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

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

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

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

Neuroprotective association of preoperative renin-angiotensin system blocking agents use in patients undergoing carotid interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal medical management strategy in the periprocedural period for patients undergoing carotid artery interventions is not well described. Renin-angiotensin-system blocking (RASB) agents are considered to be among the first line anti-hypertensive agents; however, their role in the perioperative period is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of RASB agents on periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing carotid interventions-carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS), and transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHOD: The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing CAS, CEA, and TCAR between 2003 and 2020. Patients were stratified into two groups based upon their use of RASB agents in the periprocedural period. The primary endpoint was periprocedural neurologic events (including both strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs)). The secondary endpoints were peri-procedural mortality and significant cardiac events, including myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, and congestive heart failure. RESULTS: Over 150,000 patients were included in the analysis: 13,666 patients underwent TCAR, 13,811 underwent CAS, and 125,429 underwent CEA for carotid artery stenosis. Overall, 52.2% of patients were maintained on RASB agents. Among patients undergoing CEA, patients on RASB agents had a significantly lower rate of periprocedural neurologic events (1.7% versus 2.0%, p =0.001). The peri-procedural neurological event rate in the TCAR cohort was similarly reduced in those treated with RASB agents, but did not reach statistical significance (2.0% vs 2.4%, p = 0.162). Among patients undergoing CAS, there was no difference in perioperative neurologic events between the RASB treated and untreated cohorts (3.4% vs 3.2%, p = 0.234); however, the use of RASB agents was significantly associated with lower mortality (1.2% vs 1.7%, p =0.001) with CAS. The use of preoperative RAS-blocking agents did not appear to affect the overall rates of adverse cardiac events with any of the three carotid intervention types, or periprocedural mortality following CEA or TCAR. On multivariable analysis, the use of RAS-blocking agents was independently associated with lower rates of post-procedural neurologic events in patients undergoing CEA (OR 0.819, CI 0.747-0.898; p = 0.01) and TCAR (OR 0.869, CI 0.768-0.984; p = 0.026), but not in those undergoing CAS (OR 0.967, CI 0.884-1.057; p = 0.461). CONCLUSION: The use of peri-procedural RASB agents was associated with a significantly decreased rate of neurologic events in patients undergoing both CEA and TCAR. This effect was not observed in patients undergoing CAS. As carotid interventions warrant absolute minimization of perioperative complications in order to provide maximum efficacy with regard to stroke protection, the potential neuro-protective effect associated with RASB agents use following CEA and TCAR warrants further examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multicenter Mid-Term Outcomes of the Chimney Technique in the Elective Treatment of Degenerative Pararenal Aortic Aneurysms.

PURPOSE: Chimney endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (CHEVAR) has predominantly been described as an alternative technique for the management of urgent presentations of degenerative pararenal aortic aneurysms (dPAAs). However, the role of CHEVAR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients remains unknown. The aim of current multinational study was to evaluate the outcomes of elective CHEVAR of dPAAs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 267 consecutive dPAA patients treated with elective CHEVAR at 13 European and US centers from 2008 to 2014. Primary endpoints were 30 days and out of hospital CHEVAR-related mortality. Secondary endpoints included persistent type Ia endoleak or endotension, angiographically confirmed occlusion and/or high-grade chimney graft (CG) or involved splanchnic vessel stenosis identified at index procedure and/or during follow-up, as well as CHEVAR-related re-intervention. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 25.5±13.3 months. The 442 visceral vessels were involved and mean number of CGs per patient was 1.63±0.7. 436 targeted vessels were successfully cannulated. The aortic graft intentionally covered 6 renal arteries and immediate technical success was 98.6%. The 30 days mortality was 1.9% (n=5), while the in-hospital complication rate was 10.1% (n=27) including 3 strokes, 1 permanent dialysis, and 1 intestinal ischemia. No 30 day type Ia endoleaks were detected and 3.2% of CGs (n=14, including the intentionally covered) had evidence of occlusion and/or stenosis. The overall CHEVAR-related mortality was 2.2% (n=6). Freedom from primary and secondary type Ia endoleak/endotension rates at 3 years was 93.0% and 98.0%, respectively. Primary and secondary CG patency was 87.0% and 89.0%. Primary and secondary endovascular freedom from any endpoint at 3 years was 81.0% and 94.0% respectively. CONCLUSION: Elective use of CHEVAR in the management of dPAAs seems to be durable. These results are comparable to published outcomes with other total endovascular strategies, which justifies an expanded role for CHEVAR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients presenting with dPAAs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term chimney/snorkel endovascular aortic aneurysm repair experience for complex abdominal aortic pathologies within the PERICLES registry.

