Endovascular aneurysm repair conversion is an increasingly common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reintervention is common, conversion to open repair (EVAR-c) occurs less frequently but can be associated with significant technical complexity and perioperative risk. There is a paucity of data highlighting the evolution of periprocedural results surrounding EVAR-c and change in practice patterns, especially for referral centers that increasingly manage EVAR failures. The purpose of this analysis was to perform a temporal analysis of our EVAR-c experience and describe changes in patient selection, operative details, and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-center review of all open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs was performed (2002-2019), and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed. EVAR-c patients (n = 184) were categorized into two different eras (2002-2009, n = 21; 2010-2019, n = 163) for comparison. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used for risk-adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: A significant increase in EVAR-c as an indication for any type of open aneurysm repair was detected (9% to 27%; P < .001). Among EVAR-c patients, no change in age or individual comorbidities was evident (mean age, 71 ± 9 years); however, the proportion of female patients (P = .01) and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification >3 declined (P = .05). There was no difference in prevalence (50% vs 43%; P = .6) or number (median, 1.5 [interquartile range (IQR), 0-5]) of preadmission EVAR reinterventions; however, time to reintervention decreased (median, 23 [IQR, 6-34] months vs 0 [IQR, 0-22] months; P = .005). In contrast, time to EVAR-c significantly increased (median, 16 [IQR, 9-39] months vs 48 [IQR, 20-83] months; P = .008). No difference in frequency of nonelective presentation (mean, 52%; P = .9] or indication was identified, but a trend toward increasing mycotic EVAR-c was observed (5% vs 15%; P = .09). Use of retroperitoneal exposure (14% vs 77%; P < .0001), suprarenal cross-clamp application (6286%; P = .04), and visceral-ischemia time (median, 0 [IQR, 0-11] minutes vs 5 [IQR, 0-20] minutes; P = .05) all increased. In contrast, estimated blood loss (P trend = .03) and procedure time (P = .008) decreased. The unadjusted elective 30-day mortality rate improved but did not reach statistical significance (elective, 10% vs 5%; P = .5) with no change for non-elective operations (18% vs 16%; P = .9). However, a significantly decreased risk of complications was evident (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, .8-.9; P = .01). One- and 3-year survival was similar over time. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR-c is now a common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Patients frequently present nonelectively and at increasingly later intervals after their index EVAR. Despite increasing technical complexity, decreased complication risk and comparable survival can be anticipated when patients are managed at a high-volume aortic referral center.

Safety and efficacy of a hybrid approach for repair of complicated aberrant subclavian arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA), a well-described aortic arch anomaly, is frequently associated with dysphagia and development of Kommerell diverticulum (KD) with aneurysmal degeneration. Historically, open repair has been performed, which can be associated with significant morbidity. More recently, hybrid approaches using different arch vessel revascularization techniques in combination with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (hybrid TEVAR) have been described, but there is a paucity of literature describing outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to describe our experience with management of complicated ASAs using hybrid TEVAR, further adding to the literature describing approaches to and outcomes of hybrid ASA repair. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution review was performed of all patients treated for ASA complications using hybrid TEVAR (2002-2018). The primary end point was technical success, defined as absence of type I or type III endoleak intraoperatively and within 30 days postoperatively. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and survival. Centerline measurement of KD diameters (maximum diameter = opposing aortic outer wall to diverticulum apex) was employed. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (1.4% of 1240 total TEVAR procedures; male, 67%; age, 59 ± 13 years) were identified (left-sided arch and right ASA, 94% [n = 17]; right-sided arch and left ASA, n = 1 [6%]; retroesophageal location and associated KD, 100%); median preoperative KD diameter was 60 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 37-108 mm). Operative indications included diverticulum diameter (61%), dysphagia (17%), rupture (11%), rapid expansion (6%), and endoleak after TEVAR (6%). All procedures used some combination of supraclavicular revascularization and TEVAR (staged, 50% [n = 9]), whereas partial open arch reconstruction was used in 17% (n = 3). There were no perioperative deaths or spinal cord ischemic events. Major complications occurred in 22% (n = 4): nondisabling stroke, one; arm ischemia, one; upper extremity neuropathy, one; and iatrogenic descending thoracic aortic dissection, one. Technical success was 83%, but 44% (n = 8) had an endoleak (type I, n = 3; type II, n = 5 [intercostal, n = 2; aneurysmal subclavian artery origin, n = 3]) during follow-up (median, 4 months; IQR, 1-15 months). Two endoleaks resolved spontaneously, three were treated, and three were observed (1-year freedom from reintervention, 75% ± 10%). Median KD diameter decreased by 7 mm (IQR, 1-12 mm), and 78% (n = 14) experienced diameter reduction or stability in follow-up. The 1- and 3-year survival was 93% ± 6% and 84% ± 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid open brachiocephalic artery revascularization with TEVAR appears to be safe and reasonably effective in management of ASA complications as evidenced by a low perioperative complication risk and reasonable positive aortic remodeling. However, endoleak rates raise significant concerns about durability. Therefore, if this technique is employed, the mandatory need for surveillance and high rate of reintervention should be emphasized preoperatively. This analysis represents a relatively large series of a hybrid TEVAR technique to treat ASA complications, but greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to further establish the role of this procedure.

Management of patch infections after carotid endarterectomy and utility of femoral vein interposition bypass graft.

