Direct oral anticoagulants over warfarin at discharge associated with improved survival and patency in infra-geniculate bypasses with prosthetic conduits.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on the optimal anticoagulant regimen following lower extremity bypass. Historically, warfarin has been utilized for prosthetic or compromised vein bypasses. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly replacing warfarin in this context, but their efficacy in bypass preservation has not been well-studied. Recent studies have shown that DOACs may improve outcomes following bypasses; however, it is unclear if this is dependent upon type of bypass conduit. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether a difference exists between vein and prosthetic infra-geniculate bypasses outcomes based on the anticoagulant utilized on discharge, warfarin or DOAC. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infra-inguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who underwent an infra-geniculate bypass and were anticoagulation-naive at baseline but were discharged on either warfarin or DOACs. A survival analysis was performed for patients up to 1 year to determine whether the choice of discharge anticoagulation was associated with differences between those with vein vs prosthetic conduits in overall survival, primary patency, risk of amputation, or risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in baseline demographic factors between the groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2003-2020), 57,887 patients underwent infra-geniculate bypass. Of these, 3230 (5.5%) were anticoagulated on discharge. There was a similar distribution of anticoagulation between vein (n = 1659; 51.4%) and prosthetic conduits (n = 1571; 48.6%). Thirty-two percent were discharged on DOACs, and 68.0% were discharged on warfarin. For prosthetic conduits, being discharged on a DOAC was associated with improved outcomes on univariate and multivariable analyses revealing lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.93; P = .021), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = .003), risk of amputation (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .013), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = .048). Patients with a vein bypass had improved univariate outcomes for survival and primary patency; however, with multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in outcomes between DOAC and warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who underwent an infra-geniculate prosthetic bypass had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged on a DOAC compared with warfarin. Those with vein bypasses had similar outcomes regardless of the choice of anticoagulation.

Early survival benefit of a low-profile endograft in blunt traumatic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a low-profile thoracic endograft (19-23 French) in subjects with blunt traumatic aortic injury. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study assessed the RelayPro thoracic endograft for the treatment of traumatic aortic injury. Fifty patients were enrolled at 16 centers in the United States between 2017 and 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The cohort was mostly male (74%), with a mean age of 42.4 ± 17.2 years, and treated for traumatic injuries (4% Grade 1, 8% Grade 2, 76% Grade 3, and 12% Grade 4) due to motor vehicle collision (80%). The proximal landing zone was proximal to the left subclavian artery in 42%, and access was primarily percutaneous (80%). Most (71%) were treated with a non-bare stent endograft. Technical success was 98% (one early type Ia endoleak). All-cause 30-day mortality was 2% (compared with an expected rate of 8%), with an exact two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.1%, 10.6% below the performance goal upper limit of 25%. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated freedom from all-cause mortality to be 98% at 30 days through 4 years (95% CI, 86.6%-99.7%). Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from major adverse events, all-cause mortality, paralysis, and stroke, was 98.0% at 30 days and 95.8% from 6 months to 4 years (95% CI, 84.3%-98.9%). There were no strokes and one case of paraplegia (2%) during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: RelayPro was safe and effective and may provide an early survival benefit in the treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injury.

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair-First Strategy for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Might Not Be Applicable to all Cases.

BACKGROUND: We evaluate the relationship between the hospital case volume (HCV) and mortality outcomes after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of intact (iEVAR) and ruptured (rEVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using a contemporary administrative database. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey/Maryland/Florida (2016-2017) were queried using International Classification of Disease-10th edition to identify patients who had undergone OAR and EVAR. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Q) per overall (EVAR + OAR) volume, OAR-alone volume and EVAR-alone volume. Cox regression adjusted for confounding factors was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 8,825 patients (mean age, 73.5 ± 9.5 years; 6,861 male [77.7%]) had undergone 1,355 OARs and 7,470 EVARs. Overall HCV had no impact on in-hospital mortality across quartiles after (iEVAR) (range, 0.7%-1.4%, P = 0.15), (rEVAR) (range, 20.5%-29.6%, P = 0.63) and open repair of intact AAA (iOAR) (range, 4.9%-8.8%, P = 0.63). However, the mortality rates after open repair of ruptured AAA (rOAR) in highest-volume (Q4) hospitals were significantly lower than those in the 3 lower quartile hospitals (23.1% vs. 44.7%, P < 0.001). When analyzed per OAR-alone volume, the same findings were observed (22.0% for Q4 vs. 41.6% for Q1-3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, in Q4 hospitals per the OAR-alone volume analysis, the mortality hazard was greater for rEVAR (39.0%) than for rOAR (22.0%) (HR = 2.3, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-5.34, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates for iEVAR, rEVAR and iOAR were independent of HCV. However, after rOAR, mortality rates in high OAR volume hospitals were lower than those in the lower quartile hospitals, and, at least comparable to those of rEVAR. EVAR-first strategy for ruptured AAA might not be applicable to all cases. Patent-specific, individualized treatment should be the gold standard. For patients requiring rOAR, transfer to a regional center of excellence, when clinical safe, should be encouraged.

