Comparative analysis of carotid artery stenting practice and outcomes across operator specialties: insights from a prespecified subanalysis of a large real-world patient cohort (ROADSAVER Study).

BACKGROUND: In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature. METHODS: Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator's specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke: 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.

Midterm survival after aortic repair versus conservative treatment in patients with penetrating aortic ulcer.

Background: The clinical outcomes and survival of patients with penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU) were evaluated in a tertiary care hospital, comparing those who underwent aortic repair to those treated conservatively. Patients and methods: A retrospective single-centre analysis included all patients that underwent a computed tomography angiography (CT-A) scan with the diagnosis of a PAU between January 2009 and May 2019. "PAU" was identified in 1,493 of 112,506 CT-A scan reports in 576 patients. Clinical and angiomorphological data were collected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), with secondary outcomes focusing on identifying risk factors for poor OS. Survival probabilities were analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test. A Cox hazard model using survival as dependent variable with stepwise backward eliminations based on the likelihood ratios was employed. Results: 315 PAUs were identified in 278 patients. The prevalence in the cohort was 0.8%. The mean age of the patients was 74.4 years, and they were predominantly male (n = 208, 74.8%). The mean ulcer depth was 11.8 mm (range 2-50 mm). Out of the patients, 232 were asymptomatic (83.5%). Among 178 PAUs (56.5%), high-risk factors, such as ulcer depth >10 mm, aortic diameter >40 mm, and ulcer length >20 mm, were observed. Aortic repair was associated with a better mean OS compared to conservatively managed patients (72.6 versus 32.2 months, p = 0.001). The Cox hazard model showed that ulcer depth >1 mm was associated with poor OS (HR 0.67, p = 0.048), while aortic repair was related to a better OS (HR 4.365, p<0.013). Conclusions: Aortic repair is associated with better OS, but this finding should be interpreted with caution because of differences in age and comorbidities between the groups. Further evaluation is warranted through prospective studies with randomized groups. Further assessment for angiomorphological parameters is recommended to identify patients at increased risk for poor OS.

One-hundred Consecutive Physician-Modified Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using the Terumo TREO Stent Graft.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been widely applied for the treatment of pararenal (PAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). If custom-made devices or off-the-shelf devices are not available, physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) are an alternative device option. Several different endograft platforms have been used for PMEG; however, minimal data exists on utilizing the Terumo TREO abdominal stent graft system in this setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our single-center experience treating PAA and TAAA, with a physician-modified FEVAR, using the Terumo TREO platform. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients with PAA and TAAA treated at a single center, with a FEVAR, utilizing a PMEG device between March 2021 and September 2023 was queried for those having a Terumo TREO device implanted. The demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were analyzed. The rates of technical success, type I or III endoleak, branch vessel status, reintervention, and 2-year survival were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 153 patients who underwent FEVAR with a PMEG device during the study period, 100 had repair using a Terumo TREO stent graft. The mean age of the cohort was 73.7 ± 7.0 years with the majority suffering from hypertension (n = 94, 94%), coronary artery disease (n = 51, 51%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 40, 40%). Thirty-four patients (34%) had a prior failed EVAR device in place. The mean aneurysm size was 66.0 ± 13.7 mm, with 58 (50%) patients classified as PAA and 30 (30%) patients as an extent IV TAAA. Six (6%) patients presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8 ± 0.6. The overall technical success was 99%, procedure time was 218 ± 116 min, contrast volume was 82 ± 21 mL, and cumulative air kerma was 3,054 ± 1,560 mGy. Postoperative complications were present in 20 patients (20%), and 2 patients (2%) died within 30 days. Rates of type I or III endoleak, branch vessel stenosis or occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 7%, respectively. The two-year overall survival was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of PAA and the extent IV TAAA using a physician-modified fenestrated Terumo TREO endograft is safe and effective. This large, early experience using the Terumo TREO platform supports preferential use of this device in this setting due to the device design and low likelihood of type I or III endoleak.

Laparoscopy versus endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm: A systematic review.

