Aortobifemoral bypass vs covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation.

BACKGROUND: Covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) is increasingly used as a first line-treatment in patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent CERAB compared with the gold standard of aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients who underwent ABF or CERAB from 2009 to 2021. Propensity scores were generated using demographics, comorbidities, Rutherford class, and urgency. The two groups were matched using 5-to-1 nearest-neighbor match. Our primary outcomes were 1-year estimates of primary patency, major adverse limb events (MALEs), MALE-free survival, reintervention-free survival, and amputation-free survival. Standard statistical methods were used. RESULTS: A total of 3944 ABF and 281 CERAB cases were identified. Of all patients with AIOD, the proportion of CERAB increased from 0% to 17.9% between 2009 and 2021. Compared with ABF, patients who underwent CERAB were more likely to be older (64.7 vs 60.2; P < .001) and more often had diabetes (40.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and end-stage renal disease (1.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03). In the matched analysis (229 CERAB vs 929 ABF), ABF patients had improved MALE-free survival (93.2% [±0.9%] vs 83.2% [±3%]; P < .001) and lower rates of MALE (5.2% [±0.9%] vs 14.1% [±3%]; P < .001), with comparable primary patency rates (98.3% [±0.3%] vs 96.6% [±1%]; P = .6) and amputation-free survival (99.3% [±0.3%] vs 99.4% [±0.6%]; P = .9). Patients in the CERAB group had significantly lower reintervention-free survival (62.5% [±6%] vs 92.9% [±0.9%]; P < .001). Matched analysis also revealed shorter length of stay (1 vs 7 days; P < .001), as well as lower pulmonary (1.2% vs 6.6%; P = .01), renal (1.8% vs 10%; P < .001), and cardiac (1.8% vs 12.8%; P < .001) complications among CERAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: CERAB had lower perioperative morbidity compared with ABF with a similar primary patency 1-year estimates. However, patients who underwent CERAB experienced more major adverse limb events and reinterventions. Although CERAB is an effective treatment for patients with AIOD, further studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of CERAB compared with the established durability of ABF and further define the role of CEARB in the treatment of AIOD.

Incidence and Outcomes of Visceral Ischemia in Acute Aortic Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic occlusion (AAO) is a morbid diagnosis in which mortality correlates with severity of ischemia on presentation. Visceral ischemia (VI) is challenging to diagnose and its presentation as a consequence of AAO is not well-studied. We aim to identify characteristics associated with VI in AAO to facilitate diagnosis. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with AAO who underwent revascularization were identified retrospectively from institutional records (2006-2020). The primary outcome was the development of VI (intra-abdominal ischemia). Univariate analysis was used to compare demographic, exam, imaging, and intraoperative variables between patients with and without VI in the setting of AAO. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included. The prevalence of VI was 20.9%. Preoperative comorbidities, time to revascularization, and operative approach did not differ between patients with and without VI. Patients with VI more frequently were transferred from outside institutions (100% vs. 53%, P = 0.02), presented with advanced acute limb ischemia (Rutherford III 36.9% vs. 7.5%, P < 0.01), and had elevated preoperative serum lactate (4.31 vs. 2.41 mmol/L, P < 0.01). VI patients had an increased occurrence of bilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) occlusion (47.4% vs. 18.1%, P = 0.01). Unilateral IIA occlusion, level of aortic occlusion, and patency of inferior mesenteric arteries were not associated with VI. Patients with VI had worse postoperative outcomes. In particular, VI conferred significant risk of mortality (odds ratio 5.45, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Visceral ischemia is a common consequence of AAO. Elevated lactate, bilateral IIA occlusion, and advanced acute limb ischemia (ALI) should increase clinical suspicion for concomitant VI with AAO and may facilitate earlier diagnosis to improve outcomes.

Trends in Utilization of Completion Imaging after Lower Extremity Bypass and Its Association with Major Adverse Limb Events and Loss of Primary Patency.

