Impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair timing on outcomes after uncomplicated type B aortic dissection in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative postapproval project for dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) after the onset of uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) postapproval study (VQI PAS) data for the impact of TEVAR timing for uTBAD on early and late outcomes, including mortality, procedural complications, and long-term reintervention. METHODS: The VQI PAS used for this analysis includes a total of 606 patients. Patients with uTBAD (defined as those without rupture or malperfusion) exclusive of cases categorized as emergent (N = 206) were divided into groups defined by the Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons reporting guidelines based on the timing of treatment after the onset of dissection: within 24 hours (N = 8), 1 to 14 days (N = 121), and 15 to 90 days (N = 77). Univariate and multivariable analysis were used to determine differences between timing groups for postoperative mortality, in-hospital complications, and reintervention. RESULTS: Demographics and comorbid conditions were very similar across the 3 TEVAR timing groups. Notable differences included a higher prevalence of baseline elevated creatinine (>1.8 mg/dL)/chronic end-stage renal disease and designation as "urgent" in the <24-hour group, as well as a higher rate of preoperative ß-blocker therapy in the 1- to 14-day group. Postoperative stroke, congestive heart failure, and renal ischemia were more common in the <24-hour group without an increase in mortality. Unadjusted 30-day mortality across groups was lowest in the early TEVAR group (0%, 3.3%, and 5.2%; P = .68), as was 1-year mortality (0%, 8.3%, and 18.2%; P = .06), although not statistically different at any time point. Reintervention out to 3 years was not different between the groups. Multivariable analysis demonstrated the need for a postoperative therapeutic lumbar drain to be the only a predictive risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio = 7.595, 95% confidence interval: 1.730-33.337, P = .007). When further subdivided into patients treated 1 to 7 days or 8 to 14 days after dissection, findings were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with uTBAD treated within 24 hours were unusual (N = 8), too small for valid statistical comparison, and likely represent a high-risk subgroup, which is manifested in a higher risk of complications. Although there was a trend toward improved survival in the acute (1- to 14-day) phase, outcomes did not differ compared with the subacute (15- to 90-day) phase with relation to early mortality, postoperative complications, or 1-year survival. These data suggest that the proper selection of patients for early TEVAR can result in equivalent survival and early outcomes.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Retrograde type A dissection in the Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for dissection postapproval project.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde dissection (RD) can be a serious complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), with retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) particularly life-threatening. Prior studies have suggested that treatment timing, anatomic characteristics, device selection, and procedural conduct of TEVAR performed for type B aortic dissection could mitigate the occurrence of RD. The Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR for Dissection Registry is an ongoing project meant to satisfy Food and Drug Administration requirements for postmarket approval surveillance of the Gore conformable TAG thoracic endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), Medtronic Valiant thoracic stent graft (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif), and Cook Medical dissection devices (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) and provides a unique source of evaluation for RTAD in a prospectively collected real-world registry. METHODS: A total of 588 consecutive patients at 49 institutions had undergone TEVAR for acute (<30 days; n = 336) and chronic (≥30 days; n = 252) type B aortic dissection were included. The occurrence of RD as reported by the participating centers and de-identified source documents were reviewed and confirmed independently by two of us (A.W.B. and G.W.). The demographics, procedural and device data, and anatomic considerations were evaluated, and the devices were grouped in a de-identified manner as Gore, Medtronic, and other. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 889 days (median, 658 days), and 408 patients had completed follow-up data available for >1 year. A total of 19 patients with RD (3.2%) were identified, 9 of whom had been treated for acute and 10 for chronic dissection, a 2.7% and 4.0% incidence, respectively (P = .48, acute vs chronic). Of the 19 RD cases, 15 were RTAD, 6 after treatment of acute and 9 after treatment of chronic dissection, a 1.8% and 3.6% incidence, respectively (P = .19, acute vs chronic). Five cases of RD had occurred intraoperatively (four of which were RTAD). The median time to RD and RTAD was 62 and 69 days, respectively (range, 0 to 1600 days). Of the 15 patients with RTAD, 12 had undergone surgical repair and 2 had not undergone repair; the treatment of one was unknown. The overall mortality was 33.3% (5 of 15). The factors associated with RTAD included more extensive dissection (mean, 5.6 zones without RTAD vs 8.5 zones with RTAD; P = .001), female sex (28.3% female without RTAD vs 53.3% with RTAD; P = .04), and non-White race (62.7% White without RTAD vs 33.3% White with RTAD; P = .05). Mean oversizing was not significantly different for those without RTAD compared with that for those with RTAD (14.0% vs 14.2%; P = .92). The device type was anonymized in this project; however, we found no significant differences between the Gore, Medtronic, and all other devices. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of RD in the present real-world postapproval project was consistent with that from previously reported studies, including highly controlled pivotal studies. Device type was not predictive of RD, and the newly identified risk factors for RTAD include more extensive dissection and a trend toward a greater risk for female sex and non-White race.