Minimally invasive surgery is a useful alternative to open repair for patients with nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). We aim to compare the clinical outcomes for three different minimally invasive techniques: hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), total laparoscopic surgery (TLS), and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched between January and March 2023. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two minimally invasive techniques were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, 30-day, or 1-year) and reintervention rates (30-day or 1-year). Length of surgery, blood loss, transfusion volume, conversion to open surgery, major complication rates, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay were also evaluated. Eight cohort studies and one RCT were included comparing patients undergoing HALS (n = 500), TLS (n = 263), and EVAR (n = 438) for elective AAA repair. The TLS group had the highest rate of 30-day postoperative reinterventions (p = 0.00056), the longest surgical duration (p = 0.0311), and the highest rate of conversion to open surgery (p < 0.001). TLS was also associated with the most blood loss during surgery, the highest blood transfusion volumes, and the longest length of ICU stay, although these results did not reach statistical significance. Subgroup analysis revealed superior contemporary EVAR outcomes compared to TLS. Laparoscopic surgery (LAS) and EVAR have comparable mortality rates. However, LAS, particularly TLS, is significantly less efficacious than EVAR in terms of intraoperative conversions to open surgery and 30-day reintervention rates. Further controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the evidence.

A single-center experience of type B aortic intramural hematoma.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of the best medical treatment (BMT) and intervention treatment (INT) in a single-center experience were reported in type B intramural hematoma (IMH). METHODS: From February 2015 to February 2021, a total of 195 consecutive patients with type B IMH were enrolled in the study. The primary end point was mortality, and the secondary end points included clinical and imaging outcomes. The clinical outcomes were aortic-related death, retrograde type A aortic dissection, stent graft-induced new entry tear, endoleak, and reintervention. The imaging outcome was evaluated through the latest follow-up computed tomography angiography, which included aortic rupture, aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, rapid growth of aortic diameter, newly developed or enlarged penetrating aortic ulcer or ulcer-like projection (ULP) and increased aortic wall thickness. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the association between different treatments. RESULTS: Among the enrolled patients, 115 received BMT, and 80 received INT. There was no significant difference in early (1.7% vs 2.5%; P = 1.00) and midterm all-cause death (8.3% vs 5.2%; P = .42) between the BMT and INT groups. However, patients who underwent INT were at risk of procedure-related complications such as stent graft-induced new entry tear and endoleaks. The INT group was associated with a profound decrease in the risk of ULP, including newly developed ULP (4.3% vs 26.9%; P < .05), ULP enlargement (6.4% vs 31.3%; P < .05), and a lower proportion of high-risk ULP (10.9% vs 45.6%; P < .05). Although there was no significant difference in the incidence of IMH regression between the two groups, the maximum diameter of the descending aorta in patients receiving INT was larger compared with those treated with BMT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our limited experience, patients with type B IMH treated with BMT or INT shared similar midterm clinical outcome. Patients who underwent INT may have a decreased risk of ULPs, but a higher risk of procedure-related events and patients on BMT should be closely monitored for ULP progression.

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has had a dynamic impact on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) care, often supplanting open AAA repair (OAR). Accordingly, US AAA management is often highlighted by disparities in patient selection and guideline compliance. The purpose of this analysis was to define secular trends in AAA care. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all EVARs and OARs (2011-2021). End points included procedure utilization, change in mortality, patient risk profile, Society for Vascular Surgery-endorsed diameter compliance, off-label EVAR use, cross-clamp location, blood loss, in-hospital complications, and post-EVAR surveillance missingness. Linear regression was used without risk adjustment for all end points except for mortality and complications, for which logistic regression with risk adjustment was used. RESULTS: In all, 66 609 EVARs (elective, 85% [n=55 805] and nonelective, 15% [n=9976]) and 13 818 OARs (elective, 70% [n=9706] and nonelective, 30% [n=4081]) were analyzed. Elective EVAR:OAR ratios were increased (0.2 per year [95% CI, 0.01-0.32]), while nonelective ratios were unchanged. Elective diameter threshold noncompliance decreased for OAR (24%→17%; P=0.01) but not EVAR (mean, 37%). Low-risk patients increasingly underwent elective repairs (EVAR, +0.4%per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]; OAR, +0.6 points per year [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Off-label EVAR frequency was unchanged (mean, 39%) but intraoperative complications decreased (0.5% per year [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). OAR complexity increased reflecting greater suprarenal cross-clamp rates (0.4% per year [95% CI, 0.1-0.8]) and blood loss (33 mL/y [95% CI, 19-47]). In-hospital complications decreased for elective (0.7% per year [95% CI, 0.4-0.9]) and nonelective EVAR (1.7% per year [95% CI, 1.1-2.3]) but not OAR (mean, 42%). A 30-day mortality was unchanged for both elective OAR (mean, 4%) and EVAR (mean, 1%). Among nonelective OARs, an increase in both 30-day (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.1-1.5]) and 1-year mortality (0.8% per year [95% CI, 0.3-1.6]) was observed. Postoperative EVAR surveillance acquisition decreased (67%→49%), while 1-year mortality among patients without imaging was 4-fold greater (9.2% versus imaging, 2.0%; odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 3.8-4.3]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in EVAR and a corresponding reduction in OAR across the United States, despite established concerns surrounding guideline adherence, reintervention, follow-up, and cost. Although EVAR morbidity has declined, OAR complication rates remain unchanged and unexpectedly high. Opportunities remain for improving AAA care delivery, patient and procedure selection, guideline compliance, and surveillance.