OBJECTIVE: Patch infection after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a rare but devastating complication. A variety of different treatment options are reported; however, there is currently no consensus on how to manage this highly morbid problem. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with management of infectious patch complications after CEA and to highlight utility of femoral vein interposition bypass grafting. METHODS: All CEA patch infection operations at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative history, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were recorded. Bypass patency was verified with duplex ultrasound imaging (1 month, 6 months, annually). The primary end point was 30-day stroke or death; secondary end points included cranial nerve injury, reintervention, reinfection, and survival. Life tables were used to estimate end points. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 70 ± 9 years; male, 76%) were identified. The index CEA occurred at a median of 15 months (interquartile range, 1-55 months) preoperatively (39% <2 months after the index procedure). A variety of patch materials were implicated (Dacron, n = 9; unknown/undocumented, n = 8; bovine pericardium, n = 5; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, n = 3; unidentified nonbiologic prosthetic, n = 3; saphenous vein, n = 1). Carotid reintervention antecedent to the infected patch presentation occurred in 41% (incision and drainage, n = 10; carotid stent, n = 2; vein patch, n = 1). The most common infecting organisms were Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species (52%; n = 15). The most frequent presentation (46%; n = 13) was pericarotid abscess or phlegmon (pulsatile neck mass or pseudoaneurysm, 28% [n = 8]; carotid-cutaneous fistula, 28% [n = 8]). Reconstruction strategy included femoral vein interposition bypass in 24 patients (83%; nonreversed configuration, 16/24 [67%]), saphenous vein patch in 4 patients (14%), and femoral vein patch in 1 patient (3%). Median postoperative length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 4-8 days). Twelve patients (41%) experienced a complication, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 7% (death, n = 1; stroke, n = 1). The single postoperative death occurred in a patient with history of congestive heart failure who developed a pulseless electrical activity arrest on postoperative day 11 that resulted in multiorgan system failure. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 28% (n = 8; cranial nerves X [3], VII [2], XII [2], and IX [1]), all of which resolved by last follow-up. In follow-up (mean clinical follow-up, 17 ± 14 months; mean survival time, 108 months [95% confidence interval, 81-135 months]), two (7%) complained of limb edema with femoral cutaneous nerve palsy that resolved by 3 months. One interposition bypass occluded at 3 months (asymptomatic); the remaining grafts remained patent with no restenosis, reinfection, or reintervention events. The 1- and 5-year survival was 87% ± 6% and 82% ± 8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CEA patch infection can be successfully managed with femoral vein interposition bypass with acceptable postoperative outcomes. Excellent patency can be anticipated with good long-term survival. This strategy can be considered especially in cases with carotid size mismatch or if there is limited availability of alternative biologic conduits.

Outcomes of antegrade and retrograde open mesenteric bypass for acute mesenteric ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a challenging clinical problem associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Few contemporary reports focus specifically on patients undergoing open mesenteric bypass (OMB) or delineate outcome differences based on bypass configuration. This is notable, because there is a subset of patients who are poor candidates for endovascular intervention including those with flush mesenteric vessel occlusion, long segment occlusive disease, and a thrombosed mesenteric stent and/or bypass. This analysis reviewed our experience with OMB in the treatment of AMI and compared outcomes between patients undergoing either antegrade or retrograde bypass. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent OMB for AMI from 2002 to 2016. A preoperative history of mesenteric revascularization, demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and outcomes were abstracted. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and overall survival. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze all end points. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (female 54%; age 63 ± 12 years) underwent aortomesenteric bypass (aortoceliac/superior mesenteric, n = 44; aortomesenteric, n = 38) for AMI. A history of prior stent/bypass was present in 20% (n = 16). A majority (76%; n = 62) underwent antegrade bypass and the remainder received retrograde infrarenal aortoiliac inflow. Patients receiving antegrade OMB were more likely to be male (53% vs 25%; P = .02), have coronary artery disease (48% vs 25%; P = .06), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (52% vs 25%; P = .03), and peripheral arterial disease (60% vs 35%; P = .05). Concurrent bowel resection was evenly distributed (antegrade, 45%; retrograde, 45%; P = .9) and 37% (n = 30) underwent subsequent resection during second look operations. The median duration of stay was 16 days (interquartile range, 9-35 days) and 78% (n = 64) experienced at least one major complication with no difference in rates between antegrade/retrograde configurations. In-hospital mortality was 37% (n = 30; multiple organ dysfunction, 22; bowel infarction, 4; hemorrhage/anemia, 2; arrhythmia, 1; stroke, 1; 30-day mortality, 26%). The median follow-up was 8 months (interquartile range, 1-26 months). The 1- and 3-year primary patency rates were both 82% ± 6% (95% confidence interval, 71%-95%), with 10 patients requiring reintervention. Estimated survival at 1 and 5 years was 57% ± 6% and 50% ± 6%, respectively. Bypass configuration was not associated with complication rates (P > .10), in-hospital mortality (log-rank, P = .3), or overall survival (log-rank, P = .9). However, a higher risk of reintervention was observed in patients undergoing retrograde bypass (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-11.0; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: OMB for AMI results in significant morbidity and mortality, irrespective of bypass configuration. Antegrade OMB is associated with comparable outcomes as retrograde OMB. The bypass configuration choice should be predicated on patient presentation, anatomy, physiology, and surgeon preference; however, an antegrade configuration may provide a lower risk of reintervention.