Outcome after revascularization with paclitaxel-coated devices in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Data regarding the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel (PTX)-coated peripheral arterial devices for femoropopliteal artery (FPA) atherosclerotic disease is derived from studies that mainly evaluated patients with claudication. Outcomes of PTX treatment for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is incompletely defined. This study compares outcome in patients with CLTI treated with and without PTX. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients who underwent FPA intervention for an indication of CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative peripheral vascular intervention database from 2016 to 2020. Patients who had concomitant iliac or tibial interventions were included. One limb per patient was studied. Propensity score matching based on demographics, comorbidities, indication, and pharmacological therapy was performed to generate balanced cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox regression compared limb salvage, overall survival, primary patency, and major adverse limb events (MALE) between patients treated with and without PTX. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, indications, and procedural details were similar between 14,065 PTX and 14,065 non-PTX propensity-matched patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis at 18-month follow-up demonstrated that the PTX group compared with the non-PTX group had a significantly higher rates of limb salvage (89.2% vs 86.5%; P < .001), primary patency (80.3% vs 76.9%; P < .001), and freedom from MALE (72.6% vs 67.9%; P < .001). Multivariate analysis also showed that PTX treatment was associated with a lower risk of major amputation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.82; P < .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87; P < .001), and MALE (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001). Overall, 21% of patients had a prior ipsilateral peripheral vascular intervention. Removing these patients from the analysis yielded similar results at 18 months. Overall survival at 54 months was not statistically different between the PTX and non-PTX groups in the overall cohort (73.5 vs 71.3%; P = .07), but significant in the de-novo treated patients (73.9% vs 70.7%; P = .02).Multivariate analyses showed a lower mortality risk in the PTX patients (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: FPA intervention with a PTX-coated device is associated with improved limb salvage, primary patency, and freedom from MALE at the 18-month follow-up compared with uncoated devices. This benefit was not associated with an increase in all-cause mortality out to 4.5 years. Further study is necessary to determine the optimal role for PTX in the treatment of the FPA for patients with CLTI and to understand its long-term outcome.

A comparison of endovascular repair to medical management for acute vs subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a viable option of treatment for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) due to the potential for inducing favorable aortic remodeling. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of UTBAD treated medically or with TEVAR in either the acute (1 to 14 days) or subacute period (2 weeks to 3 months). METHODS: Patients with UTBAD between 2007 and 2019 were identified using the TriNetX Network. The cohort was stratified by treatment type (medical management; TEVAR during the acute period; TEVAR during the subacute period). Outcomes including mortality, endovascular reintervention, and rupture were analyzed after propensity matching. RESULTS: Among 20,376 patients with UTBAD, 18,840 were medically managed (92.5%), 1099 patients were in the acute TEVAR group (5.4%), and 437 patients were in the subacute TEVAR group (2.1%). The acute TEVAR group had higher rates of 30-day and 3-year rupture (4.1% vs 1.5%; P < .001; 9.9% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and 3-year endovascular reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001), similar 30-day mortality (4.4% vs 2.9%; P < .068), and lower 3-year survival compared with medical management (86.6% vs 83.3%; P = .041). The subacute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1), 3-year survival (87.0% vs 88.8%; P = .377) and 30-day and 3-year rupture (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1; 4.6% vs 3.4%; P = .388), with significantly higher rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 7.8%; P = .019) compared with medical management. The acute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .171), rupture (3.0% vs 2.5%; P = .666), significantly higher rates of 3-year rupture (8.7% vs 3.5%; P = .002), and similar rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 10.6%; P = .380) compared with the subacute TEVAR group. There was significantly higher 3-year survival (88.5% vs 84.0%; P = .039) in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results found lower 3-year survival in the acute TEVAR group compared with the medical management group. There was no 3-year survival benefit found in patients with UTBAD who underwent subacute TEVAR compared with medical management. This suggests the need for further studies looking at the necessity for TEVAR when compared with medical management for UTBAD as it is non-inferior to medical management. Higher rates of 3-year survival and lower rates of 3-year rupture in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group suggest superiority of subacute TEVAR. Further investigations are needed to determine the long-term benefit and optimal timing of TEVAR for acute UTBAD.