BACKGROUND: Failure following lower extremity bypasses (LEBs) isoften secondary to technical defects. Despite traditional teachings, routine use of completion imaging (CI) in LEB has been debated. This study assesses national trends of CI following LEBs and the association of routine CI with 1-year major adverse limb events (MALE) and 1-year loss of primary patency (LPP). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) LEB dataset from 2003-2020 was queried for patients who underwent elective bypass for occlusive disease. The cohort was divided based on surgeons' CI strategy at time of LEB, categorized as routine (≥80% of cases/year), selective (<80% of cases/year), or never. The cohort was further stratified by surgeon volume category [low (<25th percentile), medium (25th-75th percentile), or high (>75th percentile)]. The primary outcomes were 1-year MALE-free survival and 1-year loss of primary patency (LPP)-free survival. Our secondary outcomes were temporal trends in CI use and temporal trends in 1-year MALE rates. Standard statistical methods were utilized. RESULTS: We identified 37,919 LEBs; 7,143 in routine CI strategy cohort, 22,157 selective CI and 8,619 in never CI. Patients in the 3 cohorts had comparable baseline demographics and indications for bypass. There was a significant decrease in CI utilization from 77.2% in 2003 to 32.0% in 2020 (P < 0.001). Similar trends in CI use were observed in patients who underwent bypass to tibial outflows (86.0% in 2003 vs. 36.9% in 2020; P < 0.001). While the use of CI has decreased over time, 1-year MALE rates have increased from 44.4% in 2003 to 50.4% in 2020 (P < 0.001). On multivariate COX regression, however, no significant associations between CI use or CI strategy and risk of 1-year MALE or LPP was found. Procedures performed by high-volume surgeons carried a lower risk of 1-year MALE (HR: 0.84; 95% CI [0.75-0.95]; P = 0.006) and LPP (HR:0.83; 95% CI [0.71-0.97]; P < 0.001) compared to low-volume surgeons. Repeat adjusted analyses showed no association between CI (use or strategy) and our primary outcomes when the subgroups with tibial outflows were analyzed. Similarly, no associations were found between CI (use or strategy) and our primary outcomes when the subgroups based on surgeons' CI volume were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CI, for both proximal and distal target bypasses, has decreased over time while 1-year MALE rates have increased. Adjusted analyses indicate no association between CI use and improved MALE or LPP survival at 1 year and all CI strategies were found to have equivalent outcomes.

Stenting performs better than drug-coated balloon angioplasty in popliteal lesions.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common and highly morbid disease. Although there have been recent advancements in the endovascular modalities to treat PAD, comparisons of these strategies, especially in the popliteal region, remain underinvestigated. The objective of this study was to compare midterm outcomes in patients with PAD undergoing treatment with both novel and SS compared with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty. METHODS: All patients at a multi-institution health system treated for PAD in the popliteal region from 2011 to 2019 were identified. Presenting features, operative details, and outcomes were included in the analysis. Patients who underwent popliteal revascularization with stents were compared with DCB. SS were compared separately with novel dedicated stents. Two-year primary patency was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 408 patients (72.7 ± 11.8 years old; 57.1% men) in the analysis. There were 221 (54.7%) patients who underwent popliteal stenting and 187 (45.3%) who underwent popliteal DCB. There were high rates of tissue loss in both groups (57.9% vs 50.8%; P = .14). Stented patients had longer lesions (112.4 ± 3.2 vs 100.2 ± 5.8 mm; P = .03) and higher rates of concomitant superficial femoral artery treatment (88.2% vs 39.6%; P < .01). Chronic total occlusions accounted for the majority of lesions treated (stent 62.4%, DCB 64.2%). Perioperative complications were similar between groups. Primary patency for the stented group was higher at two years than the DCB group (61.0% vs 46.1%; P = .03). When evaluating stented patients only, SS had higher 2-year patency than novel stents in the popliteal segment (69.6% vs 51.4%; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, stenosis, as opposed to chronic total occlusion, was associated with improved patency (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.96; P = .04), whereas novel stents were associated with worse primary patency (hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.73; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of patients with severe vascular disease, stents do not have inferior patency and limb salvage rates compared with DCB angioplasty when treating the popliteal region. For patients with advanced vascular disease, and especially tissue loss, stents and DCB are both beneficial when treating popliteal lesions.