Implementation of a bundled protocol significantly reduces risk of spinal cord ischemia after branched or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating complication after branched or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (B/FEVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic disease. The purpose of this analysis was to describe the impact of a bundled clinical care protocol designed to reduce the risk of SCI in this population of patients. METHODS: A bundled SCI prevention protocol including cerebrospinal fluid drainage, blood pressure parameters, transfusion goals, and pharmacologic adjuncts (steroids, naloxone) was initiated in May 2015. Before that date, portions of the protocol (cerebrospinal fluid drainage in particular) were used in an informal fashion in patients perceived to be at high risk. B/FEVAR cases completed from January 2012 to May 2016 were reviewed, and outcomes before (n = 223) and after (n = 70) SCI bundle application were compared. The primary end point was the incidence of SCI events. Secondary end points included length of stay, complications, and survival. High-risk patients for SCI were defined as those undergoing B/FEVAR resulting in aortic coverage equivalent to open Crawford extent I to III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis. RESULTS: Postprotocol patients were more likely to be older (75 ± 7 vs 72 ± 8 years; P = .03), to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 designation (94% vs 81%; P = .04), and to be treated for TAAA (67% vs 56%; P = .004). Postprotocol pre-emptive spinal drain use was greater in high-risk patients (100% vs 87%; P = .04) but significantly decreased in lower risk patients (suprarenal aneurysm or extent IV TAAA: 5% after protocol implementation vs 21% before protocol implementation; P = .04). Rates of any SCI before and after implementation of the bundled protocol were 13% (n = 29 of 223) and 3% (n = 2 of 70; P = .007), respectively. In comparing high-risk patients, protocol use resulted in an even more significant reduction in SCI rate (19% [28 of 144] vs 4% [2 of 50]; P = .004). Postoperative morbidity (41% vs 33%; P = .2) and 30-day mortality (5% vs 1%; P = .3) were not different between groups. However, patients treated on protocol had significantly improved 1-year survival (99% ± 1% after protocol implementation vs 90% ± 2% before protocol implementation; log-rank, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a bundled multimodal protocol may significantly reduce risk of SCI after B/FEVAR, with the greatest risk reduction occurring in the most vulnerable patients. Interestingly, reduction in SCI risk was associated with improvement in 1-year survival.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in adult coarctation patients.

BACKGROUND: Aortic coarctation (AC) is most commonly identified in pediatric patients; however, adults can present with late sequelae of untreated coarctation or complications of prior open repair. To date, there are limited data about the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in this group of patients. The purpose of this analysis was to describe our experience with management of adult coarctation patients using TEVAR. METHODS: All TEVAR patients treated for primary coarctation or late sequelae of previous open repair (eg, pseudoaneurysm, recurrent coarctation or anastomotic stenosis related to index open coarctation repair) were reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, procedure-related variables, postoperative outcomes, and reintervention were recorded. Computed tomography centerline assessments of endograft morphology were completed to delineate stent anatomy at the coarctation site. Survival and reintervention were estimated using life-table analysis. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients were identified (median age, 46 years [range, 33-71 years]; 67% male [n = 14]). Nine patients (43%) were treated for symptomatic primary (n = 6) or recurrent (n = 3) coarctation. Other indications included degenerative thoracic aneurysm (n = 6), pseudoaneurysm (n = 4), and dissection (n = 2). Technical success was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-100%). No 30-day mortality or paraplegia events occurred; however, two patients (10%) experienced postoperative nondisabling stroke. In primary or recurrent coarctation patients with available computed tomography imaging (n = 8 of 9), nominal stent graft diameters were achieved proximal and distal to the coarctation (range, -0.4 to -1.2 mm of desired final stent diameter). Specific to the coarctation site, there was a significant increase in aortic diameter after TEVAR (before stenting, 11.5 [95% CI, 6.8-12.3] mm; after stenting, 15 [95% CI, 13.7-15.7] mm; P = .004). Concurrently, systolic arterial blood pressure at time of discharge was significantly lower (before stenting: 147 mm Hg; 95% CI, 137-157 mm Hg; after stenting: 124 mm Hg; 95% CI, 118-134 mm Hg; P = .02). For all patients, median clinical follow-up time was 8 months (interquartile range, 3-13 months; range, 1-106 months). Three endoleaks were detected, all of which were type II related to left (n = 2) or aberrant (n = 1) subclavian arteries. Four patients (19%) underwent reintervention (median time, 7 months; range, 2-12 months), with three of four being subclavian artery embolization; one was an aortic root replacement for ascending aneurysm with bicuspid aortic valve. One-year freedom from reintervention was 78% ± 9% (95% CI, 42%-92%). The 1- and 3-year survival was 95% ± 5% (95% CI, 71%-99%). One late death was related to complications from pre-existing congenital heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adult AC patients can be treated safely with TEVAR, and the annular constriction of an AC can be successfully dilated by the stent graft. Given these findings, a greater number of patients with longer term follow-up is warranted to further define the role of TEVAR in the management of adult AC patients.

Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Acute Type B Dissection in Patients With Intractable Pain or Refractory Hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (UATBAD) patients with intractable pain/refractory hypertension treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to UATBAD subjects without these features receiving best medical therapy (BMT). METHODS: Interrogation of the hospital database identified 101 consecutive UATBAD patients admitted between January 2011 and December 2014. Of these, 74 patients (mean age 62±13 years; 44 men) were treated with BMT; the other 27 UATBAD patients (mean age 63±13 years; 17 men) were subsequently treated with TEVAR for intractable pain (24, 89%) and/or refractory hypertension (3, 11%) at a mean 2.4±3.3 days (median 1, range 0-12) after admission. Mixed models were employed to determine differences in centerline measured aortic remodeling. Propensity analysis was employed to mitigate selection bias. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate reintervention and survival. RESULTS: The groups were well matched; there was no difference in demographics, comorbidities, or proportion with visceral involvement (70% for TEVAR vs 86% for BMT, p=0.08). There was no significant difference in length of stay (9.6±6.3 for TEVAR vs 10.3±7.8 for BMT, p=0.3), complications (19% for TEVAR vs 24% for BMT, p=0.6), or 30-day mortality (0 for TEVAR vs 7% for BMT, p=0.1). One (4%) TEVAR patient experienced retrograde dissection. BMT resulted in greater mean increase in discharge antihypertensive medications (1.7±1.9 vs 0.7±1.7 for TEVAR, p=0.03), but there was no difference in narcotic utilization. Mean follow-up was greater in the TEVAR group (17.9±16.0 months) compared with BMT patients (11.5±10.8 months, p=0.05). TEVAR significantly improved rates of aortic diameter change (1.5% vs 12.9% for BMT, p=0.007), complete false lumen thrombosis (41% vs 11% for BMT, p=0.004), and true lumen expansion (85% vs 7% for BMT, p<0.01). However, there was no difference in reintervention (25.9% for TEVAR vs 23% for BMT, p=0.2) or survival (log-rank p=0.8). CONCLUSION: TEVAR for UATBAD with intractable pain/refractory hypertension is safe but offers no short-term outcome advantage when compared to UATBAD patients without these features receiving BMT. A significant improvement in aortic remodeling was identified after TEVAR. The potential long-term reintervention and aorta-related mortality benefits of this favorable remodeling have yet to be defined and randomized trials are warranted.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using aortic arch chimney stents in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch disease is a challenging clinical problem, especially in high-risk patients, in whom open repair can have morbidity and mortality rates of 30% to 40% and 2% to 20%, respectively. Aortic arch chimney (AAC) stents used during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are a less invasive treatment strategy than open repair, but the current literature is inconclusive about the role of this technology. The focus of this analysis is on our experience with TEVAR and AAC stents. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures performed from 2002 to 2015 were reviewed to identify those with AAC stents. Primary end points were technical success and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and endoleak. Technical success was defined as a patient's surviving the index operation with deployment of the AAC stent at the intended treatment zone with no evidence of type I or type III endoleak on initial postoperative imaging. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (age, 69 ± 12 years; male, 70%) were identified, and all were described as being at prohibitive risk for open repair by the treating team. Relevant comorbidity rates were as follows: coronary artery disease/myocardial infarction, 59%; oxygen-dependent emphysema, 30%; preoperative creatinine concentration >1.8 mg/dL, 19%; and congestive heart failure, 15%. Presentations included elective (67%; n = 18), symptomatic (26%; n = 7), and ruptured (7%; n = 2). Eleven patients (41%) had prior endovascular or open arch/descending thoracic repair. Indications were degenerative aneurysm (49%), chronic residual type A dissection with aneurysm (15%), type Ia endoleak after TEVAR (11%), postsurgical pseudoaneurysm (11%), penetrating ulcer (7%), and acute type B dissection (7%). Thirty-two brachiocephalic vessels were treated: innominate (n = 7), left common carotid artery (LCCA; n = 24), and left subclavian artery (n = 1). Five patients (19%) had simultaneous innominate-LCCA chimneys. Brachiocephalic chimney stents were planned in 75% (n = 24), with the remainder placed for either LCCA or innominate artery encroachment (n = 8). Overall technical success was 89% (one intraoperative death, two persistent type Ia endoleaks in follow-up). The 30-day mortality was 4% (n = 1; intraoperative death of a patient with a ruptured arch aneurysm), and median length of stay was 6 (interquartile range, 4-9) days. Seven (26%) patients experienced a major complication (stroke, three [all with unplanned brachiocephalic chimney]; respiratory failure, three; and death, one). Nine (33%) patients underwent aorta-related reintervention, and no chimney occlusion events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up, 9 [interquartile range, 1-23] months). The 1-year and 3-year survival is estimated to be 88% ± 6% and 69% ± 9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR with AAC can be performed with high technical success and acceptable morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients. Unplanned AAC placement during TEVAR results in an elevated stroke risk, which may be related to the branch vessel coverage necessitating AAC placement. Acceptable midterm survival can be anticipated, but aorta-related reintervention is not uncommon, and diligent follow-up is needed.

Outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair conversion and primary aortic repair for urgent and emergency indications in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR-c) is performed nonelectively in up to 60% of cases. EVAR-c has been reported to have significantly greater risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality than primary aortic repair, but few data exist on outcomes for symptomatic or ruptured presentations. This study determined outcomes and identified predictors of postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and mortality for patients undergoing nonelective EVAR-c compared with nonelective primary aortic repair (PAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: All VQI patients undergoing urgent/emergency EVAR-c or urgent/emergency PAR from 2002 to 2014 were reviewed. Urgent presentation was defined by repair ≤24 hours of a nonelective admission, and emergency operations had clinical or radiographic evidence, or both, of rupture. End points included in-hospital MACE (myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, congestive heart failure) and 30-day mortality. Possible covariates identified on univariate analysis (P < .2) were entered into a multivariable model, and stepwise elimination identified the best subset of predictors. Generalized estimating equations logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relative effect of EVAR-c compared with PAR on outcomes. RESULTS: During the study interval, we identified 277 EVAR-c, and 118 (43%) underwent urgent/emergency repair. nonelective PAR was performed in 1388 of 6152 total (23%). EVAR-c patients were older (75 ± 9 vs 71 ± 10 years; P < .0001), more likely to be male (84% vs 74%; P = .02), and had a higher prevalence of hypertension (88% vs 79%; P = .02) and coronary artery disease (38% vs 27%; P = .01). No differences in MACE (EVAR-c, 31% [n = 34] vs PAR, 30% [n = 398]) or any major postoperative complication (EVAR-c, 57% [n = 63] vs PAR, 55% [n = 740]; P = .8) were found; however, 30-day mortality was significantly greater in EVAR-c (37% [n = 41]) than in (PAR, 24% [n = 291]; P = .003), with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.77; P = .04) for EVAR-c. Predictors of any MACE included age (OR, × 1.03 for each additional year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .0002), male gender (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67; P = .03), body mass index ≤20 kg/m2 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.13-2.87; P = .01), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.86-1.80; P = .25), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.98-2.34; P = .06), preoperative chronic ß-blocker use (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.97-1.63; P = .09), and emergency presentation (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-3.01; area under the curve, 0.70; P < .0001). Significant predictors for 30-day mortality were age (OR × 1.07 for each additional year; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09; P < .0001), female gender (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.01-2.46; P = .04), preoperative creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35; P = .03), an emergency presentation (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.93-7.93; P < .0001), and renal/visceral ischemia (OR, × 1.1 for each unit increase log (time-minutes); 95% CI, 1.02-1.22; area under the curve, 0.84; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Nonelective EVAR-c patients are older and have higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors than PAR patients. Similar rates of postoperative complications occur; however, urgent/emergency EVAR-c has a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality than nonelective PAR. Several variables are identified that predict outcomes after these repairs and may help risk stratify patients to further inform clinical decision making when patients present nonelectively with EVAR failure.