Trends and outcomes associated with intravascular ultrasound use during femoropopliteal revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in lower extremity interventions is growing in popularity owing to its imaging in the axial plane, superior detail in imaging lesion characteristics, and its enhanced ability to delineate lesion severity and extent compared with catheter angiograms. However, there are conflicting data regarding whether IVUS affects outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect associated with IVUS implementation in femoropopliteal interventions. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Vascular Quality Initiative data. Patients undergoing an index endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization from 2016 to 2021 were included. Patients were differentiated by whether or not IVUS was used to assess the femoropopliteal segment during intervention (no IVUS, IVUS). Propensity score matching, based on preoperative demographics and measures of disease severity was used. Primary outcomes were major amputation-free survival (AFS), femoropopliteal reintervention-free survival (RFS), and primarily patent survival (PPS) at 12 months. RESULTS: IVUS use grew steadily throughout the study period, comprising 0.6% of interventions in 2016 and increasing to 8.2% of interventions by 2021; growth was most dramatic in ambulatory surgical center or office-based laboratory settings where IVUS use grew from 4.4% to 43% to 47% of interventions. In unmatched cohorts, patients receiving interventions using IVUS tended to have lower prevalence of multiple cardiovascular comorbidities (eg, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and dialysis dependence) and presented more often with claudication and less often with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Intraoperatively, IVUS was used more often in complex femoropopliteal lesions (Transatlantic Intersociety grade D vs A), and more often in conjunction with stenting and/or atherectomy. IVUS use was associated with improved AFS, but similar RFS and PPS at 12 months. However, in multivariable analysis IVUS was not associated with any of the primary outcomes independently; rather, all outcomes were influenced primarily by CLTI, dialysis dependence, and prior major amputation status; technical outcomes (ie, RFS and PPS loss) were further driven by complexity of lesion (worse in Transatlantic Intersociety grade D vs A lesions) and treatment setting (ie, ambulatory surgical center or office-based laboratory setting associated with increased hazard for RFS and PPS loss). CONCLUSIONS: IVUS implementation in femoropopliteal interventions is growing, with rapid adoption among interventions in ambulatory surgical centers and office-based laboratories. IVUS was not associated with an effect on technical outcomes at 12 months; improvement in major AFS was observed; however, multivariable analysis suggests this finding may be an effect of confounding by multiple factors highly associated with IVUS use, namely, in patients with lower prevalence of CLTI, dialysis dependence, and prior major amputations, thus conveying baseline lower risk for major amputation and death.

Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants associated with improved survival and bypass graft patency compared with warfarin after infrageniculate bypass.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been reached regarding the optimal antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimen for patients after lower extremity bypass. Usually, patients who have undergone below-the-knee bypass will begin oral anticoagulation therapy. Historically, the bypass has been with prosthetic conduits and the anticoagulation therapy has been warfarin. However, the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing owing to their relative ease of dosing. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether a difference exists in the postoperative outcomes for patients who have undergone infrageniculate bypass stratified by the use of on DOACs vs warfarin. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass, been anticoagulation naive at baseline, and been discharged with anticoagulation therapy. A survival analysis was performed for patients for ≤2 years postoperatively to determine whether discharge with warfarin vs DOACs was associated with differences in overall mortality, loss of primary patency, risk of amputation, and risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in the baseline demographic factors between the two groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2007-2020) 57,887 patients had undergone infrageniculate bypass. Of these patients, 2786 had been anticoagulation naive and discharged with either warfarin (n = 1889) or DOACs (n = 897). Discharge with a DOAC was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.83; P = .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), risk of amputation (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86; P = .001), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass had had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged with a DOAC than with warfarin.

Effect of intravascular ultrasound on clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) can be complicated by inaccurate aortic measurements at the initial computed tomography angiography secondary to hypovolemic shock. The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been proposed for more accurate aortic sizing, with prior data demonstrating larger aortic sizes measured by IVUS, potentially altering the vast majority of chosen endograft sizes. At present, and to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined whether IVUS affects the clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of IVUS on the clinical outcomes after TEVAR for BTAIs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the VQI registry. The cohorts were defined by the use of IVUS. The primary outcomes were mortality and reintervention at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 919 patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs were included in the present analysis. The IVUS patients had presented with higher injury severity scores (36.2 vs 42; P = .0004) largely because of more extremity and external trauma. IVUS was more often used for patients with grade III injuries (49.1% vs 56.9%; P = .02) and less often for patients with rupture (21.1% vs 12.4%; P = .001). A trend toward a delay in TEVAR was seen for the patients for whom IVUS was used (1.8 vs 3.5 days; P = .38), with additional trends toward reduced intraoperative resuscitation and blood loss. The hemodynamic status of the patients and differences in aortic or endograft sizes could not be assessed with the available data. IVUS use was not associated with any differences in survival or reintervention rates in-hospital or at 1 year (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates: 0.91 no IVUS vs 0.92 IVUS; P = .46). Fifteen aortic-related reinterventions occurred across the entire patient cohort for all-available follow-up with comparable rates of type I endoleaks (1 no IVUS vs 2 IVUS), with no recorded cases of sizing-related complications such as device rupture, migration, or dissection. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS usage during TEVAR for BTAIs was associated with clinical scenarios in which patients were more stable and interventions to address BTAIs can be delayed. Despite this, the overall clinical outcomes were similar between cases in which IVUS was used and for which it was not.

