Outcomes of Patients with Acute Type B Aortic Dissection and High-Risk Features.

BACKGROUND: Recently the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) published contemporary guidelines clearly defining complicated versus uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections (TBADs) with an additional high-risk grouping. Few studies have evaluated outcomes associated with "high-risk" TBADs. The objective of this study was to assess differences in demographics, clinical presentation, symptom onset, and outcomes in high-risk patients that underwent either thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or best medical management for acute TBAD compared to those with complicated and uncomplicated acute TBAD. METHODS: Patients admitted with acute TBADs from a single academic medical center from October 2011 to March 2020 were analyzed. Per the STS/SVS 2020 guidelines, high risk was defined as refractory pain/hypertension, bloody pleural effusion, aortic diameter >4 cm, false lumen diameter >22 mm, radiographic malperfusion, and early readmission, and complicated was defined as ruptured/malperfusion presentation. Uncomplicated patients were those without malperfusion/rupture and without high-risk features. The primary end-point was inpatient mortality. Secondary end-points included complications, reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients identified with acute TBAD, 63 (40%) met the high-risk criteria. In the high-risk cohort, 38 (60%) underwent TEVAR (HR-TEVAR), with refractory pain as the most common indication, while 25 (40%) were managed medically (HR-medical). Malperfusion or rupture was present in 63 (40%) patients (complicated TBAD (C-TBAD)), all of whom underwent TEVAR. An additional 33 patients had no high-risk features and were all managed medically (uncomplicated TBAD). There were no differences in age, body mass index, and race between groups. Among the 4 groups, there were variable distributions in sex, insurance status, and incidence of several baseline comorbidities including congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and renal dysfunction (P < 0.05 for all). C-TBAD had increased length of stay (12, interquartile range [IQR] 9-22) compared to HR-TEVAR (11.5, IQR 7-15), HR-medical (6, IQR 5-8), and uncomplicated TBAD (7, IQR 5-10) (P < 0.01). C-TBAD had decreased days from admission to repair (0, IQR 0-2) compared to HR-TEVAR (3.5, IQR 1-8) (P < 0.01). C-TBAD patients had worse 3-year survival compared to other groups (log-rank P < 0.01), although when in-hospital mortality was excluded, survival was similar among groups (P = 0.37). Of patients initially managed medically, outpatient TEVAR was performed in 6 (24%) HR-medical and 4 (12%) uncomplicated patients, with no difference between rate of intervention between groups (P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk features, as defined in updated SVS/STS guidelines, are common in patients presenting with acute TBAD. High-risk patients had acceptable outcomes when managed either surgically or medically. High-risk patients that underwent TEVAR had improved perioperative outcomes and mortality compared to those undergoing TEVAR for C-TBAD, a finding which may help guide preoperative risk stratification and patient counseling.

Limited health literacy is common among vascular surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy is a crucial aspect of informed decision-making, and limited health literacy has been associated with worse health care outcomes. To date, health literacy has not been examined in vascular surgery patients. Therefore, we conducted a prospective observational study to determine the prevalence and factors associated with poor health literacy in vascular surgery patients. METHODS: The Newest Vital Sign (Pfizer, New York, NY), a validated instrument, was used to appraise the health literacy of 150 patients who visited the outpatient vascular clinic at UF Health Shands Hospital between April 2022 and August 2022. Patients who scored a 4 (out of 6) or higher were classified as having adequate health literacy. Each study participant also completed a sociodemographic questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 82 out of the 150 (54%) patients we screened had limited health literacy. The prevalence of limited health literacy varied and was independently associated with increased age (odds ratio 1.06; 95% [1.02 to 1.10], P = .004), having not attended college (high school diploma versus college+ odds ratio 3.5; 95% [1.26 to 10.1], P = .018), and African American race (odds ratio 5.3; 95% [1.59 to 22.3], P = .012). A total of 83% of African American patients had limited health literacy, compared to 49% of Asian and White patients. CONCLUSION: Most vascular surgery patients have limited health literacy. Increased age, fewer years of education, and African American race were associated with limited health literacy. Physicians caring for patients with lower health literacy should investigate and use communication strategies tailored to patients with limited health literacy.

