS. Patients with a previous history of transient ischemic attack or stroke, who require urgent intervention or postoperative intravenous blood pressure medication, or who are treated for a total occlusion are at a higher risk of developing CHS. Using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker on discharge appears to be protective against CHS and should be considered for the highest risk patients.

Risk of Stroke with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of the Aortic Arch.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch is increasingly being performed and novel endografts have been developed for this procedure, but the association of stroke and relative risk of procedural techniques remains unclear. This study evaluates the procedural risk factors for stroke and mortality with zone 0-2 TEVAR. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR with proximal landing in zone 0-2 from 2013 to 2022. Emergent and ruptured cases were excluded. Primary exposure variables included proximal seal zone (0-2) and branch vessel revascularization technique: open debranching/bypass, total endovascular incorporation, or combination (at least 1 branch open and 1 branch endovascular). The primary outcome was perioperative inhospital stroke and the secondary outcome was inhospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 4,355 cases were analyzed with 350 in zone 0 (8%), 513 in zone 1 (12%), and 3,492 in zone 2 (80%). For zone 0, 1, and 2, the stroke rates were 11.1%, 5.3% and 4.7% (P < 0.0001) and inhospital mortality rates were 6.9%, 5.3% and 3.5% (P = 0.002), respectively. Branch vessel revascularization technique was associated with stroke in zone 0 with a 3-fold higher stroke rate for total endovascular incorporation of branches compared to combination and open techniques (P = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, zone 0 was independently associated with a greater than 2-fold increased odds of stroke compared to zone 2 (95% CI 1.4-3.2, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke rate was 2-3 times higher for zone 0 TEVAR compared to zones 1 and 2. Within zone 0, total endovascular branch incorporation was associated with a 3-fold higher stroke rate than open and combination techniques. Future device design modifications and novel endovascular strategies for stroke prevention are required to make total endovascular repair of the aortic arch an acceptable alternative to combination and open debranching/bypass techniques.

Transposition of anomalous left vertebral to carotid artery during the management of thoracic aortic dissections and aneurysms.

OBJECTIVES: Preservation of antegrade flow to the left vertebral artery (LVA) is often achieved by transposition or bypass to the left subclavian artery during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair. An anomalous LVA (aLVA) originating directly from the aortic arch is a common arch variant with a reported incidence of 4% to 6%. In addition, 6% to 10% of vertebral arteries terminate in a posterior inferior cerebellar artery, increasing the risk of stroke if not revascularized. Few series of aLVA to carotid transposition have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent aLVA to carotid transposition for the management of aortic disease. METHODS: A retrospective review of all aLVA-carotid transpositions performed for the management of thoracic aortic dissection or aneurysm at a single center from 2018 to 2021 was performed. The primary outcomes were postoperative stroke and patency of the transposed aLVA. Secondary outcomes were spinal cord ischemia, postoperative cranial nerve injury, and Horner's syndrome. RESULTS: Seventeen patients underwent aLVA to carotid transposition as an adjunct to management of aortic disease during the study period. Most were men (n = 14) and the mean age was 54 ± 16 years. The primary indication for aortic repair was dissection in 10, aneurysm in 6, and Kommerell diverticulum in 1. Nine patients underwent zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair, seven received open total arch repair, and there was one attempted total endovascular arch repair that was aborted owing to unfavorable anatomy. Twelve transpositions were performed before or concomitant with planned aortic repair owing to high-risk cerebrovascular anatomy (three posterior inferior cerebellar artery termination, six dominant aLVA, four intracranial LVA stenosis), and two were performed postoperatively for treatment of type II endoleak. LVA diameter ranged from 2 to 6 mm (mean, 3.3 mm). The mean operative time for transposition was 178 ± 38 minutes, inclusive of left subclavian artery revascularization, and the mean estimated blood loss was 169 ± 188 mL. No patients experienced 30-day postoperative spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or mortality. There were two cases of postoperative hoarseness, presumably owing to recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, both of which resolved within 4 months. There were no cases of Horner's syndrome. At follow-up (mean, 306 days; range, 6-714 days), all transpositions were patent. CONCLUSIONS: Vertebral-carotid transposition is a safe and effective adjunct in the management of aortic disease with anomalous origin of the LVA.