Impact of interfacility transfer of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm patients.

OBJECTIVE: The interfacility transfer (IT) of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) occurs not infrequently to allow for a higher level of care. In the present study, we evaluated, using a contemporary administrative database, the effects of IT on mortality after rAAA repair. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida (2016-2017) was queried using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition, to identify patients who had undergone open or endovascular repair of AAAs. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Qs) per overall volume. The mortality rates for IT vs nontransferred (NT) rAAA patients stratified by treatment modality (open aneurysm repair of an rAAA [rOAR] vs endovascular aneurysm repair of an rAAA [rEVAR]) were compared. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1476 patients had presented with a rAAA, of whom 673 (45.7%) were not treated. Of the remaining 803 patients, 226 (28.1%) were transferred, of whom 50 (22.1%) had died without repair after IT. The remaining 753 patients (IT, n = 176; NT, n = 576) had undergone rEVAR (n = 492) or rOAR (n = 261). The baseline characteristics were similar between the IT and NT patients, except for a greater proportion of black patients (P = .03), lower income families (P = .049), and rOAR (45.5% vs 31.4%; P = .001) for the IT patients. The overall mortality rates were similar between the NT (30.2%) and IT (27.3%) groups (P = .46). The subgroup analysis revealed that the operative mortality rates after rEVAR were similar between the NT and IT patients, without significant differences among the hospital quartiles. After rOAR, however, the operative mortality rates were lower for the IT patients, largely owing to improved outcomes in the Q4 hospitals (Q4 vs Q1-Q3, P = .001). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that age (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.06; P = .02) and treatment at a low-volume hospital (Q1-Q3; HR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.51; P = .04) were predictors of mortality. The total charges were similar (IT, $286,727; vs NT, $265,717; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have shown that <30% of rAAA patients deemed a candidate for repair will be transferred. We found that IT did not affect the mortality rates after rEVAR, irrespective of the hospital volume. For rOAR candidates, however, regionalization of care with prompt transfer to a high-volume center could improve the survival benefits without increased healthcare costs.

Physician-modified endografts are associated with a survival benefit over parallel grafting in thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Physician-modified endografts (PMEG) and parallel grafting (PG) are important techniques for endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms using off-the-shelf devices. However, there are few data regarding the relative efficacy and outcomes of these techniques in thoracoabdominal extent aneurysms. This study sought to compare the outcomes of PG and PMEG across different extents of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) for which they can be used. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair/complex endovascular aortic repair module was queried for all patients undergoing repair of an unruptured, TAAA (extents I-IV) from 2012 to 2020; aneurysm types were defined by repair extent as determined by proximal and distal seal zones. Patients were differentiated based on whether they underwent repair with a PMEG or PG. The primary outcomes for this study were overall survival and freedom from aneurysm- or procedure-related mortality at 1 year determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Cox hazard regression analysis conducted to examine the independent association of repair modality with primary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 813 patients who met the inclusion criteria (TAAA I-III, n = 362; TAAA IV, n = 451; PG, n = 426; PMEG, n = 387). PMEG repairs were performed at centers with a nearly two- to three-fold higher annual volume of endovascular TAAA repairs. Type Ia endoleaks were reduced with PMEG repair, most significantly in TAAA IV (TAAA I-III, 2.2% PMEG vs 10% PG [P = .2]; TAAA IV, 1.2% PMEG vs 21.6% PG [P < .001]). Thoracoabdominal repairs demonstrated improved survival at 1 year with PMEG devices, significant for TAAA I to III repairs (TAAA I-III, PMEG 85% vs PG 74% [P = .01]; TAAA IV, 84% PMEG vs PG 78% [P = .08]). Freedom from aneurysm- or procedure-related mortality was also improved with PMEG repairs, remaining significant at 1 year in the case of TAAA IV (TAAA I-III:, PMEG 94% vs PG 86% [P = .06]; TAAA IV, PMEG 94% vs PG 88% [P = .02]). PMEG demonstrated decreases in several measures of postoperative morbidity, including stroke, death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and postoperative complications. In the multivariate analysis, repair modality was not associated with either primary outcome; rather, several perioperative complications conveyed the greatest hazard for both primary outcomes across repair extents. CONCLUSIONS: Survival after endovascular TAAA repair is improved with the use of PMEG compared with PG. Several key factors of this study demonstrate the shortcomings of PG in complex aneurysm repair, namely, high rates of critical endoleaks, the need for adjunctive access sites, and an increase in perioperative complications that influence longer term outcomes.