Comparative outcomes of open mesenteric bypass after a failed endovascular or open mesenteric revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines have recommended an endovascular-first approach (ENDO) for the management of patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), whereas an open mesenteric bypass (OMB) is proposed for subjects deemed to be poor ENDO candidates. However, the impact of a previous failed endovascular or open mesenteric reconstruction on a subsequent OMB is unknown. Accordingly, this study was designed to examine the results of a remedial OMB (R-OMB) after a failed ENDO or a primary OMB (P-OMB) for patients with recurrent CMI. METHODS: All patients who underwent an OMB from 2002 to 2022 at the University of Florida were reviewed. Outcomes after an R-OMB (ie, history of a failed ENDO or P-OMB) and P-OMB were compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality, whereas secondary outcomes included complications, reintervention, and survival. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from reintervention and all-cause mortality, whereas multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling identified predictors of death. RESULTS: A total of 145 OMB procedures (R-OMB, n = 48 [33%]; P-OMB, n = 97 [67%]) were analyzed. A majority of R-OMB operations were performed for a failed stent (prior ENDO, n = 39 [81%]; prior OMB, n = 9 [19%]). R-OMB patients were generally younger (66 ± 9 years vs P-OMB, 69 ± 11 years; P = .09) and had lower incidence of smoking exposure (29% vs P-OMB, 48%; P = .07); however, there were no other differences in demographics or comorbidities. R-OMB was associated with less intraoperative transfusion (0.6 units vs P-OMB, 1.4 units; P = .01), but there were no differences in conduit choice or bypass configuration.The overall 30-day mortality and complication rates were 7% (n = 10/145) and 53% (n = 77/145), respectively, with no difference between the groups. Notably, R-OMB had decreased cardiac (6% vs P-OMB, 21%; P < .01) and bleeding complication rates (2% vs P-OMB, 15%; P = .01). The freedom from reintervention (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 95% ± 4%, 83% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 97% ± 2%, 93% ± 5%, respectively; log-rank P = .21) and survival (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 82% ± 6%, 68% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 84% ± 4%, 66% ± 7%; P = .91) were similar. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included new postoperative hemodialysis requirement (hazard ratio [HR], 7.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-17.3; P < .001), pulmonary (HR, 2.7, 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) and cardiac (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .04) complications, and female sex (HR, 2.1, 95% CI, 1.03-4.8; P = .04). Notably, R-OMB was not a predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative and longer-term outcomes for a remedial OMB after a failed intraluminal stent or previous open bypass appear to be comparable to a P-OMB. These findings support the recently updated clinical practice guideline recommendations for an endovascular-first approach to treating recurrent CMI due to the significant perioperative complication risk of OMB. However, among the subset of patients deemed ineligible for endoluminal reconstruction after failed mesenteric revascularization, R-OMB results appear to be acceptable and highlight the utility of this strategy in selected patients.

Presentation and Outcomes of Elective and Nonelective Complex Endovascular Repair for Thoracoabdominal and Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) and juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAA) with fenestrated and/or branched endografts (B/FEVAR) has become common. Physician modified endografts for patients presenting with symptomatic or contained ruptures has made B/FEVAR a feasible option in nonelective settings. The purpose of this study was to describe our 10-year institutional experience with endovascular interventions for TAAA in elective and nonelective cases to evaluate differences in outcomes and the clinical risk factors associated with nonelective presentation. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively queried for patients undergoing B/FEVAR for TAAA and JAA at a single tertiary care academic institution between 1/2011 and 12/2020. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, aneurysm characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Nonelective repair was defined as any patient that presented through the Emergency Department, as a hospital transfer, or as a direct admission from clinic and had aortic repair performed during the same admission. Univariate analyses were used to compare patients. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and nonhome discharge. RESULTS: Between 1/201 and 12/2020, a total of 208 patients underwent B/FEVAR for TAAA (173) and JAA (35). Nonelective repair was performed in 44 (21%) patients with 39 for TAAA (23%) and 5 for JAA (14%). Nonelective patients were younger (71 ± 11 vs. 74 ± 7 years, P = 0.03), more likely to be self-pay or have Medicaid (11% vs. 2%, P = 0.02) and had a different race distribution compared to the elective cohort (P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was 4% (n = 6) in elective repairs and 7% (n = 3) in nonelective repairs. One-year mortality was 13% (n = 22) in elective repairs and 18% (n = 8) in nonelective repairs. There were no differences between patients receiving elective versus nonelective repair in 30-day (P = 0.40) or 1-year mortality (P = 0.47). Nonelective patients had longer median duration of stay (11 interquartile range (IQR) 6-15 vs. 5 IQR 4-8, P < 0.01), postoperative length of stay (7 IQR 5-12 vs. 4 IQR 3-7, P < 0.01), and more intensive care unit days (6 IQR 3-8 vs. 3 IQR 2-5, P < 0.01). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between elective and nonelective patients including inpatient and access-related complications, re-interventions, and nonhome discharge (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). A composite "any complication" occurred more frequently in patients with nonelective repair (50% vs. 35%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair for TAAA or JAA is a good option in patients undergoing nonelective surgical intervention, with comparable 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and perioperative morbidity to that of patients undergoing elective B/FEVAR.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. METHODS: In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. RESULTS: There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

International Multi-Institutional Experience with Presentation and Management of Aortic Arch Laterality in Aberrant Subclavian Artery and Kommerell's Diverticulum.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch. METHODS: Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions. RESULTS: 288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.

Contemporary outcomes after treatment of aberrant subclavian artery and Kommerell's diverticulum.