Impact of high-risk features and timing of repair for acute type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: The new Society for Vascular Surgery/Society for Thoracic Surgery reporting standards for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) categorize clinical presentations of aortic dissection into uncomplicated, high-risk features (HRF), and complicated groups. Although it is accepted that complicated dissections require immediate repair, the optimal timing of repair for HRF has yet to be established. This study aims to identify the ideal timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for HRF, as well as outcomes associated with specific HRF. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for TEVARs performed for acute and subacute TBAD with HRF from 2014 to 2020. Rupture, malperfusion, and uncomplicated patients were excluded. HRF were defined per the guidelines as refractory hypertension, pain, or rapid expansion/aneurysm of more than 40 mm. The primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and 1-year survival with primary exposure variables being days from symptoms to repair and number of HRFs. Secondary outcomes were spinal cord ischemia, stroke, and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD). RESULTS: Of the 1100 patients who met inclusion criteria, 811 had one HRF, 249 had two, and 40 had three. There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes based on number of HRFs. There were 309 patients who underwent repair at 0 to 2 days, 262 at 3 to 6 days, 270 at 7 to 14 days, and 259 at 15 days or more. TEVAR performed at 15 days or more was independently associated with lower in-hospital/30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.38; P = .0388) and improved 1-year survival. Postoperative stroke was associated with earlier repair (0-2 days). There was no association of timing of repair with spinal cord ischemia, retrograde type A dissection or reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for TBAD with HRF delayed at least 15 days from symptom onset is associated with improved survival, supporting the theory that it is best to delay TEVAR until the subacute phase. Additionally, TEVAR delayed at least 3 days is associated with a decrease in stroke. Having more than one HRF was not associated statistically with worse outcomes. Because the classification of HRF is relatively new and without guidelines for repair, this study highlights the risks of early intervention for HRF and suggests that these patients seem to benefit from at least a short stabilization period before TEVAR.

Role of volume in small abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Current management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) primarily involves serial imaging surveillance of maximum transverse diameter (MTD) to estimate rupture risk. Other measurements, such as volume and tortuosity, are less well-studied and may help characterize and predict AAA progression. This study evaluated predictors of AAA volume growth and discusses the role of volume in clinical practice. METHODS: Subjects from the Non-invasive Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Clinical Trial (baseline AAA MTD, 3.5-5.0 cm) with ≥2 computed tomography scans were included in this study (n = 250). Computed tomography scans were conducted approximately every 6 months over 2 years. MTD, volume, and tortuosity were used to model growth. Univariable and multivariable backwards elimination least squares regressions assessed associations with volume growth. RESULTS: Baseline MTD accounted for 43% of baseline volume variance (P < .0001). Mean volume growth rate was 10.4 cm3/year (standard deviation, 8.8 cm3/year) (mean volume change +10.4%). Baseline volume accounted for 30% of volume growth variance; MTD accounted for 13% of volume growth variance. More tortuous aneurysms at baseline had significantly larger volume growth rates (difference, 32.8 cm3/year; P < .0001). Univariable analysis identified angiotensin II receptor blocker use (difference, -3.4 cm3/year; P = .02) and history of diabetes mellitus (difference, -2.8 cm3/year; P = .04) to be associated with lower rates of volume growth. Baseline volume, tortuosity index, current tobacco use, and absence of diabetes mellitus remained significantly associated with volume growth in multivariable analysis. AAAs that reached the MTD threshold for repair had a wide range of volumes: 102 cm3 to 142 cm3 in female patients (n = 5) and 105 cm3 to 229 cm3 in male patients (n = 20). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline AAA volume and MTD were found to be moderately correlated. On average, AAA volume grows about 10% annually. Baseline volume, tortuosity, MTD, current tobacco use, angiotensin II receptor blocker use, and history of diabetes mellitus were predictive of volume growth over time.