Clinical Implications of Low Body Mass Index on Endovascular Lower Extremity Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The epidemic of obesity and associated cardiovascular morbidity continues to grow, attracting public attention and healthcare resources. However, the impact of malnutrition and being underweight continues to be overshadowed by obesity, especially in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). This study assesses the characteristics and outcomes of patients with low body mass index (BMI ≤ 18.5) compared to patients with nonobese BMI undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing PVI due to PAD registered in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Patients were categorized into underweight (BMI ≤ 18.5) and nonobese BMI (BMI = 18.5-30). Patients in both groups were matched 3:1 for baseline demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and indications. Kaplan-Meier analysis was done for long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 337,926 patients underwent PVI, of whom 12,935 (4%) were underweight, 215,728 (64%) were nonobese, and 109,263 (32%) were obese. Underweight patients were more likely to be older, female, smokers, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and more likely to present with chronic limb-threatening ischemia than nonobese patients. After propensity matching, there were 18,047 nonobese patients and 6,031 underweight patients. There were no significant differences in matched characteristics. Perioperatively, underweight patients were more likely to require a longer hospital length of stay. Underweight patients had statistically significantly higher 30-day mortality compared to patients with nonobese BMI (3% vs. 1.6%, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of thrombotic complications. As for long-term outcomes, underweight patients had a higher rate of reintervention (20% vs. 18%, P < 0.001) and major adverse limb events (27% vs. 22%, P < 0.001). The 4-year rate of amputation-free survival was significantly lower in underweight patients (70% vs. 82%, P < 0.001), and the 2-year freedom from major amputation (90% vs. 94%, P < 0.001) showed similar trends with worse outcomes in patients who were underweight. CONCLUSIONS: Underweight patients with PAD are disproportionally more likely to be African American, females, and smokers and suffer worse outcomes after PVI than PAD patients with nonobese BMI. When possible, increased scrutiny and optimization of nutrition and other factors contributing to low BMI should be addressed prior to PVI.

Indication and Outcome of Late Open Conversion after Abdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for patients with infrarenal aortic aneurysms over the last 2 decades. Endograft technology and treatment of complications like endoleaks, graft migration, or graft occlusion developed over time. However, sometimes open surgical conversion maybe required. Our aim was to analyze the indications, the technical aspects and outcomes in patients who underwent open conversion after EVAR with different types and generations of endografts. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study reviewed all patients who underwent EVAR from 2004 to 2020. Open surgical conversions >1 month post EVAR were identified. Conversions for graft infection were excluded. Indications for conversion and operative technique were analyzed. Primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were re-interventions and follow-up mortality. RESULTS: During 2004 and 2020, 443 consecutive EVARs were performed, and 28 patients required open surgical conversion, with an additional 3 referred from other hospitals (N = 31). The median age was 75 (range 58-93); 94% were male. Conversion was performed after a median time of 55 months (range 16-209). Twenty patients underwent elective and 11 emergency conversion. Indications for open conversion were graft migration, respectively, disease progression with endoleak type Ia and/or Ib in 52% (16/31) and sac expansion due to endoleak type II in 26% (8/31). Of the 31 patients, 17 (55%) had at least one previous endovascular re-intervention. All patients met the device-specific instructions for use for each implanted endograft. In-hospital intervention rate was 16% (5/31). Thirty-day mortality rate was 3% (1/31) with one patient died due to multiorgan failure after rupture with complete endograft replacement. Five patients (16%) died during follow-up. Mid-term follow-up was 47.5 months (range 24-203) with estimated cumulative survival rates of 97%, 89%, and 84%, at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Late open conversion remains a valuable treatment option and can be performed safely in elective and emergency setting with a low early mortality. Lifelong surveillance and prompt intervention when necessary are essential in ensuring optimal outcomes after EVAR and preventing the need for emergent conversions.

