Carotid-Carotid Transposition for Zone 1 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Carotid-carotid bypass is the standard technique for cervical aortic arch debranching to maintain left common carotid artery perfusion with zone I thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), while left-to-right carotid-carotid transposition (CCT) has been described as an autologous alternative. We report on our center's experience with CCT in the setting of zone I TEVAR. This is the only published series of this technique. METHODS: All patients who underwent CCT, defined by CPT code 35509, between 2017 and 2020 were identified at our tertiary care center. Patient demographics, indications for CCT, complications specific to CCT, operative details, post-operative course, and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients underwent CCT prior to zone 1 TEVAR. The indications for intervention were thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and dissections secondary to hypertension (n = 10), Marfan syndrome (n = 2), and Turner syndrome with aneurysmal degeneration of previous coarctation repair (n = 1). There was a high incidence of preexisting hypertension (92%), malnutrition (69%), and smoking (61%) in this cohort. Operative intervention was performed on both an elective (n = 7, 54%) and an urgent (n = 6, 46%) basis. Complications directly related to CCT included transient unilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve deficit (n = 1, 7.7%). There were no cerebrovascular events, surgical site infections, or procedure-related mortalities. All transpositions with follow-up imaging were patent without stenosis or thrombosis (average 7.2 months, n = 10). There were no late complications related to CCT. CONCLUSIONS: CCT is a safe and autologous alternative to carotid-carotid bypass for left common carotid artery revascularization with zone I TEVAR.

Minimal Aortic Injury: Mechanisms, Imaging Manifestations, Natural History, and Management.

Over the last 2 decades, increased depiction of minimal aortic injury (MAI) in the evaluation of patients who have sustained trauma has mirrored the increased utilization and improved resolution of multidetector CT. MAI represents a mild form of blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI) that usually resolves or stabilizes with pharmacologic management. The traditional imaging manifestation of MAI is a subcentimeter round, triangular, or linear aortic filling defect attached to an aortic wall, representing a small intimal flap or thrombus consistent with grade I injury according to the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS). Small intramural hematoma (SVS grade II injury) without external aortic contour deformity is included in the MAI spectrum in several BTAI classifications on the basis of its favorable outcome. Although higher SVS grades of injury generally call for endovascular repair, there is growing literature supporting conservative management for small pseudoaneurysms (SVS grade III) and large intimal flaps (>1 cm, unclassified by the SVS), hinting toward possible future inclusion of these entities in the MAI spectrum. Injury progression of MAI is rare, with endovascular aortic repair reserved for these patients as well as patients for whom medical treatment cannot be implemented. No consensus on the predetermined frequency and duration of multidetector CT follow-up exists, but it is common practice to perform a repeat CT examination shortly after the initial diagnosis. The authors review the evolving definition, pathophysiology, and natural history of MAI, present the primary and secondary imaging findings and diagnostic pitfalls, and discuss the current management options for MAI. Online DICOM image stacks are available for this article. ©RSNA, 2020.

Direct Retrograde Bypass is Preferable to Antegrade Bypass for Open Mesenteric Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Mesenteric bypass grafts can be constructed either antegrade or retrograde. There is debate regarding which is the optimal approach. We have modified the technique for retrograde mesenteric revascularization using a direct open retrograde revascularization (DORR) technique. This report is a retrospective single-institution study that describes the DORR technique and compares it with antegrade mesenteric bypass. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing open mesenteric bypass between January 2001 and December 2017 for mesenteric ischemia were reviewed. Patients who underwent mesenteric thromboembolectomy, retrograde stenting, or bypass for aneurysmal disease were excluded. Patient demographics, operative details, and follow-up data were recorded. Antegrade bypasses were constructed using a polyester, collagen-coated, knitted, (Maquet, Getinge Group)- bifurcated graft. The supraceliac aorta was exposed, and the Dacron graft limbs were tunneled to the celiac and/or superior mesenteric artery (SMA). The DORR was constructed by anastomosing a vein graft to an iliac artery. The vein was tunneled through the base of the small bowel mesentery to create a direct course to the SMA. When revascularization to both the SMA and celiac vessels was indicated, the vein was anastomosed to the SMA in a side-to-side fashion with the distal vein tunneled through the mesocolon and anastomosed in a end-to-side fashion to the hepatic artery. Statistical analysis was done using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and log-rank test with a P ≤ 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Forty-one patients underwent open mesenteric bypass: 16 antegrade and 25 retrograde. Patient age, gender, and body mass index were similar. Indication for operation was acute ischemia in a greater portion of patients undergoing retrograde bypass (P = 0.025). For antegrade bypasses, Dacron was used in 15 and saphenous vein in 1. The DORR bypass originated from an iliac artery (21), limb of an aortofemoral graft (2), or infrarenal aorta (2). All DORR were constructed using veins (19 femoral veins and 6 greater saphenous veins). In DORR configurations, the bypass was created to only the SMA in 23 cases (92%). By comparison, in antegrade bypasses, the bypass was constructed to both the SMA and celiac arteries in all but 1 case (P < 0.00001). Median operative time was significantly shorter for DORR compared with antegrade bypass (282 vs. 375 min; P < 0.05). Blood loss, need for second-look laparotomy, morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and discharge disposition were similar between groups. There was a shift in favor of the DORR technique in the second half of the study (4 of 15 [27%] DORR from 2001 to 2009 vs. 21 of 26 [81%] DORR from 2010 to 2017). In survivors, 57% of the antegrade cohort and 74% of the DORR cohort had documented follow-up (average, 47.5 ± 59.9 and 28.8 ± 31.3 months, respectively). No difference was noted in survival between groups. All grafts in both cohorts were patented at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Direct tunneling of the graft under the mesentery with the DORR technique avoids concern for kinking and has shorter operative time despite the need for vein harvest. No differences were noted in long-term survival between patient groups. The use of a venous conduit makes DORR adaptable for both chronic and acute mesenteric ischemia. These factors have resulted in the DORR technique to be our preferred method for open mesenteric revascularization.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in endovascular versus open repair for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms: A propensity-matched analysis.