Defining risk and identifying predictors of mortality for open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Risk of open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR-c) is poorly defined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine outcomes of elective EVAR-c compared with elective primary open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent elective EVAR-c and PAR (2002-2014) were reviewed. Candidate predictors of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and/or 30-day mortality were entered into a multivariable model, and stepwise elimination was used to reduce the number of covariates to a best subset of predictors. To estimate the additive risk of EVAR-c for MACE or 30-day mortality over PAR, this variable was added along with the best subset of predictors into generalized estimating equations logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 159 EVAR-c and 3741 PAR patients. EVAR-c patients were older (73.5 ± 8.1 vs 69.5 ± 8.4 years; P < .0001), more likely to have diabetes (21% vs 15%; P = .03), and history of lower extremity bypass (9% vs 4%; P = .0006). EVAR-c was associated with a higher incidence of retroperitoneal aortic exposure (41%; n = 64 vs PAR, 26%, n = 976; P < .0001), use of a bifurcated graft (65%; n = 101 vs PAR, 52%; n = 1923; P = .001), greater blood loss (median [interquartile range], 2000 mL [1010-3500] vs PAR, 1200 mL [750-2000]; P < .0001) and longer procedure times (EVAR-c, 275 ± 122 minutes vs PAR, 232 ± 9 minutes; P < .0001). However, PAR more frequently was completed with a suprarenal and/or mesenteric cross-clamp (74%, n = 2749 vs EVAR-c, 53%, n = 83; P < .0001) and had a higher incidence of concomitant procedures (26%; n = 972 vs EVAR-c, 18%; n = 28; P = .03). Nonadjusted 30-day mortality was greater after EVAR-c: EVAR-c, 8% (n = 10) vs PAR, 3% (n = 105); P = .009. There was no difference in complication rates: EVAR-c, 33% (n = 52) vs PAR, 28% (n = 1056); P =.3. Preoperative 30-day mortality predictors included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06/y, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.1; P < .0001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5; P < .0001), history of leg bypass (OR, 2.3, 1.2-4.4;P =.01), suprarenal cross-clamp (OR 2.2, 1.2-4.1;P =.01), prior carotid revascularization (OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8; P = .0004), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9-3.5; P = .08), and female sex (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .02; area under the curve, 0.75). When controlling for covariates, EVAR-c was not significantly associated with MACE (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.0; P = .4) or 30-day mortality (OR, 2.0; 0.9-4.2; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR-c patients are typically older, have more comorbidities, and experience greater blood loss and longer procedure times compared with PAR patients. However, postoperative morbidity and mortality are primarily driven by patient covariates and intraoperative factors, rather than the need for endograft explantation. Several preoperative variables were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality after elective EVAR-c and should be considered during the decision-making process for remedial treatment of failed endovascular PAR.

Operative and Mid-Term Outcomes of Thoracic Aortic Operation in Octogenarians and Beyond.

OBJECTIVES: To study the short and mid-term outcomes of thoracic aortic operations in patients ≥80 years old. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of patients ≥80 years old who underwent thoracic aortic operation in our institution between 2006 and 2013. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were studied. Fifty-four patients underwent open repair; 41 underwent endovascular repair; and three underwent hybrid repair with aortic arch debranching and subsequent endovascular stent graft. Hospital mortality rate among the entire cohort was 11/98 (11%): 7/54 (13%) for open repair; 2/41 (5%) for endovascular repair; and 2/3 (66%) for hybrid repair. Major adverse events occurred in 23/98 (23%) in the entire cohort: 15/54 (28%) in open repair; 5/41 (12%) in endovascular repair; and 3/3 (100%) in hybrid repair. Mean follow-up was 31 ± 28 months (median 26 months). Two- and five-year survival rates were 57%, and 34% for the open approach and 71%, and 43% for the endovascular approach respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and endovascular thoracic aortic repairs can be performed with favorable mortality and perioperative morbidity in appropriately selected octogenarian patients. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12722 (J Card Surg 2016;31:334-340).

Acute bilateral renal artery chimney stent thrombosis after endovascular repair of a juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.

The use of "chimney" stents to augment the proximal landing zone for endovascular aneurysm repair has been increasingly reported. Despite mounting enthusiasm for this technique, the durability of this type of repair and capability to preserve perfusion to target branches remains a paramount concern. Here, we report management of a patient presenting with acute bilateral renal chimney stent thrombosis and a type Ia endoleak.