Comparative early results of in situ fenestrated endovascular aortic repair and other emergent complex endovascular aortic repair techniques for ruptured suprarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms at a regional aortic center.

INTRODUCTION: Emergent endovascular repair of suprarenal (SRAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) poses a significant challenge due to the need for branch vessel incorporation, time constraints, and lack of dedicated devices. Techniques to incorporate branch vessels have included parallel grafting, physician-modified endografts, double-barrel/reversed iliac branch device, and in situ fenestration (ISF). This study describes a single-center experience and the associated outcomes when using these techniques for ruptured SRAAAs and TAAAs. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent endovascular repair of ruptured SRAAAs and TAAAs from July 2014 to March 2021 with branch vessel incorporation was performed. Clinical presentation, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of those who underwent ISF were compared with those who underwent repair using non-ISF techniques. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were major adverse events including myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, renal dysfunction, new onset dialysis, bowel ischemia, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia. RESULTS: Forty-two patients underwent endovascular repair for ruptured SRAAAs and TAAAs, 18 of whom underwent ISF repair. Seventy-two percent of ISF patients were hypotensive before surgery, compared with 46% of the patients who underwent repair using non-ISF techniques (physician-modified endografts, parallel grafting, or double-barrel/reversed iliac branch device). The total procedural and fluoroscopy times were similar between the two groups despite a greater mean number of branch vessels incorporated with the ISF technique (3.1 vs 2.2 per patient, P = .015). In-hospital mortality was 19% for all ruptures and 25% for ruptures with hypotension. Compared with the non-ISF group, in-hospital mortality trended lower in the ISF group (11% vs 25%, P = .233), reaching statistical significance when comparing patients who presented with hypotension (8% vs 45%, P = .048). The rate of major adverse events was 57% across all techniques and did not significantly differ between the ISF and non-ISF groups, with postoperative renal dysfunction being the most frequent complication (48%). Overall, ISF became the most commonly used technique later in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although emergent endovascular repair of ruptured SRAAAs/TAAAs remains a challenge, a number of techniques are available for expeditious treatment. In this series, ISF was associated improve survival, including a fivefold reduction in mortality in patients presenting with hypotension, and has now become the dominant technique at our center. Despite these advantages, postoperative complications and reinterventions are common. Further experience and longer-term follow-up are needed to validate these initial results and assess durability.

Differences in Mid-Term Outcomes Between Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aneurysm or Acute Aortic Syndromes: Report From the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

PURPOSE: To analyze differences in baseline characteristics, overall mortality, device-related mortality, and re-intervention rates in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) with atherosclerotic/degenerative cause or acute aortic syndrome (AAS), using the Global Registry For Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients submitted to TEVAR for AAS or DTAA, included in GREAT, were eligible for this analysis. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30-day aorta-related mortality and re-intervention rate, 1-year and 3-year all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality and re-intervention rate. RESULTS: Five-hundred and seventy-five patients were analyzed (305 DTAA and 270 AAS). Thirty-day mortality rate was 1.3% and 1.8% for DTAA and AAS, respectively (p=0.741). One-year and 3-year mortality rates were 6.2% versus 9.3 and 17.3% versus 15.9% for DTAA and AAS, respectively (p=0.209 and p=0.655, respectively). Aorta-related mortality rates at 30 days, 1 year and 3 years were 1.3%, 1.3%, and 2.6% for DTAA, 1.8%, 4.2%, and 4.2% for AAS (p=ns). Re-intervention rates at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years were 1.3%, 4.3%, and 7.5% for DTAA, 3.3%, 8.1%, and 10.7% for AAS (p=ns). Furthermore, a specific analysis with similar outcomes was performed dividing follow-up in 3 periods (1-30 days, 31-365 days, 366-1096 days) and describing mutual differences between 2 groups and temporal trends in each group. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent TEVAR for DTAA or AAS experienced different mortality and re-intervention rates among years during mid-term follow-up. Although all-cause related deaths within 30 days were TEVAR-related, aorta-related deaths were more common for AAS patients within 1 year. A greater re-intervention rate was described for AAS patients, although only 1 year after TEVAR.