Outcomes of great vessel debranching to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: With the expanding application of endovascular technology, the need to deploy into zone 0 has been encountered on occasion. In the present study, we evaluated the outcomes of great vessel debranching (GVD) as a method of extending the proximal landing zone to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all patients who had undergone GVD followed by TEVAR between May 2013 and December 2020. The primary outcome was primary patency of all targeted vessels, with all-cause perioperative mortality as a secondary outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to account for censoring of mortality and primary patency. The extent of hybrid aortic repairs was characterized into type I (GVD plus TEVAR without ascending aorta or aortic arch reconstruction, type II (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta reconstruction), and type III (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta and aortic arch reconstruction with an elephant trunk (soft [surgical] or frozen [endovascular]]). RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (23 men [54.8%]; mean age, 62.2 ± 11.2 years) had undergone GVD, with 122 vessels revascularized (42 innominate, 42 left common carotid, and 38 left subclavian arteries). The indication for TEVAR was aneurysmal degeneration from aortic dissection in 32 patients (76.2%), a thoracic aneurysm in 9 patients (21.4%), and a perforated aortic ulcer in 1 patient (2.4%). The median duration between GVD and TEVAR was 82 days. The mean follow-up period was 25.7 ± 23.5 months. Type I repair was performed in 4, type II in 16, and type III in 22 patients. The perioperative mortality, stroke, and paraplegia rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 2.4%, respectively. Neither the extent of repair (P = .80) nor a history of aortic repair (P = .90) was associated with early mortality. Of the 38 patients who had survived the perioperative period, 6 had died >30 days postoperatively. At 36 months, the survival estimate was 68.6% (95% confidence interval, 45.7%-83.4%). The overall primary patency of the innominate artery, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery was 100%, 89.5%, and 94.1%, respectively. The primary-assisted patency rate was 100% for all the vessels. CONCLUSIONS: We found GVD to be a safe and effective method of extending the proximal landing zone into zone 0 with outstanding primary patency rates. Further studies are required to confirm the safety and longer term durability for these patients.

Systematic review of hemostatic agents used in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hemostatic agents are routinely used in vascular surgery to complement proper suture techniques and decrease the risk of perioperative bleeding. A relative lack of comparative research studies have left surgeons with the option of choosing hemostatic agents based on their personal experience. The present review has highlighted the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents and categorized them according to their primary mechanism of action and cost. METHODS: A systematic search strategy encompassing hemostatic agent products was deployed in the PubMed database. Single-center and multicenter, randomized, controlled trials with >10 patients were included in the present study. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 studies on the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents compared with manual compression or other hemostatic agents. Using the time to hemostasis as the primary end point, all studies had found hemostatic agents to be significantly more efficient than manual compression. Likewise, adhesives (high pressure sealants) and dual agents (containing biologically active and absorbable components) were found to be more efficient, but costlier, than agents with either biologically active or absorbable components only. Agents with porcine or bovine constituents were found to trigger anaphylactic reactions in rare cases. Additionally, the absence of fibrin stabilizing factor XIII in a brand of fibrin sealant was speculated to reduce the affinity of the fibrin sealant for the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft. The cost of agents varied greatly depending on their active ingredient. CONCLUSIONS: Hemostatic agents appear to be highly effective at decreasing the risk of bleeding during surgical procedures. Although some hemostatic agents were demonstrated to achieve hemostasis faster than others, most are able to control bleeding within <10 minutes. Based on the limited data, the least expensive agents might suffice for limited suture lines used in routine procedures.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral arterial devices are associated with improved overall survival and limb salvage in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Paclitaxel (PTX)-coated peripheral arterial devices have been shown to decrease femoropopliteal artery restenosis and the need for reintervention compared with non-PTX-coated devices. The data regarding PTX efficacy and safety come from randomized controlled trials that almost exclusively enrolled patients with claudication. The outcomes of PTX treatment in patients who present with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes in patients with CLTI treated with and without PTX. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 983 patients with CLTI treated with femoropopliteal artery angioplasty, atherectomy, stent, or combination between 2011 and 2019. Procedures were performed with additional proximal or distal tibial interventions as needed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-regression analysis compared overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from major amputation (ff-MA), and freedom from target vessel revascularization (ff-TVR) between patients treated with and without PTX. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, and Rutherford class were similar between 574 PTX (58.5%) and 409 non-PTX (41.6%) patients except that non-PTX patients were more likely to be male (56.2% vs 49.7%), dialysis dependent (19.6% vs 14.3%), and have higher average creatinine (2.3 vs 1.8 mg/dL). Through 4-year follow-up, the PTX group demonstrated a significant increase in OS (56.2% vs 43.9%, P = .013), AFS (52.6% vs 36.1%, P < .0001), ff-MA (87.4% vs 78.7%, P = .0007), and ff-TVR (77.6% vs 70.6%, P = .012). Multivariable Cox-regression analysis demonstrated that PTX treatment was associated with improved OS, AFS, ff-MA, and ff-TVR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLTI, treatment with a PTX-coated device is associated with improved OS, AFS, ff-MA, and ff-TVR through 4-year follow-up. PTX-coated devices may be especially beneficial in patients who present with CLTI.