Three-dimensional fusion computed tomography decreases radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast use during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular surgery has revolutionized the treatment of aortic aneurysms; however, these improvements have come at the cost of increased radiation and contrast exposure, particularly for more complex procedures. Three-dimensional (3D) fusion computed tomography (CT) imaging is a new technology that may facilitate these repairs. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effect of using intraoperative 3D fusion CT on the performance of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR). METHODS: Our institutional database was reviewed to identify patients undergoing branched or FEVAR. Patients treated using 3D fusion CT were compared with patients treated in the immediate 12-month period before implementation of this technology when procedures were performed in a standard hybrid operating room without CT fusion capabilities. Primary end points included patient radiation exposure (cumulated air kerma: mGy), fluoroscopy time (minutes), contrast usage (mL), and procedure time (minutes). Patients were grouped by the number of aortic graft fenestrations revascularized with a stent graft, and operative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients (41 before vs 31 after 3D fusion CT implementation) underwent FEVAR from September 2012 through March 2014. For two-vessel fenestrated endografts, there was a significant decrease in radiation exposure (3400 ± 1900 vs 1380 ± 520 mGy; P = .001), fluoroscopy time (63 ± 29 vs 41 ± 11 minutes; P = .02), and contrast usage (69 ± 16 vs 26 ± 8 mL; P = .0002) with intraoperative 3D fusion CT. Similarly, for combined three-vessel and four-vessel FEVAR, significantly decreased radiation exposure (5400 ± 2225 vs 2700 ± 1400 mGy; P < .0001), fluoroscopy time (89 ± 36 vs 64 ± 21 minutes; P = .02), contrast usage (90 ± 25 vs 39 ± 17 mL; P < .0001), and procedure time (330 ± 100 vs 230 ± 50 minutes; P = .002) was noted. Estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < .0001), and length of stay had a trend (P = .07) toward being lower for all patients in the 3D fusion CT group. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that use of intraoperative 3D fusion CT imaging during FEVAR can significantly decrease radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast usage, which may also decrease the overall physiologic impact of the repair.

Fate of Aneurysmal Common Iliac Artery Landing Zones Used for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To determine outcomes of aneurysmal common iliac arteries (aCIA) used for landing zones (LZs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: This single-center study retrospectively compared 57 EVAR patients (mean age 72±8 years; 56 men) with 70 aCIAs (diameter ≥20 mm) to 25 control EVAR subjects (mean age 73±7 years; 20 men) with 50 normal (≤15-mm) CIA LZs treated consecutively during the same time interval. The CIA LZ measurements were analyzed using random effects linear mixed models to determine diameter change over time. Life tables were used to estimate freedom from endoleak, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The mean maximum preoperative CIA diameter in the aCIA LZ group was 24.8±4.5 mm (range 20.0-47.3, median 23.9) vs 13.6±1.5 mm (range 9.2-15.0, median 13.9; p<0.001) in the controls. Nineteen aCIA LZs were treated outside the instructions for use of the device. Median follow-up in the aCIAs LZ cohort was 39.2 months [interquartile range (IQR) 15, 61] vs 49.3 months (IQR 36, 61) in the controls (p=0.06). The rate of aCIA LZ change (0.09 mm/mo, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.1) was significantly greater than controls (0.03 mm/mo, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.07; p<0.0001). No type Ib endoleaks developed in either group; however, aCIA LZ patients had 6 (11%) iliac limb-related reinterventions. There were significantly more endograft-related reinterventions in the aCIA LZ patients (n=10, 14%) compared with controls (n=2, 4%; p=0.06). There was no difference in mortality or freedom from any post-hospital discharge endoleak. CONCLUSION: Aneurysmal CIA LZs used during EVAR experience greater dilatation compared with normal LZs, but no significant difference in outcome was noted in midterm follow-up. However, an increased incidence of graft limb complications or endograft-related reintervention may be encountered. Use of aCIA LZs appears to be safe; however, greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to understand the clinical implications of morphologic changes in these vessels when used during EVAR.

Pathology-specific secondary aortic interventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Despite improved short-term outcomes, concerns remain regarding durability of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the pathology-specific incidence of secondary aortic interventions (SAI) after TEVAR and their impact on survival. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of all TEVAR procedures and SAI at one institution from 2004-2011. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: Of 585 patients, 72 (12%) required SAI at a median of 5.6 months (interquartile range, 1.4-14.2) with 22 (3.7%) requiring multiple SAI. SAI incidence differed significantly by pathology (P = .002) [acute dissection (21.3%), postsurgical (20.0%), chronic dissection (16.7%), degenerative aneurysm (10.8%), traumatic transection (8.1%), penetrating ulcer (1.5%), and other etiologies (14.8%)]. Most common indications after dissection were persistent false lumen flow and proximal/distal extension of disease. For degenerative aneurysms, SAI was performed primarily to treat type I/III endoleaks. SAI patients had a greater mean number of comorbidities (P < .0005), stents placed (P = .0002), and postoperative complications after the index TEVAR (P < .0005) compared with those without SAI. Freedom from SAI at 1 and 5 years (95% confidence interval) was estimated to be 86% (82%-90%) and 68% (57%-76%), respectively. There were no differences in survival (95% confidence interval) between patients requiring SAI and those who did not [SAI 1-year, 88% (77%-93%); 5-year, 51% (37%-63%); and no SAI 1-year, 82% (79%-85%); 5-year, 67% (62%-71%) (log-rank, P = .2)]. CONCLUSIONS: SAI after TEVAR is not uncommon, particularly in patients with dissection, but does not affect long-term survival. Aortic pathology is the most important variable impacting survival and dictated need, timing, and mode of SAI. The varying incidence of SAI by indication underscores the need for diligent surveillance protocols that should be pathology-specific.