Thirty-day outcomes from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B dissection project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for dissection project is to assess the effectiveness of TEVAR for type B dissection by evaluation in a prospective quality improvement registry. Here we describe the project cohort and 30-day outcomes of TEVAR for both acute dissection (AD) and chronic dissection (CD) patients and focus specifically on outcomes of uncomplicated AD patients based on timing of treatment. METHODS: Summary statistics were performed comparing patients with AD (<30 days) and patients with CD. Both groups were further divided into those with complicated (ie, malperfusion or rupture) or uncomplicated presentation. Further subdivision of the uncomplicated AD patients into treatment at ≤48 hours, >48 hours to <7 days, ≥7 days to ≤14 days, and >14 days to <30 days was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 30-day survival and freedom from reintervention. RESULTS: Data for 397 patients (204 AD patients and 193 CD patients) were collected from 40 institutions. Overall, AD patients were younger than CD patients (58.8 vs 62.2 years; P = .003). Technical success, including coverage of the primary entry tear, was 98.0% for AD patients and 99.0% for CD patients, with a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality in AD patients (AD, 9.3%; CD, 5.2%; P = .126). Any degree of procedure-related spinal cord ischemia occurred in 4.4% of AD patients vs 2.1% of CD patients (P = .261), with a deficit at discharge in 3.4% of AD patients vs 0.5% of CD patients (P = .068). Disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of AD patients vs 1.6% of CD patients (P = .725); retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1.1% of AD patients vs 2.6% of CD patients (P = .412). There was a trend toward a lower freedom from reintervention in AD patients (90.7% vs 94.8%; P = .13). In uncomplicated AD patients, rapid aortic expansion was more common in the treatment groups of ≥7 days to ≤14 days and >14 days to <30 days compared with those treated within 7 days of dissection (P = .042). The uncomplicated AD cohorts based on timing of treatment were otherwise similar in demographics and presentation, with no significant differences in 30-day mortality or serious complications, such as spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or retrograde type A dissection. The 30-day reintervention rate for uncomplicated AD patients was 5.8%, with no apparent differences in reintervention rates according to timing of treatment of initial TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, AD patients demonstrated a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality and lower freedom from reintervention compared with CD patients. Mortality at 30 days after TEVAR for uncomplicated AD was 5.8%, and there were no clear patterns in mortality or reintervention based on timing of treatment. Further study and evaluation at longer follow-up are needed to determine the impact of timing of intervention in uncomplicated AD patients.

In Vivo Assessment of Ascending and Arch Aortic Compliance.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic compliance (Cd) of the adult thoracic ascending and arch aorta has had limited in vivo evaluation in patients with aortic disease. This study evaluates aortic compliance using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) across a range of thoracic aortic diseases. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients undergoing thoracic aortic endovascular procedures had Cd measurements of the ascending aorta proximal to the origin of the brachiocephalic trunk and distal to the origin of the left common carotid artery using IVUS before endograft deployment. Cd was calculated for each segment using the following equation, Cd = ΔD/(D • ΔP) where ΔD = change in aortic diameter, D = diameter in diastole, and ΔP = pulse pressure. RESULTS: Mean Cd of the ascending aorta in all patients (18.4%/mm Hg) and aortic arch (16.5 %/100 mm Hg) did not differ significantly. Compliance was significantly lower in patients being treated for thoracic aortic aneurysm and penetrating ulcer than in patients with traumatic rupture, acute and chronic dissection (P = 0.009). Compliance was significantly higher in patients with aortic transection compared with thoracic aneurysm or penetrating ulcer (P = 0.001). Compliance decreased with age by 0.44 ± 0.06 (P = 0.001) per year in the ascending aorta and 0.41 ± 0.05 (P = 0.001) per year in the aortic arch. Compliance did not increase with diameter when adjusted for age (P = 0.65). Compliance measured in the ascending aorta in 7 patients after descending thoracic aortic endograft repair decreased to 12.6%/100 mm Hg, although not significant (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Ascending and aortic arch compliance is significantly higher than reported for peripheral vessels. Thoracic aortic compliance decreases with age and is not related to aortic diameter. The results of the present study are important when considering the development of endoprosthesis devices and long-term effects on the thoracic aorta.