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) are rare vascular anomalies that may be associated with lifestyle-limiting and life-threatening complications. The aim of this study is to report contemporary outcomes after invasive treatment of ASA/KD using a large international dataset. METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment for ASA/KD (2000-2020) were identified through the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration to investigate uncommon vascular disorders. We report the early and mid-term clinical outcomes including stroke and mortality, technical success, and other operative outcomes including reintervention rates, patency, and endoleak. RESULTS: Overall, 285 patients were identified during the study period. The mean patient age was 57 years; 47% were female and 68% presented with symptoms. A right-sided arch was present in 23%. The mean KD diameter was 47.4 mm (range, 13.0-108.0 mm). The most common indication for treatment was symptoms (59%), followed by aneurysm size (38%). The most common symptom reported was dysphagia (44%). A ruptured KD was treated in 4.2% of cases, with a mean diameter of 43.9 mm (range, 18.0-100.0 mm). An open procedure was performed in 101 cases (36%); the most common approach was ASA ligation with subclavian transposition. An endovascular or hybrid approach was performed in 184 patients (64%); the most common approach was thoracic endograft and carotid-subclavian bypass. A staged operative strategy was employed more often than single setting repair (55% vs 45%). Compared with endovascular or hybrid approach, those in the open procedure group were more likely to be younger (49 years vs 61 years; P < .0001), female (64% vs 36%; P < .0001), and symptomatic (85% vs 59%; P < .0001). Complete or partial symptomatic relief at 1 year after intervention was 82.6%. There was no association between modality of treatment and symptom relief (open 87.2% vs endovascular or hybrid approach 78.9%; P = .13). After the intervention, 11 subclavian occlusions (4.5%) occurred; 3 were successfully thrombectomized resulting in a primary and secondary patency of 95% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 39 months. Among the 33 reinterventions (12%), the majority were performed for endoleak (36%), and more reinterventions occurred in the endovascular or hybrid approach than open procedure group (15% vs 6%; P = .02). The overall survival rate was 87.3% at a median follow-up of 41 months. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 4.2% and 4.9%, respectively. Urgent or emergent presentation was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 19.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-116.6), overall mortality (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-11.2) and intraoperative complications (OR, 8.3; 95% CI, 2.8-25.1). Females had a higher risk of reintervention (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-6.5). At an aneurysm size of 44.4 mm, receiver operator characteristic curve analysis suggested that 60% of patients would have symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of ASA/KD can be performed safely with low rates of mortality, stroke and reintervention and high rates of symptomatic relief, regardless of the repair strategy. Symptomatic and urgent operations were associated with worse outcomes in general, and female gender was associated with a higher likelihood of reintervention. Given the worse overall outcomes when symptomatic and the inherent risk of rupture, consideration of repair at 40 mm is reasonable in most patients. ASA/KD can be repaired in asymptomatic patients with excellent outcomes and young healthy patients may be considered better candidates for open approaches versus endovascular or hybrid modalities, given the lower likelihood of reintervention and lower early mortality rate.

Rescue therapy for symptomatic spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) can cause permanent neurologic deficits and poor long-term survival. Targeted treatment of new SCI symptoms after TEVAR (rescue therapy [RT]) might improve/resolve neurologic symptoms but few data characterize the association of specific interventions with SCI outcomes. We evaluated the effectiveness of post-TEVAR RT at our tertiary aortic center. METHODS: Our institutional TEVAR database was reviewed for SCI incidence and details of RT. This included cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), medical therapy, and optimization of spinal cord oxygen delivery. SCI outcomes were categorized at discharge as paralysis/paraparesis and temporary/permanent. RESULTS: Nine hundred forty-three TEVAR procedures were performed in 869 patients from 2011 to 2020. Post-TEVAR SCI occurred in 7.8% (n = 74) with permanent paraplegia in 1.5%. Older patient age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous abdominal aortic surgery were predictive of SCI. Half (n = 37) of SCI episodes resulted in only temporary paralysis/paraparesis. Rescue postoperative cerebrospinal fluid drains were implanted in 3.7% (n = 35) of procedures and was predicted by higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, lower serum hemoglobin level, elevated international normalized ratio, bilateral iliac artery occlusion, nonelective procedures, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer/intramural hematoma indication. The most commonly used RTs were emergent placement of or increased drainage from an existing cerebrospinal fluid drain (87.8%), induced/permissive hypertension (77.0%), corticosteroid bolus (36.5%), and naloxone infusion (33.8%). Neurologic improvement occurred in 68.9% (n = 51/74). New/increased drainage was associated with improved SCI outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Permanent paraplegia from post-TEVAR SCI is rare (1.5%). Older patients with comorbidities carry greater post-TEVAR SCI risk. SCI symptoms improved/resolved with CSFD and multimodal RT in 68.9% of patients, but no intervention was independently associated with improvement. TEVAR centers should have robust protocols for timely and safe CSFD placement to augment RT strategies for SCI.