Paclitaxel-Coated Peripheral Arterial Devices are Associated with Reduced Mortality in Younger Patients.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-coated devices have been shown to decrease restenosis when used in the femoropopliteal artery. Recent reports have suggested a possible risk of increased late mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel. It has been suggested that younger patients and those with limited comorbidities may be at higher risk. Our objective was to analyze long-term mortality based on patient age comparing treatment with paclitaxel to uncoated devices. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 1,170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous intervention by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. Patients were grouped by age at the time of procedure: <60 years old (n = 244, 20.9%), 60-80 years old (n = 635, 54.3%), and >80 years old (n = 291, 24.9%). Within each group, patients were further divided by use of paclitaxel. The primary outcome measure was survival assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Differences between the groups were analyzed with analysis of variance. Multivariable analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of the 1,170 patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous intervention, 654 (55.9%) received a paclitaxel-coated device during treatment and 516 (44.1%) did not. Mean age of the overall patient cohort was 70.4 ± 12.6 years and 663 (56.7%) were male. When comparing the groups by age we found an increase in age but a decrease in the proportion of patients who smoke. The use of paclitaxel-coated devices was similar across the groups (<60 years old, 56.2%; 60-80 years old, 57.0%; >80 years old, 52.6%; P = 0.45). Demographics and comorbidities were similar between the patients treated with and without paclitaxel within each age group except more males in the <60-year-old group treated without paclitaxel and more patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia in the >80-year-old group treated with paclitaxel. In patients <60 and 60-80 years old paclitaxel use was associated with increased survival at 4 years: <60 (80.7% vs. 64.4%; P = 0.04); 60-80 (63.2% vs. 55.1%; P = 0.04). Survival was similar in the >80-year-old group (46.6% vs. 32.8%; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of paclitaxel-coated arterial devices is not associated with increased mortality. On the contrary, our data show that younger patients treated with paclitaxel show improved survival compared with those treated without paclitaxel. Paclitaxel-coated devices may be used with continued caution especially in patients at high risk for restenosis.

Elevated Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio is Associated with Worse Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy in Asymptomatic Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Management of carotid artery stenosis (CAS) remains controversial and proper patient selection critical. Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been associated with poor outcomes after vascular procedures. The effect of NLR on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients is assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients between 2010 and 2018 with carotid stenosis >70% as defined by CREST 2 criteria. A total of 922 patients were identified, of whom 806 were treated with CEA and 116 non-operatively with best medical therapy (BMT). Of patients undergoing CEA, 401 patients (290 asymptomatic [aCEA], 111 symptomatic [sCEA]) also had an available NLR calculated from a complete blood count with differential. All patients treated with BMT were asymptomatic and had a baseline NLR available. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed composite ipsilateral stroke or death over 3 years. RESULTS: In sCEA group, the 3-year composite stroke/death rates did not differ between NLR < 3.0 (22.9%) vs NLR > 3.0 (38.1%) (P=.10). In aCEA group, patients with a baseline NLR >3.0 had an increased risk of 3-year stroke/death (42.6%) compared to both those with NLR <3.0 (9.3%, P<.0001) and those treated with BMT (23.6%, P=.003). In patients with NLR <3.0, aCEA showed a superior benefit over BMT with regard to stroke or death (9.3% vs. 26.2%, P=.02). However, in patients with NLR >3.0, there was no longer a benefit to prophylactic CEA compared to BMT (42.6% vs. 22.2%, P=.05). Multivariable analysis identified NLR >3.0 (HR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.93-5.42; P<.001) and congestive heart failure (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.33-3.58; P=.002) as independent risk factors for stroke/death in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: NLR >3.0 is associated with an increased risk of late stroke/death after prophylactic CEA for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, with benefits not superior to BMT. NLR may be used to help with selecting asymptomatic patients for CEA. The effect of NLR and outcomes in symptomatic patients requires further study. Better understanding of the mechanism(s) for NLR elevation and medical intervention strategies are needed to modulate outcome risk in these patients.