Results of the VALOR II trial of the Medtronic Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft.

BACKGROUND: The 1-year results of endovascular exclusion of degenerative descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTA) with the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) have been previously reported. With long-term follow-up now complete, the 5-year results are reported. METHODS: The VALOR II trial (Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft System in the Treatment of Descending Thoracic Aneurysms of Degenerative Etiology in Subjects Who Are Candidates for Endovascular Repair) was a prospective, nonrandomized trial of the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft system in patients with degenerative DTA. The trial involved 24 sites in the United States and enrolled patients between December 2006 and September 2009. Standard follow-up included physical examination, computed tomography, and chest radiography through 5 years. RESULTS: The study enrolled 160 patients. The average age was 72.2 years (range, 36-85 years), 95 (59%) were men, 150 (94%) had hypertension, and 26 (16%) had renal insufficiency. There were 50 patients (31%) who presented with symptoms; back pain was the most common (34 [68%]). The average aneurysm diameter was 57 mm (range, 32-96 mm). There were 103 patients (64%) with a fusiform aneurysm and 57 (36%) with a saccular aneurysm or penetrating ulcer. Two or more devices were implanted in 126 patients (79%), and the maximum number of grafts implanted was four. There were 54 deaths during the study. The 5-year actuarial survival was 64%. There were eight aneurysm-related deaths (5 deaths ≤30 days of implant), and the 5-year freedom from aneurysm-related death was 95%. There was one conversion to open repair at 36 months. Eleven patients underwent 13 secondary procedures (9 for endoleak, 3 for aneurysm expansion, and 1 rupture). Follow-up imaging was available at 5 years for 56 patients. The average aortic diameter decreased >5 mm in 27 patients (48%), increased >5 mm in 6 patients (11%), and remained unchanged in 23 (41%). CONCLUSIONS: The VALOR II 5-year results demonstrate that the reintervention and aneurysm-related death rates are low. The Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft is an effective treatment of degenerative DTA.

Innovative postmarket device evaluation using a quality registry to monitor thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the treatment of aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated postapproval studies have long been a mainstay of the continued evaluation of high-risk medical devices after initial marketing approval; however, these studies often present challenges related to patient/physician recruitment and retention. Retrospective single-center studies also do not fully represent the spectrum of real-world performance nor are they likely to have a sufficiently large enough sample size to detect important signals. In recent years, The FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health has been promoting the development and use of patient registries to advance infrastructure and methodologies for medical device investigation. The FDA 2012 document, "Strengthening the National System for Medical Device Post-market Surveillance," highlighted registries as a core foundational infrastructure when linked to other complementary data sources, including embedded unique device identification. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection project is an innovative method of using quality improvement registries to meet the needs of device evaluation after market approval. Here we report the organization and background of this project and highlight the innovation facilitated by collaboration of physicians, the FDA, and device manufacturers. METHODS: This effort used an existing national network of VQI participants to capture patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissection within a registry that aligns with standard practice and existing quality efforts. The VQI captures detailed patient, device, and procedural data for consecutive eligible cases under the auspices of a Patient Safety Organization (PSO). Patients were divided into a 5-year follow-up group (200 acute; 200 chronic dissections) and a 1-year follow-up group (100 acute; 100 chronic). The 5-year cohort required additional imaging details, and the 1-year group required standard VQI registry data entry. RESULTS: The sample size of patients in each of the 5-year acute and chronic dissection arms was achieved ≤24 months of project initiation, and data capture for the 1-year follow-up group is also nearly complete. Data completeness and follow-up has been excellent, and the two FDA-approved devices for dissection are equally represented. CONCLUSIONS: Although the completeness of long-term follow-up is yet to be determined, the rapidity of data collection supports the use of this construct for device assessment after market approval. The alignment of this effort with routine clinical practice and ongoing quality improvement initiatives is critical and has required minimal additional effort by practitioners, thus facilitating patient inclusion. Importantly, the success and development of this unique project has helped inform FDA strategy for future device evaluation after market approval.