Psoas Muscle Area as a Prognostic Factor for Survival in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Conversion.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair conversion (EVAR-c) is increasingly reported and known to be technically complex and physiologically demanding. It has been proposed that pragmatic anthropomorphic measures such as psoas muscle area (PMA) may reliably quantify levels of preoperative frailty and be used to inform point of care clinical decision-making and patient discussions for a variety of complex operations. To date, there is mixed data supporting use of PMA as a prognostic factor in fenestrated endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) repairs; however, no literature exists evaluating the impact of preoperative PMA on EVAR-c results. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review our EVAR-c experience and evaluate the association of PMA with perioperative and long-term mortality outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-center review of all AAA repairs was performed (2002-2019) and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed (n = 153). Cross-sectional PMA at the mid-body of the L3 vertebrae was measured. The lowest PMA tertile was used as a threshold value to designate patients as having "low" PMA (n = 51) and this cohort was subsequently compared to subjects with "normal" PMA (n = 102). Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate covariate association with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Patients with low PMA were older (77 vs. 72 years; P = 0.002), more likely to be female (27% vs. 5%; P < 0.001), and had reduced body mass index (26 vs. 29 kg/m2; P = 0.002). Time to conversion, total number of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reinterventions prior to conversion and elective EVAR-c presentation incidence were similar; however, patients with low PMA had larger aneurysms (8.3 vs. 7.5 cm; P = 0.01) and increased post-EVAR sac growth (2.3 vs. 1 cm; P = 0.005). Unadjusted inpatient mortality was significantly greater for low PMA patients (16% vs. normal PMA, 5%, P = 0.02). Similarly, the total number of complications was higher among low PMA subjects (1.5 ± 1.9 vs. normal PMA, 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.02). Although frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events and new onset inpatient hemodialysis were similar, low PMA patients had a more than four-fold increased likelihood of having persistent requirement of hemodialysis at discharge (18% vs. 4%,P = 0.01). The low PMA group had decreased survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively (77 ± 5%, 65 ± 6% vs. normal PMA, 86 ± 3%, 82% ± 5%; log-rank P = 0.03). Low PMA was an independent predictor of mortality with every 100 mm2 increase in PMA being associated with a 15% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio: 0.85,95% confidence interval:, 0.74-0.97; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among EVAR-c patients, subjects with low preoperative PMA had higher rates of postoperative complications and worse overall survival. PMA assessments may be a useful adjunct to supplement traditional risk-stratification strategies when patients are being considered for EVAR-c.

Safety of cerebrospinal fluid drainage for spinal cord ischemia prevention in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Objective: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with permanent neurologic deficit and decreased survival. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage (CSFD) in TEVAR is controversial. We evaluated the usage of CSFD in TEVAR at our tertiary aortic center. Methods: Our institutional TEVAR database was reviewed to determine the frequency of CSFD usage/complications. Complications were categorized as mild (headache/CSF leak not requiring intervention, urinary retention), moderate (headache/CSF leak requiring intervention, drain malfunction requiring replacement), or severe (intrathecal hemorrhage, CSFD-attributable neurologic deficit). The relationships between CSFD complications and patient/procedural characteristics, CSFD placement timing, and survival were analyzed. Results: Nine hundred thirty-six TEVAR procedures were performed in 869 patients from 2011 to 2020. Three hundred ninety CSFD drains were placed in 373 (41.7%) TEVAR patients. Most CSFD drains (89.5%) were pre-TEVAR. Most post-TEVAR drains were placed for new SCI symptoms (n = 21). Twenty-five patients (6.4%) suffered 32 CSFD complications. Most (n = 17) were mild in severity. Severe CSFD complications occurred in 5/432 (1.1% CSF drains) patients. No patient/procedural characteristics were predictive of CSFD complications. Post implant CSFD placement for new SCI symptoms conferred an increased risk of CSFD complication (odds ratio, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.42-19.6; P < .01). The long-term survival of the CSFD complication cohort did not differ from the overall population. Conclusions: Post-TEVAR CSFD placement for new SCI symptoms was associated with substantially greater risk of CSFD complications. Avoidance of post-implant therapeutic drain placement might be the key to prevention of CSFD complications, favoring a strategy of selective pre-implant drain placement in patients at higher risk for SCI.

Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair conversion in octogenarians treated at a high-volume aorta center.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the dominant treatment strategy for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms but has been especially preferred for octogenarian (age ≥80 years) patients because of concerns surrounding comorbidity severity and physiologic frailty. However, EVAR failure resulting in subsequent open conversion (EVAR-c) has been increasingly reported in older patients, although a paucity of literature focusing on the outcomes in this subgroup is available. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate our experience with EVAR-c for octogenarians (age ≥80 years) compared with that for younger patients (age <80 years). METHODS: A retrospective review of all nonmycotic EVAR-c procedures (2002-2020) at a single high-volume academic hospital with a dedicated aorta center (available at: https://www.uf-health-aortic-disease-center) was performed. A total of 162 patients were categorized into octogenarian (age ≥80 years; n = 43) and nonoctogenarian (age <80 years; n = 119) cohorts and compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. The secondary end points included complications, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. Cox regression was used to determine the effects of selected covariates on mortality risk. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: No differences in the preadmission EVAR reintervention rates were present (octogenarians, 42%; nonoctogenarians, 43%; P = 1.00) although the interval to the first reintervention was longer for the octogenarians (41 months) than for the nonoctogenarians (15 months; P = .01). In addition, the time to EVAR-c was significantly longer for the octogenarian patients (61 months) than for the nonoctogenarian patients (39 months; P < .01). No difference in rupture presentation was evident (14% vs 10%; P = .6). However, elective EVAR-c occurred less frequently for octogenarians (42%) than for nonoctogenarians (59%; P = .07). The abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter was significantly larger for elective octogenarian EVAR-c (7.8 ± 1.9 cm) than for nonoctogenarian EVAR-c (7.0 ± 1.5 cm; P = .02), and the presence of a type Ia endoleak was the most common indication overall (58%; n = 91). A trend toward greater 30-day mortality was evident for octogenarian patients (16%) compared with nonoctogenarian patients (7%; P = .06). Similarly, the 90-day mortality was greater for the octogenarian patients (26%) than for the nonoctogenarian patients (10%; P = .02). However, the incidence of any complication (56% vs 49%; P = .5), readmission rate (12% vs 6%; P = .3), unplanned reoperation rate (10% vs 5%; P = .5), and length of stay (11 days vs 9 days; P = .3) were not significantly different between the two groups. Age ≥80 years was predictive of short-term mortality after nonelective but not after elective surgery. However, increasing comorbidities, nonelective admission, and renal or mesenteric revascularization showed the strongest association with mortality risk. Survival at 1 and 3 years was not different between the two groups when comparing all patients after the first 90 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the unadjusted perioperative mortality was greater for octogenarian patients, the risk-adjusted elective outcomes were comparable to those for younger EVAR-c patients when treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center. This finding underscores the importance of appropriate patient selection and modulation of operative complexity when feasible to achieve optimal results. Providers caring for octogenarian patients with EVAR failure should consider timely elective referral to high-volume aorta centers to reduce resource usage and the frequency of nonelective presentations.

In-situ bypass is associated with superior infection-free survival compared with extra-anatomic bypass for the management of secondary aortic graft infections without enteric involvement.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal revascularization modality following complete resection of aortic graft infection (AGI) without enteric involvement remains unclear. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients undergoing complete excision of AGI. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of AGI from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was infection-free survival. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients at 34 institutions from seven countries presented with AGI during the study period (median age, 68 years; 75% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in AGI were 172 surgical grafts (71%), 66 endografts (27%), and three unknown (2%). Of the patients, 172 (71%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-treated prosthetic graft (35%), autogenous femoral vein (neo-aortoiliac surgery) (24%), and cryopreserved allograft (41%). Sixty-nine patients (29%) underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB). Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 5.8 years. Perioperative mortality was 16%. When stratified by ISB vs EAB, there was a significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated infection-free survival (2910 days; interquartile range, 391-3771 days vs 180 days; interquartile range, 27-3750 days; P < .001). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, or perioperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed lower infection-free survival among patients with EAB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.6; P < .001), polymicrobial infection (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5; P = .001), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7; P = .02), as well as the protective effect of omental/muscle flap coverage (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: After complete resection of AGI, perioperative mortality is 16% and median overall survival is 5.8 years. EAB is associated with nearly a two and one-half-fold higher reinfection/mortality compared with ISB. Omental and/or muscle flap coverage of the repair appear protective.

Misdiagnosis of Thoracic Aortic Disease Occurs Commonly in Emergency Transfers.

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are prone to misdiagnosis by facilities with limited diagnostic experience. We assessed long-term trends in misdiagnosis among patients transferred to a tertiary care facility with presumed AASs. METHODS: Our institutional transfer center database was queried for emergency transfers in patients with a diagnosis of AASs or thoracic aortic aneurysm between January 2008 and May 2018. There were 784 patients classified as emergency transfer for presumed AAS. Transferring diagnosis and actual diagnosis were compared through a review of physician notes and radiology reports from referring facilities and our center. RESULTS: Mean age was 62 years, with 478 (61%) men. Differences in transferring diagnosis and actual diagnosis were identified in 89 patients (11.4%). Among misdiagnosed patients, the wrong classification of Stanford type A or type B dissections was identified among 24 patients (27%). No dissection was found in 23 patients (26%) with a referring diagnosis of aortic dissection. No signs of rupture were found in 18 patients (20%) transferred for contained/impending rupture. All misdiagnoses were secondary to misinterpretation of radiographic imaging, with motion artifacts in 14 (16%) and postsurgical changes in 22 (25%) being common sources of diagnostic error. Repeat scans were performed in 64 patients (72%) at our facility due to limited access to or suboptimal quality of outside imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Although AASs misdiagnosis rates appear to be improving from the prior decade, there are opportunities for improved physician awareness through campaigns such as "Think Aorta." Centralized web-based imaging may prevent the costly hazards of unnecessary emergency transfer.