OBJECTIVE: The early and short-term efficacy of the snorkel/chimney technique for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (ch-EVAR) have been previously reported. However, long-term ch-EVAR performance, vessel patency, and patient survival remain unknown. Our study evaluated the late outcomes to identify possible predictors of failure within the PERICLES (performance of the chimney technique for the treatment of complex aortic pathologies) registry. METHODS: Clinical and radiographic data from patients who had undergone ch-EVAR from 2008 to 2014 in the PERICLES registry were updated with an extension of the follow-up. Regression models were used to evaluate the relevant anatomic and operative characteristics as factors influencing the late results. We focused on patients with ≥30 months of follow-up (mean, 46.6 months; range, 30-120 months). RESULTS: A total of 517 patients from the initial PERICLES registry were included in the present analysis, from which the mean follow-up was updated from 17.1 months to 28.2 months (range, 1-120 months). All-cause mortality at the latest follow-up was 25.5% (n = 132), with an estimated patient survival of 87.6%, 74.4%, and 66.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. A subgroup of 244 patients with 387 chimney grafts placed (335 renal arteries, 42 superior mesenteric arteries, 10 celiac arteries) and follow-up for ≥30 months was used to analyze specific anatomic and device predictors of adverse events. In the subgroup, the technical success was 88.9%, and the primary patency was 94%, 92.8%, 92%, and 90.5% at 2.5, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. The mean aneurysm sac regression was 7.8 ± 11.4 mm (P < .0001). Chimney graft occlusion had occurred in 24 target vessels (6.2%). Late open conversion was required in 5 patients for endograft infection in 2, persistent type Ia endoleak in 2, and endotension in 1 patient. The absence of an infrarenal neck (odds ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-6.19; P = .007) was significantly associated with long-term device-related complications. A sealing zone diameter >30 mm was significantly associated with persistent or late type Ia endoleak (odds ratio, 4.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-16.59; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis of the PERICLES registry has provided the missing long-term experience for the ch-EVAR technique, showing favorable results with more than one half of the patients surviving for >5 years and a chimney graft branch vessel patency of 92%. The absence of an infrarenal neck and treatment with a sealing zone diameter >30 mm were the main anatomic long-term limits of the technique, requiring adequate preoperative planning and determination of the appropriate indication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of Outcomes of Endovascular and Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess peri-operative mortality of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and to investigate whether outcomes have improved over the years and whether there is an association between institutional caseload and peri-operative mortality. METHODS: Electronic information sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL) were searched up to August 2019. A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42018106084). Studies were selected that reported peri-operative mortality of EVAR for ruptured AAA. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted, and summary estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for EVAR vs. open surgical repair were obtained using random effects models. Mixed effects regression models were developed to investigate outcome changes over time and with institutional caseload. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six studies were included in quantitative synthesis reporting a total of 267 259 patients (EVAR 58 273; open surgery 208 986). The pooled peri-operative mortality of EVAR and open surgical repair was 0.245 (95% CI 0.234-0.257) and 0.378 (95% CI 0.364-0.392), respectively. EVAR was associated with reduced peri-operative mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.51-0.57, p < .001). Meta-regression analysis found decreasing peri-operative mortality over the years following EVAR (p < .001) and open repair (p < .001), and a decreasing OR of peri-operative mortality in favour of EVAR (p = .053). Meta-regression found a significant positive association between peri-operative mortality and institutional case load for open repair (p = .004). CONCLUSION: If EVAR can be done, it is a better treatment for ruptured AAA in view of the reduced peri-operative mortality compared with open surgery. The outcomes of both EVAR and open surgical repair have improved over the years, and the difference in peri-operative mortality in favour of EVAR has become more pronounced. There is a significant association between peri-operative mortality and institutional case load for open repair of ruptured AAA.

Improved technique for sheath supported contralateral limb gate cannulation in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Background: To present a technique of sheath supported contralateral limb gate (CLG) cannulation of modular bifurcated stent-graft in endovascular abdominal aortic repair. Materials and methods: After totally percutaneous bilateral femoral access, the 9F introducer sheath is exchanged to a 30 cm 12 fr introducer sheath over a stiff wire contralateral to the intended main stent-graft insertion side and advanced into the aorta below the lowest renal artery. Parallel to the stiff wire within the sheath an additional standard J-tip guidewire with a 5 fr Pigtail angiographic catheter is advanced to the level of the renal arteries. After main body deployment, the 12 fr introducer sheath and J-tip wire with pigtail catheter are retracted until the CLG opening level, maintaining the stiff "buddy" wire in position to support the 12 fr sheath, maintaining its distal opening close to the contralateral gate opening to achieve easy cannulation. Results: Retrospective analysis of video archive from July 2016 to February 2018 evidenced 55 recorded EVAR cases. All CLG cannulations were obtained with Standard J-tip or Terumo Glidewire wires and with Pig-Tail or Berenstein catheters. Technical success was 100 %. Mean fluoroscopy time to accomplish CLG cannulation was 37.6 33 (range 1-105) seconds. The aortic carrefour angulation on coronal axis strongly correlates with cannulation time p = <.001, with longer cannulation time for higher carrefour angulations on coronal axis (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.47). Conclusions: The use of 12 fr sheath with parallel wire introduction technique, appears to be a safe and reliable tool to facilitate CLG cannulation during EVAR procedures.