Outcomes after redo aortobifemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting with occluded aortobifemoral (ABF) bypass grafts are managed with a variety of techniques. Redo ABF (rABF) bypass procedures are infrequently performed because of concerns about procedural complexity and morbidity. The purpose of this analysis was to compare midterm results of rABF bypass with those of primary ABF (pABF) bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease to determine if there are significant differences in outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing ABF bypass for occlusive disease between January 2002 and March 2012. A total of 19 patients underwent rABF bypass and 194 received pABF bypass during that period. Data for an indication- and comorbidity-matched case-control cohort of 19 elective pABF bypass patients were collected for comparison to the rABF bypass group. Primary end points included rate of major complications as well as 30-day and all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were amputation-free survival and freedom from major adverse limb events. RESULTS: The rABF bypass patients more frequently underwent prior extra-anatomic or lower extremity bypass operations compared with pABF bypass patients (P = .02); however, no difference was found in the incidence of prior failed endovascular iliac intervention (P = .4). By design, indications for the rABF and pABF bypass groups were the same (claudication, n = 6/6 [31.6%]; P = 1; critical limb ischemia, n = 13/13 [78.4%]; P = 1). Aortic access was more frequently by retroperitoneal exposure in the rABF bypass group (n = 13 vs n = 1; P < .0001), and a significantly higher proportion of the rABF bypass patients required concomitant infrainguinal bypass or intraprocedural adjuncts such as profundaplasty (n = 14 vs n = 5; P = .01). The rABF bypass patients experienced greater blood loss (1097 ± 983 mL vs 580 ± 457 mL; P = .02), received more intraoperative fluids (3400 ± 1422 mL vs 2279 ± 993 mL; P = .01), and had longer overall procedure times (408 ± 102 minutes vs 270 ± 48 minutes; P < .0001). Length of stay (days ± standard deviation) was similar (pABF bypass, 11.2 ± 10.4; rABF bypass, 9.1 ± 4.5; P = .7), and no 30-day or in-hospital deaths occurred in either group. Similar rates of major complications occurred in the two groups (pABF bypass, n = 6 [31.6%]; rABF bypass, n = 4 [21.1%]; observed difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, -17.6% to 36.7%; P = .7). Two-year freedom from major adverse limb events (±standard error mean) was 82% ± 9% vs 78% ± 10% for pABF and rABF bypass patients (log-rank, P = .6). Two-year amputation-free survival was 90 ± 9% vs 89 ± 8% between pABF and rABF bypass patients (P = .5). Two-year survival was 91% ± 9% and 90% ± 9% for pABF and rABF bypass patients (P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing rABF bypass have higher procedural complexity compared with pABF bypass as evidenced by greater operative time, blood loss, and need for adjunctive procedures. However, similar perioperative morbidity, mortality, and midterm survival occurred in comparison to pABF bypass patients. These results support a role for rABF bypass in selected patients.

Defining utility and predicting outcome of cadaveric lower extremity bypass grafts in patients with critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Despite poor long-term patency, acceptable limb salvage has been reported with cryopreserved saphenous vein bypass (CVB) for various indications. However, utility of CVB in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains undefined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the role of CVB in CLI patients and to identify predictors of successful outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all lower extremity bypass (LEB) procedures at a single institution was completed, and CVB in CLI patients were further analyzed. The primary end point was amputation-free survival. Secondary end points included primary patency and limb salvage. Life tables were used to estimate occurrence of end points. Cox regression analysis was used to determine predictors of limb salvage. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2012, 1059 patients underwent LEB for various indications, of whom 81 received CVB for either ischemic rest pain or tissue loss. Mean age (± standard deviation) was 66 ± 10 years (male, 51%; diabetes, 51%; hemodialysis dependence, 12%), and 73% (n = 59) had history of failed ipsilateral LEB or endovascular intervention. None had sufficient autogenous conduit for even composite vein bypass. Infrainguinal CVB (infrapopliteal target, 96%; n = 78) was completed for multiple indications including Rutherford class 4 (42%; n = 34), class 5 (40%; n = 32), and class 6 (18%; n = 15). Eleven (14%) had CLI and concomitant graft infection (n = 8) or acute on chronic ischemia (n = 3). Intraoperative adjuncts (eg, profundaplasty, suprainguinal stent or bypass) were completed in 49% (n = 40) of cases. Complications occurred in 36% (n = 29), with 30-day mortality of 4% (n = 3). Median follow-up for CLI patients was 11.8 (interquartile range, 0.4-28.4) months with corresponding 1- and 3-year actuarial estimated survival (± standard error mean) of 84% ± 4% and 62% ± 6%. Primary patency of CVB for CLI was 27% ± 6% and 17% ± 6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Amputation-free survival was 43% ± 6% and 23% ± 6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, and significantly higher for rest pain (59% ± 9%, 36% ± 10%) compared with tissue loss (31% ± 7%, 14% ± 7%; log-rank, P = .04). Freedom from major amputation after CVB for CLI was 57% ± 6% and 43% ± 7% at 1 and 3 years. Multivariable predictors of limb salvage for the CVB CLI cohort included postoperative warfarin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.8), dyslipidemia (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9), and rest pain (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9). Predictors of major amputation included graft infection (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: In CLI patients with no autologous conduit and prior failed infrainguinal bypass, CVB outcomes are disappointing. CVB performs best in patients with rest pain, particularly those who can be anticoagulated with warfarin. However, it may be an acceptable option in patients with minor tissue loss or concurrent graft infection, but consideration should be weighed against the known natural history of nonrevascularized CLI and nonbiologic conduit alternatives, given potential cost implications.

Preoperative prediction of spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating but potentially preventable complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this analysis was to determine what factors predict SCI after TEVAR. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures at a single institution were reviewed for patient characteristics, prior aortic repair history, aortic centerline of flow analysis, and procedural characteristics. SCI was defined as any lower extremity neurologic deficit that was not attributable to an intracranial process or peripheral neuropathy. Forty-three patient and procedural variables were evaluated individually for association with SCI. Those with the strongest relationships to SCI (P < .1) were included in a multivariable logistic regression model, and a stepwise variable elimination algorithm was bootstrapped to derive a best subset of predictors from this model. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2013, 741 patients underwent TEVAR for various indications, and 68 (9.2%) developed SCI (permanent: n = 38; 5.1%). Because of the lack of adequate imaging for centerline analysis, 586 patients (any SCI, n = 43; 7.4%) were subsequently analyzed. Patients experiencing SCI after TEVAR were older (SCI, 72 ± 11 years; no SCI, 65 ± 15 years; P < .0001) and had significantly higher rates of multiple cardiovascular risk factors. The stepwise selection procedure identified five variables as the most important predictors of SCI: age (odds ratio [OR] multiplies by 1.3 per 10 years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-1.8, P = .06), aortic coverage length (OR multiplies by 1.3 per 5 cm; CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .002), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.9; CI, 0.9-4.1; P = .1), chronic renal insufficiency (creatinine concentration ≥ 1.6 mg/dL; OR, 1.9; CI, 0.8-4.2; P = .1), and hypertension (defined as chart history or medication; OR, 6.4; CI, 2.6-18; P < .0001). A logistic regression model with just these five covariates had excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = .83) and calibration (χ(2) = 9.8; P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis generated a simple model that reliably predicts SCI after TEVAR. This clinical tool can assist decision-making about when to proceed with TEVAR, guide discussions about intervention risk, and help determine when maneuvers to mitigate SCI risk should be implemented.