Improved outpatient medical visit compliance with sociodemographic discrepancies in vascular telehealth evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic has led to a rapid expansion in the use of telemedicine across all medical fields but has also exposed telehealth care disparities with differing access to technology across racial and ethnic groups. The objective of our study was to investigate the effects of telehealth on vascular visit compliance and to explore the effects of sociodemographic factors on vascular surgery outpatient telehealth usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Consecutive patients who had undergone an outpatient vascular surgery evaluation between February 24, 2020 (the launch of our telemedicine program) and December 31, 2020, were reviewed. The baseline demographic and outcomes were obtained from the electronic medical records. Telehealth and in-person evaluations were defined according to the patient's index visit during the study period. Medical visit compliance was established on completion of the telehealth or in-person encounter. We used χ2 tests and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 23,553 outpatient visits had been scheduled for 10,587 patients during the study period. Of the outpatient visits, 1559 had been scheduled telehealth encounters compared with 21,994 scheduled in-person encounters. Of the scheduled outpatient encounters, 13,900 medical visits (59.0%) had been completed: 1183 telehealth visits and 12,717 in-person visits. The mean travel distance saved for the telehealth visits was 22.1 ± 27.1 miles, and the mean travel time saved was 46.3 ± 41.47 minutes. We noted no sociodemographic differences between the patients scheduled for telehealth vs in-person visits. We found a trend toward a lower proportion of African-American patients in the telehealth group vs the in-person group (7.8% vs 10.6%; P = .116), without statistical significance. A significantly higher rate of medical visit completion was found for the telehealth group compared with the in-person group (79.5% vs 59.4%; P < .001). Among the patients scheduled for an outpatient medical visit, a scheduled telemedicine evaluation (vs in-person) was associated with 2.3 times the odds of completing the medical visit (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.05-2.61), adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, language, and the distance between the patient's home zip code and the outpatient vascular center's zip code. Selecting for scheduled telemedicine visits, African-American race was associated with a decreased odds of telemedicine usage (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.90) after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, language, and visit type. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the vascular surgery outpatient telehealth evaluation appeared to improve medical visit completion in our region with apparent sociodemographic disparities. Further studies are needed to confirm whether telemedicine expansion has improved access to care in other geographic areas.

Alternative autologous and biologic conduits have worse outcomes than prosthetic grafts for infrainguinal bypass in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Single segment great saphenous vein (GSV) is the preferred conduit in infrainguinal bypass. Alternative autologous conduits (AAC) and nonautologous biologic conduits (NABC) are thought to be a better alternative to traditional prosthetic conduits (PC) in the absence of GSV. In this study we analyzed the outcomes of these alternative conduits in lower extremity bypasses (LEB) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative LEB database from 2003 to 2020 was queried for this study, to identify LEB in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Primary outcomes were graft patency, major adverse limb events (MALE), and MALE-free survival at 1 year. Standard statistical methods were used as appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 22,671 LEB procedures (12,810 GSV, 6002 PC, 1907 AAC, and 1952 NABC). Compared with the GSV group, the other conduit patients were significantly older, had more comorbidities, had an increased rate of prior lower extremity interventions, had a higher rate of infrageniculate bypass targets, and were less ambulatory at baseline. The PC, AAC, and NABC groups had significantly higher rates of postoperative morbidity compared with the GSV group. The PC group had a higher 30-day mortality compared with the GSV, AAC, and NABC groups (3% PC vs 2% GSV, 2% AAC, 2% NABC; P = .049). Both PC and NABC had higher 1-year mortality compared with GSV and AAC (13% PC and 13% NABC vs 10% GSV, 10% AAC; P = .02). In an adjusted Cox regression model (stratified by infrageniculate target and adjusted for age, comorbidities, and prior vascular interventions) PC was not significantly different from GSV, but AAC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.67; P < .001) and NABC (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.61-2.25; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk of loss of primary patency. A similar association with MALE was observed: both AAC (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.15-1.58; P < .001) and NABC (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.53-2.11; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk of MALE compared with GSV; PC was not significantly different from GSV. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of GSV, alternative conduits (autologous or nonautologous biologic) do not confer a benefit with regard to graft patency or MALE compared with PCs. Increased operating time or costs associated with the use of these conduits is not justified based on this study.

Partial Claviculectomy to Relieve Tracheal Compression in an Adult Male with Osteomesopyknosis.

BACKGROUND: The clavicle is a long bone that forms the anterior border of the thoracic inlet. Anatomic abnormalities of the clavicle can lead to compression of the innominate artery and trachea due to mass effect. These anatomic abnormalities can be amenable to surgical resection, which can provide complete resolution of symptoms. METHODS: We present a case of tracheal compression by the innominate artery in an adult man, caused by a clavicular abnormality due to an underlying bone mineralization disorder, corrected by partial resection of the right clavicle. RESULTS: The patient underwent successful open surgical resection of his right clavicular head leading to resolution of his tracheal compression by the innominate artery. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that this is the first description of tracheal compression due to osteomesopyknosis. This case demonstrates that compression of the innominate artery due to a clavicular abnormality can be safely corrected via open surgical resection.