Feasibility of endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies as part of an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of ascending aortic lesions has been reported, but to date, no FDA-approved studies have been conducted to define feasibility and the use of endografts in this particular location or to analyze the critical factors involved. METHODS: Patients were consented for entry into an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study to investigate the outcome of those with ascending aortic pathologies. These patients were suitable according to the instructions for use for endovascular repair with a Valiant Captivia (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) thoracic stent graft, a device designed specifically for deployment in the ascending aorta. All patients had sequential gated-cardiac computed tomography scans, with data being entered into the VQI Complex TEVAR software (West Lebanon, NH). All procedures were performed in a hybrid room, with the capability to convert to an open repair to ensure maximal patient protection. The first five patients constituted the feasibility study, with continued enrollment based on initial results and submission of an annual report to the FDA. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were screened, and six patients were entered into the physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study. Although there was no early mortality, there was one late death. All patients had sequential computed tomographies and cardiac echocardiograms with no evidence of migration, one type 1a endoleak, one postoperative stroke, and regression of the aortic lesions in the excluded aortic segment. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, the preliminary evaluation of endovascular treatment for ascending aortic pathologies demonstrates uniform accuracy of deployment and secure fixation up to 17.5 months of follow-up. There is positive remodeling of the excluded aortic segments similar to surveillance studies involving the descending aorta.

Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy in "normal-risk" patients from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Acceptable complication rates after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are drawn from decades-old data. The recent Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated improved stroke and mortality outcomes after CEA compared with carotid artery stenting, with 30-day periprocedural CEA stroke rates of 3.2% and 1.4% for symptomatic (SX) and asymptomatic (ASX) patients, respectively. It is unclear whether these target rates can be attained in "normal-risk" (NR) patients experienced outside of the trial. This study was done to determine the contemporary results of CEA from a broader selection of NR patients. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Registry was examined to determine in-hospital and 30-day event rates for NR, SX, and ASX patients undergoing CEA. NR was defined as patients without anatomic or physiologic risk factors as defined by SVS Carotid Practice Guidelines. Raw data and risk-adjusted rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) were compared between the ASX and SX cohorts. RESULTS: There were 3977 patients (1456 SX, 2521 ASX) available for comparison. The SX group consisted of more men (61.7% vs 57.0%; P = .0045) but reflected a lower proportion of white patients (91.3% vs 94.4%; P = .0002), with lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (P < .0001), prior MI (P < .0001), peripheral vascular disease (P = .0017), and hypertension (P = .029), although New York Heart Association grade >3 congestive heart failure was equally present in both groups (P = .30). Baseline stenosis >80% on duplex imaging was less prevalent among SX patients (54.2% vs 67.8%; P < .0001). Perioperative stroke rates were higher for SX patients in the hospital (2.8% vs 0.8%; P < .0001) and at 30 days (3.4% vs 1.0%; P < .0001), which contributed to the higher composite death, stroke, and MI rates in the hospital (3.6% vs 1.8; P = .0003) and at 30 days (4.5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001) observed in SX patients. After risk adjustment, the rate of stroke/death was greater among SX patients in the hospital (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.58) although not at 30 days (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-2.17). No in-hospital or 30-day differences were observed for death or MI by symptom status. CONCLUSIONS: The SVS Vascular Registry results for CEA in NR patients are similar by symptom status to those reported for CREST and may serve as a benchmark for comparing results of alternative therapies for treatment of carotid stenosis in NR patients outside of monitored clinical trials. The contemporary perioperative risk of stroke after CEA in NR patients continues to be higher for SX than for ASX patients.