Renal Artery Aneurysms in the Inpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: The risk of rupture of renal artery aneurysms (RAAs) remains undefined. A recent paper from the Vascular Low-Frequency Disease Consortium (VLFDC) identified only 3 ruptures in 760 patients. However, over 80% of patients in the VLFDC study were treated at large academic centers, which may not reflect the pattern of care of RAAs nationwide. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern of nonelective versus elective surgery requiring inpatient admission for RAAs, including nephrectomies, and their outcomes using a national database. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2012 to 2018 was utilized. Patients with a primary diagnosis of RAAs were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. Ruptured RAAs (rRAAs) were identified utilizing surrogate ICD codes. The primary outcome variables for this study were proportion of RAAs requiring non-elective surgery and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 590 inpatient admissions for RAA were identified with 554 procedures at 467 hospitals across the country. Of the 590 inpatient admissions, 380 (64.4%) admissions were deemed nonelective. There was an increasing proportion of nonelective admissions over the study period. The overall rate of nephrectomies was 7.1% (n = 42). In-hospital mortality rate for the cohort was 1.4% (n = 8) with no differences in in-hospital mortality in the elective versus nonelective setting (1.0% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.718). In the nonelective setting, patients requiring a nephrectomy (n = 23) had significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality compared those not requiring a nephrectomy (8.7% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.045). rRAA (n = 50) patients had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to the remainder of the cohort (6.0% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.024). rRAA patients were also more likely to undergo a nephrectomy compared to the remainder of the cohort (16.0% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that treatment of RAAs are primarily done in the nonelective setting with a high proportion of ruptures, which could continue to rise as the threshold for repair has decreased.

Early Results and Technical Tips of Combining Iliac Branch Endoprostheses with Fenestrated Aortic Stent Grafts during Endovascular Repair of Complex Abdominal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant iliac artery aneurysms can pose challenges during repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In fenestrated aortic aneurysm repairs (FEVAR), preservation of internal iliac perfusion is important to minimize risk of spinal cord ischemia. Currently, most commonly used fenestrated stent grafts and the only approved iliac branch devices are manufactured by different companies in the United States. We report our experience with combining Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) (W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) and fenestrated stent grafts, using the Zenith platform (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN). METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent FEVAR at a single institution from September, 2015 to June, 2020 was performed. Patients were deemed high-risk for open repair. Fenestrated aortic components implanted were either physician-modified or custom manufactured. Cases in which IBEs were deployed during FEVAR were specifically reviewed. Anatomic details were obtained from preoperative CT scans. Postoperative outcomes such as mortality, technical success, major adverse events, limb patency, limb-related endoleaks and re-intervention rates were assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, 171 patients underwent FEVAR at our institution. Among those, 15 patients had unilateral IBE implantation during FEVAR, while one received bilateral IBE implantation. Fourteen cases involved physician-modified fenestrated endograft, and Zenith Fenestrated (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in combination with Excluder bifurcated main body and IBE (W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ). Mean operative, and fluoroscopy times were 340.2 minutes, and 65.4 minutes respectively. A total of 67 viscerorenal target vessels (mean = 3.9, range =_3-5) and 15 internal iliac arteries were incorporated, with a mean of 160 cc contrast used. Completion angiograms were free of type 1 and type 3 endoleaks. Technical success was 100%. There was no perioperative mortality. One patient developed spinal cord ischemia post-operative day two with neurological recovery. At mean follow-up of 430 days, overall survival was 100% with no aneurysm-related mortalities. Limb patency remained 100%. There were no type 3 endoleaks while one patient had a type 1B endoleak that is currently being monitored. There was one re-intervention for type 1C renal branch graft endoleak. CONCLUSION: Combining IBE with FEVAR allows internal iliac preservation during endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, with encouraging early results.