Endovascular Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia (CLTI) in the Elderly: A Focus on Frailty, Wound Healing, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In India, a significant scarcity of published data exists regarding chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and its management, especially among the elderly population. CLTI, often accompanied by frailty poses a significant healthcare challenge. While endovascular interventions offer hope, there remains a dearth of outcome data for this age group. This study seeks to address this critical gap by investigating the impact of frailty on outcomes, emphasizing amputation-free survival (AFS), wound healing, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Our study included 131 elderly CLTI patients aged ≥70 years who underwent infrainguinal endovascular interventions between April 2018 and August 2021, with a follow-up period of 2 years. Among the patients, 93.9% had diabetes mellitus and 82.4% had hypertension. Clinical frailty was assessed using the clinical frailty scale (CFS). Patients were categorized into group 1 (CFS 1-5) and group 2 (CFS 6-9). Primary outcomes were AFS, wound healing, HRQoL, and their association with frailty. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure-related complications, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, vessel patency, re-intervention rates, and mortality rates including periprocedural and overall mortality. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 86.3% of patients, with frailty significantly influencing this outcome. Group 2 exhibited reduced technical success (80.8%) compared to group 1 (93.1%). The major amputation rate was 9.2%, with higher rates in group 2 [univariate hazard ratio: 5.20; P = 0.033]. Similarly, group 2 showed elevated overall mortality [univariate hazard ratio: 5.18; P < 0.001]. AFS at 1 and 2 years were 67.9% and 55%, respectively, with higher rates in group 1. Wound healing was achieved in 76.1% of patients (83/109), with frailty significantly associated with delayed wound healing (P < 0.001). Vessel patency at 1 year was observed in 88.8% of patients. HRQoL significantly improved postintervention, with vascular quality of life questionnaire-6 (VascuQol-6) scores increasing from an average of 9 of 24 at baseline to 20 of 24 at 2 years. Frailty score significantly correlated with VascuQol-6 scores at 1 and 2 years (P < 0.0012). Group 1 exhibited higher VascuQol-6 scores than group 2, indicating improved HRQoL during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Successful endovascular treatments in high-risk CLTI patients promote improved wound healing and post-treatment quality of life. Frailty should be assessed before endovascular interventions as it correlates with adverse outcomes, including amputations and mortality. While revascularization holds promise, caution is advised for frailer patients, emphasizing the importance of personalized care and tailored treatments for elderly CLTI patients.

Five-Year Results for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with the GORE® EXCLUDER® Device: Insights from the Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT).