The influence of contralateral occlusion on results of carotid interventions from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Data on the influence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are conflicting and are absent for carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study evaluated the influence of CCO on CEA and CAS. METHODS: We evaluated patients with and without CCO in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry. Primary outcome was a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and its individual components. Further analysis was done to identify the influence, if any, of symptom status on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 1128 CAS and 666 CEA patients with CCO. CAS patients were more often symptomatic with a greater incidence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and New York Heart Association class >III. Absolute risk of periprocedural MACE (2.7% for CAS vs. 4.2% for CEA), death (1.1% for CAS vs. 0.7% for CEA), stroke (2.1% for CAS vs. 3.1% for CEA), and MI (0.3% for CAS vs. 0.6% for CEA) was statistically equivalent for both. This equivalence was maintained when patients with CCO were segregated according to symptom status and after adjusting for periprocedural risk. There were 16,646 patients without contralateral occlusion (5698 CAS; 10,948 CEA). Patients without contralateral occlusion with CEA have better outcomes in periprocedural MACE (1.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 4.2% for patients with CCO), and stroke (1.1% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 3.1% for patients with CCO) (P < .0001 for both). In CAS patients, CCO did not significantly affect periprocedural MACE (3.2% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.7% for patients with CCO), death (0.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 1.0% for patients with CCO), stroke (2.3% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.1% for patients with CCO), or MI (0.6% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 0.3% for patients with CCO). In CEA patients, CCO increased MACE, primarily by increasing stroke rates in asymptomatic (0.7% vs. 2.0%; P = .0095) and symptomatic (1.7% vs. 4.9%; P = .0012) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA is preferred in patients without contralateral occlusion, regardless of symptom status, based on lower rates of periprocedural MACE, death, and stroke, the benefit of CEA is lost in patients with CCO because of increased stroke rates in CCO patients after CEA but not after CAS regardless of symptom status. The results of CAS and CEA in patients with CCO are equivalent and within acceptable American Heart Association guidelines.

Gender-specific 30-day outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Although the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis remains unclear, available data suggest that women have higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization. We used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry to determine the effect of gender on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: There were 9865 patients (40.6% women) who underwent CEA (n = 6492) and CAS (n = 3373). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no difference in age and ethnicity between genders, but men were more likely to be symptomatic (41.6% vs 38.6%; P < .003). There was a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, whereas men had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking history. For disease etiology in CAS, restenosis was more common in women (28.7% vs 19.7%; P < .0001), and radiation was higher in men (6.2% vs 2.6%; P < .0001). Comparing by gender, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point for CEA (women, 4.07%; men, 4.06%) or CAS (women, 6.69%; men, 6.80%). There remains no difference after stratification by symptomatology and multivariate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, real-world analysis, women and men demonstrated similar results after CEA or CAS. These data suggest that, contrary to previous reports, women do not have a higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization.

Fatigue and in vivo validation of a peritoneum-lined self-expanding nitinol stent-graft.

PURPOSE: To assess the fatigue and in vivo performance of a new stent-graft incorporating bovine peritoneum lining that is designed for application in peripheral vascular occlusive disease. METHODS: Bovine peritoneum-lined stent-grafts were subjected to accelerated in vitro pulsatile fatigue and axial/torsional fatigue testing designed to simulate 10 years of physiological strain on the devices. At specified times the devices were evaluated for stent fracture, suture failure, or tissue tearing. Seven dogs underwent bilateral common iliac artery (CIA) balloon angioplasty injury with unilateral placement of the peritoneum-lined stent-graft. Angiography and intravascular ultrasound were performed prior to treatment, after treatment, and prior to sacrifice at 30 days. Vessels were perfusion fixed and histologically evaluated at 5 regions: above stent, proximal stent, mid stent, distal stent, and below stent. RESULTS: No evidence of stent, suture, or tissue failure was present during or after pulsatile and axial/torsional fatigue testing. At 30±0.3 days after implantation, all vessels were patent. The average lumen area at explantation across stented vessels was 25.45 mm(2). Lumen areas tended to be reduced above (23.57 mm(2)) and below (24.17 mm(2)) the stent. Lumen areas were consistent across stented regions at explantation (proximal stent 27.80 mm(2), mid stent 25.88 mm(2), and distal stent 25.81 mm(2)). The mean neointimal area in peritoneum-lined stents was 2.02±1.52 mm(2), with a neointima:media ratio of 1.03±0.50. These values were significantly lower in the above and below stent areas than in the stented regions, but there was no difference in either measure within the proximal, mid, or distal stent. CONCLUSION: The custom-designed peritoneum-lined stent-graft is promising for clinical peripheral applications due to its ability to resist relevant long-term physiological stresses and outstanding short-term patency rates in canine implantations.