Critical analysis of results after chimney endovascular aortic aneurysm repair raises cause for concern.

OBJECTIVE: "Chimney" techniques used to extend landing zones for endovascular aortic repair (chEVAR) have been increasingly reported; however, concerns about durability and patency remain. The purpose of this analysis was to examine midterm outcomes of chEVAR. METHODS: All patients at the University of Florida treated with chEVAR were reviewed. Major adverse events (MAEs) were recorded and defined as any chimney stent thrombosis, type Ia endoleak in follow-up, reintervention, 30-day/in-hospital death, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate after discharge. Primary end points included chimney stent patency and freedom from MAE. Secondary end points included complications and long-term survival. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2012, 41 patients (age ± standard deviation, 73 ± 8 years; male, 66% [n = 27]) were treated with a total of 76 chimney stents (renal, n = 51; superior mesenteric artery, n = 16; celiac artery, n = 9) for a variety of indications: juxtarenal, 42% (n = 17, one rupture), suprarenal, 17% (n = 7), and thoracoabdominal aneurysm, 17% (n = 7); aortic anastomotic pseudoaneurysm, 15% (n = 6; three ruptures); type Ia endoleak after EVAR, 7% (n = 3); and atheromatous disease, 2% (n = 1). Two patients had a single target vessel abandoned because of cannulation failure, and one had a type Ia endoleak at case completion (technical success, 93%). Intraoperative complications occurred in seven patients (17%), including graft maldeployment with unplanned mesenteric chimney (n = 2) and access vessel injury requiring repair (n = 5). Major postoperative complications developed in 20% (n = 8). The 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality were 5% (n = 2) and 7% (n = 3), respectively. At median follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 1.4-41.5 months), 28 of 33 patients (85%) with available postoperative imaging experienced stabilization or reduction of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameters. Nine patients (32%) developed endoleak at some point during follow-up (type Ia, 7% [n = 3]; type II, 10% [n = 4]; indeterminate, 7% [n = 3]), and one patient underwent open, surgical conversion. The estimated probability of freedom from reintervention (±standard error mean) was 96% ± 4% at both 1 year and 3 years. Primary patency of all chimney stents was 88% ± 5% and 85% ± 5% at 1 year and 3 years, respectively. Corresponding freedom from MAEs was 83% ± 7% and 57% ± 10% at 1 year and 3 years. The actuarial estimated survival for all patients at 1 year and 5 years was 85% ± 6% and 65% ± 8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that chEVAR can be completed with a high degree of success; however, perioperative complications and MAEs during follow-up, including loss of chimney patency and endoleak, may occur at a higher rate than previously reported. Elective use of chEVAR should be performed with caution, and comparison to open and fenestrated EVAR is needed to determine long-term efficacy of this technique.

Elective endovascular aortic repair conversion for type Ia endoleak is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with primary juxtarenal aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type Ia endoleak after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) can be a challenging complication to manage, and due to concerns regarding morbidity and mortality of open surgical conversion (OSC), reports of complex endoluminal salvage techniques are increasing. Despite development of these endovascular remedial strategies, many patients ultimately require OSC. The purpose of this analysis was to outcomes of elective OSC for type Ia endoleak and compare them with elective primary open juxtarenal aneurysm repair (OJAR) to determine if these concerns are warranted. METHODS: From 2000 to 2012, 54 patients underwent EVAR OSC at median time of 27 months (interquartile range, 9-55 months). Indications included endograft thrombosis in 2 (4%), intraoperative EVAR failure in 3 (6%), rupture in 5 (9%), graft infection in 6 (11%), and type Ia endoleak in 25 (all: 38 [70%]). Because many OSCs are performed for emergency indications without endovascular options, we chose elective type Ia endoleak patients as our study group. These 25 patients were compared with an elective OJAR cohort matched by anatomy and comorbidities. Primary end points were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary end points included early complications, cross-clamp time, procedure time, blood loss, and length of stay. RESULTS: Demographic and comorbidity data in the OSC and OJAR groups did not differ, with the exception that OJAR patients presented with smaller aneurysm diameter and a higher rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .03). OSC patients more frequently underwent a nontube graft repair (OSC, n = 20 [80%] vs OJAR, n = 6 [24%]; P = .0002), required longer procedure times (P = .03), and received more plasma transfusions (P = .03). The 30-day mortality was 4% in both groups (observed difference in rates, 0%; 95% confidence interval for difference in mortality rates, -14.0% to 14.0%; P = 1). A similar rate of major complications occurred (OSC, n = 9 [36%] vs OJAR, n = 8 [32%]; P = 1). One-year survival was 83% in OSC and 91% in OJAR (observed difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, -15% to 29%; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Despite many advances in EVAR technology, the need for OSC persists and will likely become more common as older-generation devices fail or providers attempt EVAR in more anatomically complex patients. Elective OSC for type Ia endoleak can be technically challenging but is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with OJAR in appropriately selected patients. These results should be considered before pursuing complex endovascular remediation of EVAR failures.