Anatomic criteria in the selection of treatment modality for atherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Three procedures are currently available to treat atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis: carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Although there is considerable debate evaluating each of these in a head-to-head comparison to determine superiority, little has been mentioned concerning the specific anatomic criteria that make one more appropriate. We conducted a study to define anatomic criteria in relation to inclusion and exclusion criteria and relative contraindications. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 448 carotid arteries from 224 consecutive patients who underwent a neck and head computed tomography arteriography (CTA) scan before carotid intervention for significant carotid artery stenosis. Occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) occurred in 15, yielding 433 arteries for analysis. Anatomic data were collected from CTA images and demographic and comorbidities from chart review. Eligibility for CEA, TF-CAS, and TCAR was defined on the basis of anatomy, not by comorbidity. RESULTS: CTA analysis revealed that 92 of 433 arteries (21%) were ineligible for CEA because of carotid lesions extending cephalad to the second cervical vertebra. Overall, 26 arteries (6.0%) were not eligible for any type of carotid artery stent because of small ICA diameter (n = 11), heavy circumferential calcium (n = 14), or combination (n = 1). An additional 126 arteries were ineligible for TF-CAS on the basis of a hostile aortic arch (n = 115) or severe distal ICA tortuosity (n = 11), yielding 281 arteries (64.9%) that were eligible. In addition to the 26 arteries ineligible for any carotid stent, TCAR was contraindicated in 39 because of a clavicle to bifurcation distance <5 cm (n = 17), common carotid artery diameter <6 mm (n = 3), or significant plaque at the TCAR sheath access site (n = 20), yielding 368 arteries (85.0%) that were eligible for TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients who present with carotid artery stenosis have anatomy that makes one or more carotid interventions contraindicated or less desirable. Anatomic factors should play a key role in selecting the most appropriate procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis. Determination of superiority for one procedure over another should be tempered until anatomic criteria have been assessed to select the best procedural options for each patient.

Elevated neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts mortality following elective endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an inexpensive and useful inflammatory marker that incorporates the balance of the innate (neutrophil) and adaptive (lymphocyte) immune responses. Data exist on the association between NLR and mortality in various coronary diseases and in cancer surgery, but there is a paucity of data on the impact of preoperative NLR on vascular surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between preoperative NLR and elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent elective EVAR at a single institution between 2010 and 2018 was conducted (n = 373). Only patients who had a preoperative complete blood count with differential within 30 days of their operation were included. The NLR was computed by dividing the absolute neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the optimal cutoff value of NLR with the strongest association with mortality. NLR was dichotomized so that patients with NLR above the threshold were at increased risk of mortality compared with those below it. Continuous variables were analyzed using Wilcoxon nonparametric signed-rank test and categorical variables with the Fisher exact test. A comparison of NLR and mortality was completed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with mortality through 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 108 patients were included in this study. An NLR ≥ 4.0 was found to be associated with mortality (P < .0001). Thirty-two patients composed the High-NLR (NLR ≥ 4.0) group and the remaining 76 patients formed the Low-NLR (NLR < 4.0) group. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except that the High-NLR group was older (77.9 vs 74.4; P = .047). At a mean of 36.4 months follow-up, the overall mortality rate was 32.4%. Although there were no differences in the perioperative period, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were significantly greater in the High-NLR group at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively (P < .0001). The mean preoperative NLR of the deceased was higher (5.94 ± 5.20; median, 4.75; interquartile range, 3.17-7.83) than those who survived (2.87 ± 1.61; median, 2.53; interquartile range, 1.97-3.49) (P < .0001). Secondary interventions and sac enlargement rates were similar between groups. On univariable analysis, NLR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.23; P < .0001), age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .004), and aneurysm diameter (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; P = .003) were associated with mortality. On multivariable analysis, NLR (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12-1.27; P < .0001), age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .026), and aneurysm diameter (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; P = .003) were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an elevated preoperative NLR, irrespective of other comorbidities, may represent a previously unrecognized subset of patients who are at heightened risk of mortality after elective EVAR. A complete blood count with differential is an inexpensive test that may be used as a prognostic indicator for outcome after EVAR. Further research is warranted to identify clinical, pathological, or anatomical factors associated with an elevated NLR and to determine modifiable factors, which may help improve long-term survival.