Results of a multicenter, prospective trial of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury (RESCUE trial).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early outcomes of patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injuries. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter trial using the Medtronic Valiant Captivia stent graft was conducted at 20 sites in North America. Fifty patients with blunt thoracic aortic injuries were enrolled between April 2010 and January 2012 and will be followed for 5 years. The injuries were classified into categories (grades I-IV) based on severity: intimal tear, intramural hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, or rupture. The primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were adverse events occurring within 30 days that were related to the procedure, device or aorta, and aortic-related mortality. Technical success was measured as successful device delivery and deployment. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent (38/50) of patients were male with mean age of 41 ± 17 years. Fifty-one Medtronic Valiant Captivia thoracic stent grafts and a single Talent thoracic stent graft were implanted within a median of 1.0 days following injury (mean, 1.8 ± 4.0 days). Seventy percent (35/50) of aortic injuries were grade III or higher, including one patient with free rupture. Mean injury severity score was 38 ± 14. Fifty-four percent of stent grafts were ≤26 mm (28/52). The left subclavian artery was completely covered in 40% of patients (20/50) and partially covered in 18% of patients (9/50). Four patients underwent subclavian artery revascularization: one at the time of the endograft procedure and three others after developing arm ischemia after the initial endograft procedure. Cerebral spinal fluid was drained in two patients. The median procedure time was 91 minutes, and median hospital stay was 12 days. There was 100% successful device delivery and deployment. Four (8%) patients died within 30 days. Nonfatal adverse events within 30 days that were related to the procedure, device, or aorta were experienced by 12% (6/50) of patients. No nonfatal adverse events related to the device were reported; a single death was conservatively adjudicated as device-, procedure-, and aorta-related because of insufficient information. No patient developed spinal cord injury, and there were no cerebrovascular accidents. However, one patient had an anoxic brain injury following aortic rupture. No patient underwent conversion to open repair or required an endovascular reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the early outcomes, the Medtronic Valiant Captivia stent graft appears to be a promising treatment modality for blunt thoracic aortic injuries. Long-term follow-up is necessary to substantiate the effectiveness of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injuries.

The impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services high-risk criteria on outcome after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the SVS Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require high-risk (HR) criteria for carotid artery stenting (CAS) reimbursement. The impact of these criteria on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS remains uncertain. Additionally, if these HR criteria are associated with more adverse events after CAS, then existing comparative effectiveness analysis of CEA vs CAS may be biased. We sought to elucidate this using data from the SVS Vascular Registry. METHODS: We analyzed 10,107 patients undergoing CEA (6370) and CAS (3737), stratified by CMS HR criteria. The primary endpoint was composite death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]) at 30 days. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes using univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: CAS patients were more likely to have preoperative stroke (26% vs 21%) or transient ischemic attack (23% vs 19%) than CEA. Although age ≥ 80 years was similar, CAS patients were more likely to have all other HR criteria. For CEA, HR patients had higher MACEs than normal risk in both symptomatic (7.3% vs 4.6%; P < .01) and asymptomatic patients (5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001). For CAS, HR status was not associated with a significant increase in MACE for symptomatic (9.1% vs 6.2%; P = .24) or asymptomatic patients (5.4% vs 4.2%; P = .61). All CAS patients had MACE rates similar to HR CEA. After multivariable risk adjustment, CAS had higher rates than CEA for MACE (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5), death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2), and stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI,1.0-1.7), whereas there was no difference in MI (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.3). Among CEA patients, age ≥ 80 (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.02-1.8), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.03-2.8), EF <30% (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.7), angina (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.9), contralateral occlusion (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.1-4.7), and high anatomic lesion (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.33-5.6) predicted MACE. Among CAS patients, recent MI (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-7.0) was predictive, and radiation (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8) and restenosis (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96) were protective for MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Although CMS HR criteria can successfully discriminate a group of patients at HR for adverse events after CEA, certain CMS HR criteria are more important than others. However, CEA appears safer for the majority of patients with carotid disease. Among patients undergoing CAS, non-HR status may be limited to restenosis and radiation.