Improved perioperative mortality after secondary aortoenteric fistula repair and lessons learned from a 20-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Secondary aortoenteric fistulas (SAEFs) are rare but represent one of the most challenging and devastating problems for vascular surgeons. Several issues surrounding SAEF treatment remain unresolved, including optimal surgical reconstruction and conduit choice. We performed an audit of our experience with SAEFs and highlight aspects of care that have affected outcomes over time with the intent to identify factors associated with best outcomes. METHODS: We performed a single center, retrospective review of all consecutive SAEF repairs (1999-2019), defined as presence of a false communication between an enteric structure and pre-existing aortic graft. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included incidence of complications and overall survival. Time-dependent outcome comparison was performed. Cox proportional hazards modeling and life-table analysis estimated risk and freedom from endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients (63% male; n = 36) presented with SAEF (median age, 69 years; interquartile range [IQR], 61-74 years). Median follow-up time was 10 months (interquartile range, 3-21 months. The most common presenting symptoms were gastrointestinal bleeding (60%; n = 34) and abdominal pain (56%; n= 3 2). For the overall cohort, 30% (n = 17) underwent extra-anatomic bypass with aortic ligation, 30% (n = 17) rifampin-soaked Dacron graft, 26% (n = 15) femoral vein (eg, neoaortoiliac system), and 14% (n = 8) cryopreserved aortic allograft. The enteric communication involved the duodenum in 85% (n = 48), and a double-layer hand-sewn primary repair was most commonly employed (61%; n = 35). Thirty-day mortality was 35% (n = 20) with no significant difference between 90 days (39%; n = 22) and 180 days (42%; n = 24). Morbidity was 70% (n = 40), with gastrointestinal (30%; n = 17; leak [9%]), pulmonary (25%; n = 14), and renal (21%) complications being most common. Incidence of reoperation for any vascular and/or gastrointestinal-related complication was 56% (n = 32). One-year and 3-year survival was 54% ± 6% and 48% ± 8%, respectively. Over time, 30- and 90-day mortality improved (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.5; P = .002) despite no change in patient factors, operative strategy, conduit choice, or morbidity rate. Prehospital history of gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.9; P = .06); however, reconstruction strategy (in-situ vs extra-anatomic bypass), postoperative gastrointestinal and/or vascular complication, omental flap use, and preoperative endovascular aneurysm repair history were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we observed improved short-term mortality despite no significant change in patient presentation or postoperative complications. This highlights increasing institutional experience in selecting the optimal surgical strategy and improved ability to rescue patients experiencing adverse postoperative events. An individualized approach to reconstruction and conduit choice can lead to best outcomes after SAEF management when patients are treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center.

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.

Carotid Stent Explant Indications and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy, especially in patients deemed to have significant anatomic or medical risk for the latter. There is scant literature, however, on indications for and outcomes of carotid stent (CAS) explant. We sought to determine indications and outcomes of CAS explant at our institution. METHODS: We queried a prospectively maintained institutional vascular surgery database as well as hospital records to identify patients undergoing carotid stent explant from 2010-2020. Ten patients were identified. Their charts were reviewed to obtain demographic, comorbidity, procedural, and outcomes data. Data of particular interest were preoperative atherosclerotic factors, indications for CAS explant, carotid repair strategy, and 30-day post-procedural complications. Data were analyzed for ranges and means. RESULTS: Ten patients were identified. Comorbidity was common: all patients had at least 1 atherosclerotic risk factor, with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia being the most common. Seven (70.0%) patients had recurrent stenosis as the indication for explant. Seven (70.0%) presented symptomatically. Five (50.0%) cases of restenosis had been refractory to angioplasty. There were 3 (30.0%) instances of CAS explant due to infection. Only 1 (12.5%) index CAS was performed at our institution. There was a mean hospital length of stay of 4.5 days. One patient had vocal cord paralysis requiring no intervention. There was no (0%) 30-day mortality, stroke, or postoperative wound infections. CONCLUSIONS: Our series had 0% 30-day mortality, stroke, and postoperative wound infection suggesting that CAS explant may be performed safely. Our series is small but represents the largest single institution series to date. This procedure may become increasingly common in the coming years with the more frequent use of CAS; additional data is needed to rigorously understand outcomes.