Frequency of perigraft hygroma after open aortic reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of perigraft hygroma (PGH) development after aortic reconstruction remains poorly defined and its clinical relevance is questionable. This study was designed to establish the incidence of and determine the risk factors associated with PGH formation and its outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent open aortic reconstruction for either aneurysmal or occlusive disease with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) or polyester graft from 2004 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 262). Only those who had follow-up imaging 3 or more months after repair were included. Patients with mixed graft types were excluded. PGH was defined as a perigraft fluid collection of 30 mm or greater in diameter with a radiodensity of 30 or fewer Hounsfield units on computed tomography at a minimum of 3 postoperative months. Analysis was conducted between patients with and without PGH. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients met the inclusion criteria: 88 were treated with ePTFE and 52 with polyester grafts. Twenty-three patients (16.4%) were found to have radiologic evidence of PGH. PGH developed more frequently in patients with ePTFE (21/88 [23.9%]) compared with those with polyester grafts (2/52 [3.8%]) (P = .002). Mean PGH size was 63.5 ± 36.4 mm (range, 33-153 mm) and the average time to PGH detection 27.7 months (range, 3-112 months). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Patients who developed PGH had larger aneurysms, more often received ePTFE grafts, had larger graft diameters, and had bifurcated grafts. The overall mortality was 32.1% at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. The 5-year mortality rates were similar between patients with and without PGH (26.1% vs 18.8%; P = .41). Of the 23 patients with PGH, 4 (all with ePTFE) presented with symptoms related to the PGH. The average size of symptomatic and asymptomatic PGH were 11.5 and 4.8 cm, respectively. Mortality rates overall were similar between those with and without symptoms (50.0% vs 36.8%; P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-quarter of aortic reconstructions with ePTFE are associated with PGH formation compared with 4% with polyester. Clinically significant PGH-related symptom development occurs in 20%. Patient education and close surveillance are warranted. Manufacturer's device modification is needed.

Duration of blood flow reversal during transcarotid artery revascularization does not affect outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has become an increasingly popular alternative for the treatment of carotid bifurcation stenosis. TCAR employs carotid blood flow reversal through an ex vivo common carotid artery to femoral vein shunt for neuroprotection during the placement and angioplasty of the carotid artery stent. There is a lack of data regarding an association between the duration of flow reversal and neurologic complications or other adverse events. We analyzed TCAR flow reversal time in relation to major adverse events. METHODS: There were 307 patients who underwent TCAR at four high-volume academic institutions. Patients were separated on the basis of the duration of carotid flow reversal as follows: group I, ≤8 minutes (n = 138); group II, 9-13 minutes (n = 105); group III, 14-20 minutes (n = 42); and group IV, >20 minutes (n = 22). Adverse events including stroke (assessed by a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale-certified examiner), myocardial infarction (MI), and death at discharge and 30 days were collected in all patients and were compared between groups using one-way analysis of variance and χ2 analysis. RESULTS: There were four strokes in the total cohort, yielding an overall stroke rate of 1.3%. All strokes were minor in nature; two were ipsilateral and two were contralateral. All patients demonstrated full recovery at 30 days. We found no significant difference in the stroke rate between any of the groups: I, 1.5% (2/138); II, 1.9% (2/105); III, 0% (0/42); and IV, 0% (0/22; P = .76). The four strokes occurred in patients with flow reversal time of 6, 7, 11, and 12 minutes. There was also no difference in the 30-day composite stroke/death or stroke/death/MI rates among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The length of flow reversal during TCAR does not affect rates of stroke, MI, or death. These data suggest that operators should focus on the technical aspects of the procedure during flow reversal rather than on its duration.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral artery devices are not associated with increased mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term safety concerns have been raised that the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents is linked to excess mortality. Our objective was to compare outcomes in patients treated with paclitaxel vs uncoated devices and to analyze long-term mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-institution review of 1170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous revascularization by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Groups were divided into patients who received paclitaxel (n = 652) and those who did not (n = 518). Categorical variables were assessed using χ2 analysis and continuous variables with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A multivariable analysis was performed using multivariable logistic regression models. Mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Demographics, risk factors, and Rutherford class were similar between the groups, except that the paclitaxel group was more likely to have diabetes (60.9% vs 55.0%; P = .04), was less likely to be on dialysis (10.7% vs 14.9%; P = .04), and had lower average creatinine concentration (1.6 ± 1.8 mg/dL vs 2.0 ± 2.3 mg/dL; P = .003). There were no differences in all-cause mortality through 2 years between paclitaxel and no-paclitaxel cohorts (25.5% vs 30.3%; log-rank, P = .098). At 3 years and 3.5 years, mortality was significantly lower in the paclitaxel group: year 3, 32.1% vs 39.4% (log-rank, P = .041); year 3.5, 35.2% vs 43.9% (log-rank, P = .027). Survival rates were not significantly different in examining subgroups by diabetes, chronic kidney disease, presence of chronic limb-threatening ischemia, or paclitaxel-coated balloon manufacturer. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that age, dialysis, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas paclitaxel use was associated with lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents does not increase mortality compared with uncoated devices out to 3.5 years. Paclitaxel-coated devices can be used with continued caution, especially in patients at increased risk of restenosis. Further long-term studies are needed to determine the risk of late mortality.