Pathogenesis and management of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde type A aortic dissection is a feared complication of thoracic aortic endografting. The aim of this study was to review the incidence, etiology, and management of this life-threatening complication. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the literature in the last 10 years was performed. Data on retrograde type A aortic dissection from this literature search, along with authors' personal experience, provided the basis for this review. RESULTS: The incidence of retrograde type A aortic dissection ranges from 1.3% to 6.8%. In is most commonly associated with endografting of acute or chronic aortic dissection. Up to one third of patients will have this complication 3 months or later after the index procedure. Open surgical repair remains the "gold standard" for retrograde type A aortic dissection, although medical and endovascular approaches may be utilized in selected patients with prohibitive operative risk. Mortality remains high ranging from 20% to 57%. Potential etiologies of retrograde type A aortic dissection include aortic injury from catheter and wire or stent graft manipulation, poor perioperative antihypertensive control, inappropriate patient and device selection, aggressive balloon dilation, and stent graft oversizing. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde type A aortic dissection remains a deadly complication of thoracic aortic endografting. The high incidence of delayed type A aortic dissection underscores the importance of imaging follow-up in patients undergoing a thoracic endograft procedure.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Effects of sildenafil and/or muscle derived stem cells on myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that long-term oral daily PDE 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) counteract fibrosis, cell loss, and the resulting dysfunction in tissues of various rat organs and that implantation of skeletal muscle-derived stem cells (MDSC) exerts some of these effects. PDE5i and stem cells in combination were found to be more effective in non-MI cardiac repair than each treatment separately. We have now investigated whether sildenafil at lower doses and MDSC, alone or in combination are effective to attenuate LV remodeling after MI in rats. METHODS: MI was induced in rats by ligature of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Treatment groups were: "Series A": 1) untreated; 2) oral sildenafil 3 mg/kg/day from day 1; and "Series B": intracardiac injection at day 7 of: 3) saline; 4) rat MDSC (106 cells); 5) as #4, with sildenafil as in #2. Before surgery, and at 1 and 4 weeks, the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured. LV sections were stained for collagen, myofibroblasts, apoptosis, cardiomyocytes, and iNOS, followed by quantitative image analysis. Western blots estimated angiogenesis and myofibroblast accumulation, as well as potential sildenafil tachyphylaxis by PDE 5 expression. Zymography estimated MMPs 2 and 9 in serum. RESULTS: As compared to untreated MI rats, sildenafil improved LVEF, reduced collagen, myofibroblasts, and circulating MMPs, and increased cardiac troponin T. MDSC replicated most of these effects and stimulated cardiac angiogenesis. Concurrent MDSC/sildenafil counteracted cardiomyocyte and endothelial cells loss, but did not improve LVEF or angiogenesis, and upregulated PDE 5. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term oral sildenafil, or MDSC given separately, reduce the MI fibrotic scar and improve left ventricular function in this rat model. The failure of the treatment combination may be due to inducing overexpression of PDE5.

Patient outcomes and thoracic aortic volume and morphologic changes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with complicated chronic type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: True and false lumen changes and patient outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for patients with stable type B dissection have been described by the The Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) trial. However, these changes have not been described in TEVAR patients treated for complications of chronic dissection. METHODS: A single-institution study was conducted of 73 prospectively evaluated patients treated for complications of chronic type B dissection from 2002 to 2010. Spiral computed tomography reconstructions using M2S (Medical Media Systems, West Lebanon, NH) were analyzed for sequential changes in aortic volume and diameter during patient follow-up. Changes in aortic volume and diameter were tabulated as a percent change from preoperative values. Patient outcomes were determined by sequential evaluations postprocedure. RESULTS: TEVAR was successfully performed in 72 out of the 73 patients (99%). Indications for intervention were aortic enlargement (n = 62), failure of medical management (n = 7), and perforation (n = 4). The 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 14%; events were due to retrograde dissection (n = 4), cardiac-related (n = 4), and rupture (n = 2). Eleven out of the 72 patients (15%) required a secondary procedure for endoleak (n = 7) and persistent distal perfusion of the false lumen (n = 4). Mean percentage expansion of the thoracic true lumen was noted during the follow-up period: 38%, 46%, 71%, and 114% at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up, respectively. Concomitant regression of the thoracic false lumen of -65%, -68%, -84%, and -84% was observed at the same intervals, respectively. Patients with an initial extension of the thoracic dissection into the infrarenal aorta (n = 46) had an increase in mean percentage change of aortic diameter and volume to 21% and 17% at 1 year, respectively. By contrast, in the patient group without infrarenal dissection (n = 14), the infrarenal aortic diameter and volume remained relatively unchanged at 3% and -0.9%, respectively, at 1-year postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is a potential treatment option for patients experiencing complications of chronic type B dissection. During follow-up, there is a predictable expansion of the thoracic true lumen and regression of the thoracic false lumen. These findings correlate with those of the INSTEAD trial, which demonstrated false lumen regression and true lumen expansion in a cohort of patients with stable type B dissection. However, many patients with extension of thoracic dissection into the infrarenal aorta demonstrate continued aortic dilation and, on occasion, the need for secondary intervention for persistent distal perfusion. Further analysis is needed in this subgroup of patients so as to better determine potential predictors and the clinical significance of post-TEVAR infrarenal expansion. Moreover, further investigations may support a role for secondary endovascular intervention in remedying persistent infrarenal aortic expansion after TEVAR for chronic dissection.