BACKGROUND: The early postoperative benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) have been well established but questions remain regarding its durability at mid-term and long-term time points. Long-term results in real-world use of EVAR outside of randomized trial data are limited. This study used the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment registry to explore the 5-year outcomes with the GORE EXCLUDER device in real-world clinical circumstances. METHODS: All patients within the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment registry who underwent an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the GORE EXCLUDER device were included in this study. Baseline characteristics and demographic information of the cohort were collected. End points included mortality (all-cause and aneurysm-related), serious endoleaks, aneurysm sac diameter, endograft integrity (fracture, compression, migration), post-EVAR aortic rupture, device-related reintervention, conversion to open repair, graft explantation, and major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: A total of 3,216 patients were included in this analysis. The cohort reflected a significantly comorbid population with 46% of patients reaching a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥5. Follow-up at 5 years was 60% of eligible participants. The freedom from aortic-related mortality was at 98.8% and overall survival was 71.2%. Postoperative major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 49 (1.5%) patients. Device-related intervention through 5 years was 7.2% and the overall serious endoleak rate was 6.8%. Less than 1% of patients required an open conversion/revision and aortic rupture following device placement occurred in 15 (0.5%) patients. Aneurysm sac regression was achieved in 58.1% of patients at 5 years, and stability/absence of growth was observed in 83.6% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the durability of the GORE EXCLUDER device through 5 years with negligible incidence of graft integrity compromise and low aortic/device-related reintervention rates. Furthermore, the efficacy of the device is highlighted with low aortic-related mortality and high sac regression/stability diameter through 5 years.

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

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

Risk Factors for Development of Incisional Hernia after Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Secondary Analysis of the OVER Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the risk of mortality from rupture is elevated, elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is often recommended. Currently, over 80% of elective repairs are carried out using an endovascular approach. While open repair has similar late survival and fewer reintervention outcomes when compared to endovascular repair, incisional hernia is a frequent complication with morbidity and cost implications. The Open versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) trial was the largest randomized trial of endovascular versus open repair of AAA in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors associated with incisional hernia development following AAA repair via secondary analysis of the OVER data. METHODS: This was a multisite trial conducted within the Veterans Affairs health-care system. Study participants (N = 881) were enrolled from 2002 to 2008 and followed until 2011 with additional administrative data collection until 2016. Eligible patients had AAA for which elective repair was planned and randomized 1:1 to either open or endovascular repair. Incisional hernia was a prespecified end point in the OVER protocol, specifically assessed at each protocol follow-up visit. Technical details were extracted from each operative report, repair case report form(s), and adverse event form(s). Patient demographics, comorbid conditions, reported preoperative activity level, and operative details including initial approach, blood loss, and closure methods were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression modeling. RESULTS: Incisional hernias were recorded among 46 participants (5.2%). The average time to hernia diagnosis was 3.5 years. Of the 437 participants randomized to open treatment, 427 received an open repair including crossovers from endovascular treatment assignment. Transperitoneal repair was performed in 81%, running suture in 96%, and absorbable suture in 71% of cases. Randomization to endovascular repair was associated with reduced risk of hernia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.49-0.94). Higher activity level was associated with increased hernia risk (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06-1.84). Approach, suture closure techniques, body mass index, diabetes, and smoking status were not associated with increased risk of hernia development. CONCLUSIONS: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication associated with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and commonly required reintervention. Endovascular repair was associated with reduced risk of hernia. Patients with increased activity experienced a higher incidence of hernia. However, no other modifiable patient, operative, or technical factors were found to be associated with hernia development.

Comparative Analysis of Outcomes of Unibody Endoprosthesis and Aortobifemoral Bypass for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease.

BACKGROUND: Aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) has traditionally been treated with aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). Unibody endograft (UBE) for AIOD, however, has been increasingly utilized in selected patients. We report outcomes of patients undergoing ABF or UBE for AIOD. METHODS: Patients (2016-2021) undergoing elective ABF or UBE with a unibody device for AIOD were identified at an academic institution. Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to evaluate outcomes by group. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients undergoing UBE or ABF were screened, with 82 included. Twenty-one patients underwent UBE (25.6%) and 61 (74.4%) underwent ABF. UBE patients were older (63.8 vs. 58.2 years; P = 0.01), with a higher prevalence of diabetes (52.4 vs. 19.7%; P = 0.004). Significant differences were seen between UBE and ABF including a shorter surgery length (214 vs. 360 min; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (300 vs. 620 mls; P = 0.001), larger minimum aortic diameter (14.6 vs. 12.6; P = 0.0006), larger common iliac artery (9.5 vs. 7.9; P = 0.005) and lower postoperative ankle-brachial index (0.8 vs. 0.9; P = 0.04). There were no differences in TASC C/D iliac lesions in the UBE than ABF group (66.6% vs. 63.9%; P < 0.82) or Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus classification femoropopliteal lesions. Unadjusted analysis revealed no significant differences between UBE and ABF for 30-day mortality (0 vs. 1.6%; P = 1), stroke (0 vs. 3.3%; P = 1), or major adverse cardiac events (4.8 vs. 4.9%; P = 1). There were no significant differences in mid-term surgical outcomes over a mean follow-up period of 23.7 months between UBE and ABF groups; specifically endovascular (0 vs. 8.2%; P = 0.3) or open/hybrid reintervention (9.5 vs. 14.8%; P = 0.7) with similar limb occlusion (4.8 vs. 27.8; P = 0.12). Kaplan-Meier estimated primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency at 36 months were similar with 94%, 100%, and 94% for UBE and 86%, 95%, and 86% for ABF, respectively. Estimated survival at 36 months was 95% for UBE and 97% for ABF (P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent outcomes were seen between AIOD treated with UBE or ABF in similar patient populations. Mid-term outcomes such as reintervention and patency are similar for UBE and ABF. We still recommend ABF over UBE as a primary modality of treatment in surgically fit patients with greater complexity aortoiliac lesions and with smaller arterial diameters, especially women.