Treatment and Outcomes of Aortic Graft Infections Using a Decision Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Aortic graft infection (AGI) is a rare but devastating complication requiring both explant of the infected prosthesis and lower extremity revascularization. Despite a variety of methods to treat AGI, there is a paucity of evidence that describes comparative outcomes. Moreover, controversy exists surrounding what the optimal repair strategy is with limited descriptions of how these techniques should be employed in this complex group of patients. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to review our experience with AGI management while highlighting a practice philosophy that can achieve acceptable outcomes. METHODS: All AGI patients between 2002-2019 were reviewed. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end-points included complications, re-infection, unplanned re-operation and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate time to events. Cox regression models were employed to identify association between patient factors and operative strategy with survival. Subgroup analysis included outcome comparison among four different operative approaches(extra-anatomic bypass with aortic ligation [EAB] and in-situ reconstruction [ISR] using either NAIS, cryopreserved allograft [Cryo], or antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts [Other]). RESULTS: 142 patients (male-69%, mean age 67 ± 11 years) were reviewed. Median time to AGI presentation was 52 (IQR 16-128) months. ISR was performed in 70% (n = 99)[ISR: NAIS-49% (n = 49), Cryo, 33% (n = 33) and Other-23% (n = 23)]. EAB was used in 26% (n = 37), of which 57% (n = 21) were staged repairs[no reconstruction, 4%: intraoperative death-2, AGI removal without reconstruction-2]. A graft enteric erosion/fistula was identified in 39% (n = 55). Mean follow-up time was 14 ± 27 (median 2.2[IQR 0.1-16]) months. Overall, 30-day mortality was 21% and 69% (n = 98) experienced a complication. The most common complications were pulmonary (35%;n = 50), vascular (28%;n = 39), gastrointestinal (22%;n = 31) and renal (21%;n = 30). Freedom from re-infection at one and three years was 78 ± 5% and 73 ± 6% while freedom from unplanned re-operation was 50 ± 5% and 40 ± 6%, respectively. Corresponding one- and five-year freedom from all-cause mortality was 67 ± 4% and 53 ± 4%. When stratified by the four different repair strategies, unadjusted rates of postoperative complications and mortality were not different. However, EAB patients had more renal complications. All-cause mortality predictors included age (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.01-1.1; P = 0.003), CHF (HR 2.7, 1.3-5.7; P = 0.01), and graft enteric erosion/fistula (HR 2.2, 1.3-3.8;P = 0.005) while total graft excision was protective (HR 0.34, 0.2-0.7; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: AGI repair, regardless of operative strategy, results in significant early morbidity, and mortality. The need for unplanned re-operation is common; however, long-term survival is acceptable in appropriately selected patients. Re-infection risk mandates life-long surveillance and consideration of indefinite anti-microbial suppression in certain subgroups. Due to the complexity and intensity of care, all AGI should be treated, when possible, at centers performing high-volume aortic surgery.

Effect of ischemia-reperfusion on outcomes after open mesenteric bypass for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Significant physiologic perturbations can occur in patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) undergoing open mesenteric bypass (OMB). These events have frequently been attributed to ischemia-reperfusion events and have been directly implicated in the occurrence of multiple organ dysfunction (MOD). Scoring systems (MOD score [MODS] and sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA]) have been derived within the critical care field to provide a composite metric for these pathophysiologic changes. The purpose of the present study was to describe the early pathophysiologic changes that occur after OMB for CMI and determine whether these are predictive of the outcomes. METHODS: Patients with CMI who had undergone elective OMB from 2002 to 2018 at a single institution were reviewed. Changes in the hemodynamic, pulmonary, hepatic, renal, and hematologic parameters in the first 96 hours postoperatively were analyzed. The MODSs and SOFA scores were calculated. Cox regression was used to determine the association of the MODSs and SOFA scores with the outcomes. RESULTS: The use of OMB was analyzed for 72 patients (age, 66 ± 11 years; 68% women; body mass index, 23.8 ± 6 kg/m2; 48 ± 34-lb weight loss in 59%). Previous mesenteric stent placement or bypass had been performed in 39% [stenting in 21; bypass in 8; (one patient had both)]. An antegrade configuration (93%) was most common (retrograde configuration, 7%), with revascularization of the superior mesenteric artery/celiac vessels in 85% (superior mesenteric artery only in 15%). Postoperative pathophysiologic and metabolic changes were common, and the mean MODSs and SOFA scores were 3.6 ± 2.4 (range, 1-10) and 4.0 ± 2.7 (range, 1-13), respectively. The median length of stay was 14 days (interquartile range, 9-21). The 30-day mortality was 4% (n = 3) and in-hospital morbidity was 53% (n = 38; gastrointestinal, 25%; infectious, 22%; cardiac, 18%; pulmonary, 18%; renal, 11%). The clinical follow-up period was 16 ± 20 months. The MODSs and SOFA scores correlated linearly with overall mortality (MODS: odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.7; P < .01; SOFA score: OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7; P < .01 per unit), with a score of ≥5 the inflection point most predictive of mortality (MODS: OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.9; P ≤ .01; SOFA score: OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.6; P = .02). The 1- and 3-year primary bypass patency and freedom from reintervention was 91% ± 5% and 83% ± 7%, respectively, with no association with the MODSs or SOFA scores. The 1- and 3-year survival was 86% ± 4% and 71% ± 6% with significantly worse outcomes for patients with higher MODSs and/or SOFA scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most CMI patients undergoing OMB will experience significant metabolic derangements resulting from sequelae of the ischemia-reperfusion phenomenon postoperatively. These can be objectively assessed in the early postoperative period using simply applied scoring systems to reliably predict the early and long-term outcomes. A derivation of the MODS and/or SOFA score after OMB for CMI can identify the most vulnerable patients at the greatest risk of mortality.