Pivotal results for the Medtronic Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft System in the VALOR II trial.

OBJECTIVE: We report 30-day and 12-month results of endovascular treatment with the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft System (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) in patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms of degenerative etiology. The Valiant stent graft is an evolution of the Talent thoracic stent graft (Medtronic Vascular). METHODS: The VALOR II (Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft System in the Treatment of Descending Thoracic Aneurysms of Degenerative Etiology in Subjects Who Are Candidates for Endovascular Repair) was a prospective, nonrandomized, pivotal trial conducted at 24 U.S. sites with enrollment between December 2006 and September 2009. Standard follow-up examinations, including physical examination, computed tomography, and chest radiography, were at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually through 5 years. VALOR II outcomes were compared with those from the pivotal VALOR (Evaluation of the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms) trial of the Talent stent graft, which enrolled 195 patients with similar enrollment criteria. RESULTS: VALOR II enrolled 160 patients. Compared with VALOR patients, VALOR II patients had similar age and sex distribution but higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors and significantly more severe modified Society for Vascular Surgery/American Association for Vascular Surgery risk scores. Stent graft delivery and deployment were successful in 154 patients (96.3%). Outcomes at 30 days in VALOR II were perioperative mortality, 3.1%; major adverse events, 38.1%; paraplegia, 0.6%; paraparesis, 1.9%; and stroke, 2.5%. At 12 months, after the minimum sample size was reached, 151 patients were evaluated: aneurysm-related mortality was 4.0%, stent graft migration was 2.9%, and endoleak was 13.0%. Through 12 months, there were no ruptures, conversions to open surgery, secondary procedures due to endoleak >30 days, or loss of stent graft patency. The Valiant stent graft was statistically noninferior to the Talent stent graft in 12-month all-cause mortality (12.6% vs 16.1%) and exceeded the primary effectiveness goal of 12-month successful aneurysm treatment, defined as absence of aneurysm growth >5 mm and of secondary procedures for type I/III endoleak (97.4% vs 80.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The VALOR II 12-month results demonstrate that the Medtronic Valiant thoracic stent graft is a safe and effective treatment for patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms of degenerative etiology.

Results with the Talent thoracic stent graft in the VALOR trial.

OBJECTIVE: We report the 5-year outcomes of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) using the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) in patients considered low or moderate risk for open surgical repair. METHODS: The Evaluation of the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms (VALOR) trial was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, pivotal study conducted at 38 U.S. sites. Between December 2003 and June 2005, VALOR enrolled 195 patients who were low or moderate risk (0, 1, and 2) per the modified Society for Vascular Surgery and American Association for Vascular Surgery criteria. The patients had fusiform thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) and/or focal saccular TAAs/penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers. Standard follow-up interval examinations were conducted at 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Over the 5-year follow-up, 76 deaths occurred (43.9%). Freedom from all-cause mortality was 83.9% at 1 year and 58.5% at 5 years. Most deaths were due to cardiac, pulmonary or cancer-related causes. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality (ARM) was 96.9% at 1 year and 96.1% at 5 years. There was only 1 case of ARM after the first year of follow-up. Over the 5-year follow-up period, four patients were converted to open surgery and four patients experienced aneurysm rupture. The 5-year freedom from aneurysm rupture was 97.1% and the 5-year freedom from conversion to surgery was 97.1%. The incidence of stent graft migration (>10 mm) was ≤ 1.8% in each year of follow-up. The rate of type I endoleak was 4.6% at 1 month, 6.3% from 1 month to 1 year, and 3.8% during year 5. The rate of type III endoleak was 1.3% at 1 month, 1.9% from 1 month to 1 year, and 1.9% during year 5. Through 5 years, 28 patients (14.4%) underwent 31 additional endovascular procedures on the original target lesion. The 5-year freedom from secondary endovascular procedures was 81.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Through 5-year follow-up in patients who were candidates for open surgical repair, TEVAR using the Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System has demonstrated sustained protection from ARM, aneurysm rupture, and conversion to surgery, and durable stent graft performance. Close patient follow-up remains essential after TEVAR.