Complications of Carotid Interventions for Symptomatic Lesions after Systemic Thrombolysis.

BACKGROUND: Series detailing complications after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid stenting (tfCAS) for patients presenting with neurologic symptoms that are treated with systemic thrombolysis (ST) are sparse. We sought to determine if treatment with ST was associated with a higher rate of post-carotid intervention complications. METHODS: A multispecialty, institutional, prospectively maintained database was queried for symptomatic patients treated with CEA or tfCAS from 2007 to 2019. The primary outcomes of interest were bleeding complications (access/wound complications, hematuria, intracranial hemorrhage) or need for reintervention, stroke, and death. We compared rates of these outcomes between patients who were and were not treated with ST. To adjust for preoperative patient factors and confounding variables, propensity scores for assignment to ST and non-ST were calculated. RESULTS: There were 1,139 patients included (949 [82%] CEA and 190 [17%] tfCAS. All treated lesions were symptomatic (550 [48%] stroke, 603 [52%] transient ischemic attack). Fifty-six patients (5%) were treated with ST. Fifteen of 56 patients also underwent catheter-based intervention for stroke. ST was administered 0 to 1 day preoperatively in 21 (38%) patients, 2 to 6 days preoperatively in 27 (48%) patients, and greater than 6 days preoperatively in 8 (14%) patients. ST patients were more likely to present with stroke (93% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and have higher preoperative Rankin scores. Unadjusted rate of bleeding/return to operating room was 3% for ST group and 3% for non-ST group (P = 0.60). Unadjusted rate of stroke was 4% for ST group and 3% for the non-ST group (P = 0.91), while perioperative mortality was 5% for ST group and 1% for non-ST group (P = 0.009). After adjusting for patient factors, preoperative antiplatelet/anticoagulation, and operative factors, ST was not associated with an increased odds of perioperative bleeding/return to the operating room (odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.63; P = 0.309) or stroke (odds ratio 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-2.40; P = 0.493). CONCLUSIONS: ST does not convey a higher risk of complications after CEA or tfCAS. After controlling for other factors, patients that received ST had similar rates of local complications and stroke when compared to non-ST patients. Early carotid intervention is safe in patients that have received ST, and delays should be avoided in symptomatic patients given the high risk of recurrent stroke.