Surgical Treatment of True Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Superior mesenteric artery aneurysms (SMAAs) are a rare clinical problem that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The optimal surgical approach for both mycotic and degenerative SMAAs remains poorly defined. The study was designed to review our institutional experience and develop a treatment algorithm. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review was performed to document presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical repair of SMAAs from 2003 to 2020. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality, and secondary end-points included complications, patency, freedom from reinfection, freedom from reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (mean age: 46 ± 16 yrs; 50% male; mean diameter 2.4 ± 2.0 cm) underwent treatment of mycotic (50%) or degenerative (50%) SMAAs. Abdominal pain (66%) was the most common presenting symptom, and the diagnosis was confirmed with CT arteriography. Endocarditis secondary to intravenous drug abuse was responsible for most (88%) of the mycotic SMAAs, with a majority (66%) having positive cultures and Streptococcus being the most common organism. The majority (61%) of patients underwent urgent or emergent repair with aneurysmectomy and interposition saphenous vein bypass being the most common treatment of mycotic SMAAs while aneurysmectomy and prosthetic bypass were used most frequently for degenerative aneurysms. The operative mortality rate was 6% with a major complication rate of 17% (n = 3 patients: respiratory failure/reintubation-1, pulmonary embolism-1, necrotizing pancreatitis/graft disruption and death-1). The single death occurred in a patient with a degenerative aneurysm that developed postoperative pancreatitis and multiple organ dysfunction. The mean clinical follow-up time was 25 ± 48 (95% CI 1-48) months. The estimated primary patency, freedom from reinfection, and freedom from reintervention were 93 ± 7 %, 94 ± 5%, and 94 ± 5%, respectively, at 1 year. The overall mean survival was 55 ± 51 (95% CI 30-80) months with an estimated survival at 3 years of 77 ± 10%. CONCLUSIONS: SMAAs associated with both degenerative and mycotic etiologies can be treated using a variety of surgical approaches with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Mycotic SMAAs should likely be repaired, regardless of size, while the indications for asymptomatic, degenerative aneurysms remain to be defined by further natural history studies.

Single Center Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Veterans with Prior Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients meeting criteria for intervention of carotid stenosis with a history of prior cervical radiation or neck dissection are considered "high risk" for carotid endarterectomy. This is a well-established indication for carotid artery stenting (CAS). The long-term outcomes of CAS in this population are less frequently published in the literature but are poor. The purpose of this study was to review long-term results of CAS in veteran patients with a prior history of treatment for head and/or neck cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a veteran patient population from 1998 to 2016. All patients at our institution with a prior history of treatment for head and/or neck cancer who underwent CAS were included in the analysis. During this time period, 44 patients met inclusion criteria and were treated with 57 carotid stenting interventions. The Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine survival and primary patency. The secondary aims were to analyze early outcomes and to identify predictive risk factors for mortality and reintervention. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 36.6 months. The cumulative survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 91%, 67%, and 48%, respectively. The primary patency at 1, 5, and 10 years was 95%, 86%, and 86%, respectively. The reintervention rate was 11% (n = 6) with an assisted primary patency rate of 100%. No neurologic events occurred within 30 days. There were 3 strokes in late follow-up and no stroke-related deaths. Eighteen patients (41%) died during the follow-up period, 15 of whom died during the first 5 years of follow-up. Ten (66%) of those patients died of recurrent or active index cancer. On univariate analysis, tumor, node, metastasis stage IV was significantly associated with death (P = 0.02). Multivariate models were not statistically significant for predicting mortality or reintervention CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results in this series, CAS can be performed in these patients with low long-term rates of neurologic events and need for reintervention. However, the survival of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing CAS in this cohort is poor, which is consistent with other published series of patients undergoing CAS for head/neck cancer with at least 5-year follow-up. In this specific patient population, a more critical analysis of the patient's overall prognosis, especially as related to cancer, should be undertaken before offering CAS.