Impact of Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Anemic Patients Undergoing Infra Inguinal Bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who present with lower extremity ischemia are frequently anemic and the optimal transfusion threshold for this cohort remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the impact of blood transfusion on postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, stroke, congestive heart failure, and 30-day mortality for these patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent infra-inguinal bypass at our institution from 2011 to 2020 were included. Perioperative red blood cell transfusion was the primary exposure, and the primary outcome was MACE. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess the impact of patient and procedural variables, including red blood cell transfusion, stratified by hemoglobin (Hgb) nadir: <7, 7-8, and >8 g/dL. RESULTS: Of the 287 patients reviewed for analysis, 146 (50.9%) had a perioperative transfusion (mean: 1.6 ± 3 units). Patients who received a transfusion had a mean nadir Hgb of 8.3 ± 1.0 g/dL, compared to 10.1 ± 1.7 g/dL without a transfusion. The overall incidence of MACE was 15.7% (45 of 287 patients). Univariate analysis demonstrated that MACE was associated with blood transfusion (P = 0.009), lower Hgb nadir (P = 0.02), and higher blood loss (P = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, transfusion was independently associated with MACE for patients with a Hgb nadir >8 g/dL (OR: 3.09; P = 0.006), but not for patients with Hgb nadir 7-8 g/dL (OR: 0.818; P = 0.77). Additionally, patients with MACE had significantly longer length of hospital stay than for patients without (13 vs. 7.7 days, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing infra-inguinal bypass, receiving a red blood cell transfusion with a Hgb nadir >8 g/dL was associated with a 3-fold increase in MACE, with nearly twice the length of stay. For patients with a Hgb 7-8 g/dL, transfusion did not increase or reduce the incidence of MACE. These findings suggest no benefit of blood transfusion for patients with Hgb nadir >7 g/dL and harm for Hgb >8 g/dL, however causation cannot be proven due to the retrospective nature of the study and randomized studies are needed to confirm or refute these findings.

Risk of renal failure and death when renal arteries are involved in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular abdominal aortic repair can involve the incorporation of renal arteries. Revascularization after intentional or unintentional renal artery (RA) coverage is not always technically successful, and the loss of a single RA may result in the need for postoperative dialysis. Thus, we compared the outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) stratified by RA involvement (RAI). METHODS: Patient data from the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2009 to 2018 registry were analyzed. The exclusion criteria were preoperative dialysis, missing RAI data, and repair above the superior mesenteric artery. The repair type cohorts were defined as (1) no RAI (NRAI), (2) RAI with revascularization (RAI-R), and (3) RAI with no revascularization (RAI-NR). A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding ruptured presentations. The primary outcome was the need for postoperative dialysis. The secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, dialysis at follow-up, postoperative renal function, and 2-year survival. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the independent predictors for postoperative dialysis. The 2-year survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 54,020 patients in the EVAR and TEVAR (thoracic EVAR)/complex EVAR modules in the Vascular Quality Initiative, 25,724 met the criteria for inclusion (NRAI, n = 24,879; RAI-R, n = 733; RAI-NR, n = 112). The demographics and comorbidities were similar among the three groups. The RAI-NR group had more frequently had ruptured or symptomatic aneurysms. The postoperative dialysis requirement was higher in the RAI-NR group (NRAI, 0.7%; RAI-R, 2.2%; RAI-NR, 17%; P < .0001), as were the 30-day mortality and dialysis requirement at follow-up. On multivariate analysis, RAI-R (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; P = .03) and RAI-NR (OR, 5.9; P < .0001) were independent predictors of postoperative dialysis and remained so after excluding ruptured presentations (RAI-R: OR, 3; P = .003; RAI-NR: OR, 22.3; P < .0001). Other independent predictors of the need for postoperative dialysis were worse preoperative renal function, a symptomatic presentation, any preoperative or intraoperative blood transfusion, and larger blood loss (≥200 mL). Excluding those with rupture, the overall survival at 2 years on Kaplan-Meier analysis was lower for the RAI-NR group (NRAI, 92%; RAI-R, 89%; RAI-NR, 80%; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: RAI is highly predictive of the need for postoperative and permanent dialysis after EVAR. RAI-NR was associated with lower overall survival. These risks should be considered when planning and performing EVAR and should be weighed against the risks of open repair when considering the treatment options.