Treatment Outcomes in Octogenarians with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia after Infrainguinal Bypass Surgery or Endovascular Therapy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes after revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in patients aged ≥ 80 years and < 80 years. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed multicenter data of 789 patients who underwent infrainguinal revascularization for CLTI between 2015 and 2021. The end points were 2-year overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), limb salvage (LS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients aged ≥ 80 years and 200 patients aged < 80 years underwent bypass surgery (BSX), and 205 patients aged ≥ 80 years and 294 patients aged < 80 years underwent endovascular therapy (EVT). Before the propensity score matching, multivariate analyses showed that age ≥ 80 years, lower body mass index and serum albumin levels, nonambulatory status, and end-stage renal disease were independent risk factors for 2-year mortality in the BSX and EVT groups. After propensity score matching, the 2-year OS was better in the < 80 years cohort than in the ≥ 80 years cohort in both the BSX and EVT groups (P = 0.018 and P = 0.035, respectively). There was no difference in the 2-year LS rates between the < 80 years and the ≥ 80 years cohorts in both the BSX and EVT groups (P = 0.621 and P = 0.287, respectively). According to the number of risk factors, except for age ≥ 80 years, there was no difference in the 2-year AFS rates between the < 80 years and ≥ 80 years cohorts for the BSX and EVT groups with 0-1 risk factor (P = 0.957 and P = 0.655, respectively). However, the 2-year AFS rate was poor, especially in the ≥ 80 years cohort in the BSX with 2-4 risk factors (P = 0.015). The Clavien-Dindo ≥ IV complication rates tended to be higher in the ≥ 80 years cohort than in the < 80 years cohort only in the BSX with 2-4 risk factors (P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CLTI aged ≥ 80 years had poorer OS than those aged < 80 years. However, there was no difference in LS between the ≥ 80 years and < 80 years cohorts in both the BSX and EVT groups. Although age ≥ 80 years was associated with poorer OS, patients with 0-1 risk factor may benefit from revascularization, including BSX, because no difference was observed in AFS or Clavien-Dindo ≥ IV complications.

Network Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing the Outcomes of Different Endovascular Revascularisation Treatments for Infra-inguinal Peripheral Arterial Disease Causing Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different endovascular revascularisation procedures for treating chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) using network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched on 14 March 2023. REVIEW METHODS: A NMA of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy of different endovascular revascularisation techniques for treating CLTI was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary and secondary outcomes were major amputation and death, respectively. Random effects models were developed and the results were presented using surface under the cumulative ranking curve plots and forest plots. A p value of ≤ .050 was considered statistically significant. The Cochrane collaborative tool was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 2 655 participants of whom 94.8% had CLTI were included. Eleven trials compared plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) vs. drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty (n = 1 771), five trials compared bare metal stent (BMS) vs. drug coated stent (DCS) (n = 466), three trials compared atherectomy vs. DCB (n = 194), two trials compared PBA vs. BMS (n = 70), one trial compared PBA vs. atherectomy (n = 50), and one trial compared BMS vs. DCB (n = 104). None of the revascularisation strategies significantly reduced the risk of major amputation or death compared with PBA. Using the network estimates, GRADE certainty of evidence for improvement in major amputation outcomes for DCB was moderate, for atherectomy and BMS was low, and for DCS was very low compared with PBA. Risk of bias was low in 16 trials, of some concerns in six trials, and high in one trial, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no current evidence from RCTs to reliably conclude that BMS, DCB, DCS, or atherectomy are superior to PBA in preventing major amputation and death in patients with CLTI. Larger comparative RCTs are needed to identify the best endovascular revascularisation strategy.

Midterm outcomes of "wide neck" abdominal aortic aneurysm after open or endovascular repair in two European centers: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare mid-term clinical and morphological outcomes in patients undergoing open (OR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with a proximal wide neck abdominal aortic aneurysm (WN-AAA). METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014 data of all patients undergoing OR at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and EVAR at German Aortic Center Hamburg were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were aneurysm-related mortality at 5 years, reintervention, and overall mortality. Secondary endpoint was proximal neck enlargement. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Survival and freedom from AAA-related reintervention were investigated in matched OR and EVAR group by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of all OR performed at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital 70 were found to have a proximal neck >28 mm (mean age: 69.8±7.2 years, 67 [95.71%] male); of all consecutive EVAR performed at German Aortic Center Hamburg, 52 required an endograft size of at least 32 mm (mean age of 73.1±8.7 years, 49 [94.2%] male). After PSM, the study cohort consisted of 30 OR and EVAR. One early mortality was registered in both groups (P=NS). Mid-term freedom from reintervention compared in OR and EVAR, with no statistically significant differences (P=0.979). Eight (15.4%) patients treated with EVAR developed a significant proximal diameter enlargement (≥3 mm) while only 1 (1.4%) patient in the OR group had the same evolution (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In WN-AAA neck enlargement is observed more frequently in patients undergoing EVAR, but reintervention rate was similar in the 2 groups, demonstrating that both options were safe and effective.

Phase-specific survival after endovascular versus open surgical repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has gained preference over open surgical repair (OSR) as the intervention of choice for patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTA). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with DTA undergoing OSR and TEVAR with contemporary findings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials or studies utilizing propensity-score analysis or reporting risk-adjusted outcomes. The search was performed up until March 2023. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including 4 studies using propensity-score matching and four studies reporting risk-adjusted outcomes, comprising 14,873 patients with DTA undergoing OSR (N.=10,882) and TEVAR (N.=3991). Operative mortality was similar between the two interventions (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.21, P=0.57, I2=0%). However, overall long-term mortality was significantly higher after TEVAR compared to OSR (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.59, P=0.01, I2=0%). Phase-specific analysis revealed comparable risks of mortality within 1 year and between one and two years after interventions, while the risk of mortality was significantly higher after TEVAR compared to OSR beyond two years (HR 1.77, 95% CI, 1.19-2.63, P=0.01. I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated comparable operative mortality between OSR and TEVAR, but higher long-term mortality associated with TEVAR in patients with DTA. The phase-specific analysis highlighted the survival advantage of OSR beyond 2 years. These findings suggest a need for reconsidering OSR indications in the management of DTA.

Real-World Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) are comparable to those of carotid endarterectomy in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis, but real-world outcomes are not well-known. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the real-world clinical outcomes of CAS in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide retrospective registry study of 156 centers between January 2015 and December 2019. We enrolled consecutive patients with CAS managed by certified specialists from the Japanese Society of Neuroendovascular Therapy. Outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause death at 30 days after CAS. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, all-cause death, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and procedural complications. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,792 patients (symptomatic, n = 5,351; asymptomatic, n = 4,441). The mean age was 73.5 years, and men were dominant (86.4%). Embolism protection devices were used in 99% of patients. The primary outcome was not significantly different between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups (120 [2.2%] vs 65 [1.5%]; adjusted OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.92-1.83). The incidences of symptomatic ICH, any ICH, acute in-stent occlusion, and hyperperfusion syndrome were significantly more prevalent in the symptomatic group (47 [0.9%] vs 8 [0.2%], aOR: 4.41 [95% CI: 1.68-11.6]; 73 [1.4%] vs 12 [0.3%], aOR: 3.56 [95% CI: 1.71-7.39]; 45 [0.8%] vs 19 [0.4%], aOR: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.08-4.40]; and 102 [1.9%] vs 36 [0.8%], aOR: 1.78 [95% CI: 1.17-2.71], respectively). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate after specialist-involved CAS at 30 days was low in real-world practice.

Efficacy and Durability of Percutaneous Deep Vein Arterialization: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular deep vein arteriaization (DVA) is a novel technique aimed at salvaging peripheral arterial disease unamenable to conventional surgical intervention. This study aims to review contemporary literature on the efficacy, safety, and durability of DVA on patients with no-option critical limb ischemia (NO-CLI). METHODS: The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using predefined search terms of "percutaneous deep vein arterialization" or "percutaneous deep venous arterialization" in PubMed, Web of Sciences, OvidSP, and Embase. Only studies with 5 or more patients were included, and studies involving open or hybrid DVA were excluded. The primary outcomes included technical success and primary amputation rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of wound healing, complication, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Ten studies encompassing a total of 233 patients were included. Patients were primarily those deemed to have NO-CLI. The median follow-up period was 12 months (range 1-63 months). The technical success rate was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.2%-97.9%) and the major amputation rate was 21.8% (95% 21.1%-22.4%). The wound healing rate was 69.5% (95% CI 67.9-71.0%), complication rate was 13.8% (95% CI 11.7%-15.9%), reintervention rate was 37.4% (95% CI 34.9%-39.9%), and all-cause mortality rate was 15.7% (95% CI 14.1%-17.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that endovascular DVA is safe for patients with NO-CLI. Nonetheless, studies were small with follow-up period of less than 1 year. There is currently lack of level 1 evidence to recommend routine use in patients with NO-CLI.