Objective Endoluminal aortic aneurysm repair is suitable within certain anatomic specifications. This study aims to compare 30-day outcomes of endovascular versus open repairs for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms (JAA/PAAs). Methods The ACS-NSQIP database was queried from 2012 to 2015 for JAA/PAA repairs. Procedures characterized as emergent were included in the study; however, failed prior repairs and ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The preoperative and perioperative patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcome variables were compared between the open aortic repair and the endovascular aortic repair groups. Propensity scoring was performed to clinically match open aortic repair and endovascular aortic repair groups on preoperative risk and select perioperative factors that differed significantly in the unmatched groups. Outcome comparisons were then performed between matched groups. Results A total of 1005 (789 JAAs and 216 PAAs) aneurysm repairs were included in the study. Of these, there were 395 endovascular aortic repairs and 610 open aortic repairs. Propensity scoring created a matched group of 263 endovascular aortic repair and 263 open aortic repair patients. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality rates between matched endovascular aortic repair and open aortic repair patients (2.7% vs. 5.7%). The endovascular aortic repair group had a shorter ICU length of stay and overall hospital stay. The 30-day morbidity significantly favored endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair (16% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). The main drivers of morbidity for endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair included return to the OR (6.8% vs. 15%, p < 0.001), rate of cardiac or respiratory failure (7.6% vs. 21%, p = 0.001), rate of renal insufficiency or failure (3.8% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.009), and rate of pneumonia (1.5% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.004). Conclusions There is no difference in mortality rates between endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair when repairing JAAs/PAAs. There is a significant difference in overall morbidity, and ICU and hospital length of stay favoring endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair. This supports the expanded applicability and efficacy of endovascular repair for complex aneurysms.

Type IIIb Endoleak Associated With an Infected Thoracoabdominal Endograft.

We present a 63-year-old male patient who presented with vague abdominal pain after an endoluminal thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair. He was found to have an infected endograft and an associated type IIIb endoleak. We believe that the infection contributed to the fabric degradation along the endograft and resulted in an expanding endoleak. Graft explantation was not performed because of the patient's multiple comorbidities, and the endoleak was treated with an additional stent graft and suppressive antibiotics. Endograft infection may lead to endograft degradation and associated leak. Therefore, an infectious etiology, although rare, should be considered when evaluating a delayed type IIIb endoleak.

Cost analysis of vascular readmissions after common vascular procedures.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed readmissions and their associated hospital costs after common vascular surgeries at a single institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, aortoiliac revascularization, or infrainguinal revascularization, from 2010 through 2012, were retrospectively evaluated. We compared 30- and 90-day readmission rates and costs by procedure group, and we tabulated reasons for readmission and procedures performed during readmission. We used both American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data and patient records; as NSQIP only captures 30-day data, we retrospectively reviewed patient charts to extend the evaluation to 90 days. Analyses were performed using parametric or nonparametric methods as appropriate. RESULTS: Two hundred nineteen cases were analyzed; the overall rate of index admission survivors experiencing at least one readmission within 30 days was 17% and within 90 days, 27%. Median readmission costs were $10,700, which added 39% to the median index costs of $27,700. Over half of readmissions (55%) included an operation. The most common cause for readmission was related to wound complications, comprising approximately 30% of the entire readmission cohort. Independent drivers of readmission costs were the need for additional surgical procedures, the use of intensive care unit services, and the number of days spent in the hospital above the median. Total 90-day costs were statistically equivalent between open and endovascular procedures when including readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: We found that vascular surgery readmissions occur at a rate of 17% at 30 days and 27% at 90 days. When including the costs of readmission for a wide variety of common vascular cases, there is no significant difference in total costs between endovascular and open procedures at 90 days.

Outcomes of simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ventral hernia repair compared to that of laparoscopic cholecystectomy alone.

BACKGROUND: Although incidental hernias frequently are found and repaired during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the outcomes of simultaneous LC and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) have not been scrutinized. In this study we evaluated short-term outcome data comparing simultaneous LC and LVHR against LC alone. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2009) was queried using primary procedure and secondary current procedural terminology (CPT(®)) codes for LC and LVHR. Outcomes analyzed included separate LC and LVHR and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ventral hernia repair (LC/LVHR). The 30 day clinical outcomes along with postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS) were assessed using the χ(2) test and analysis-of-variance test with p values < 0.01 set as significant. We also performed forward stepwise multivariable regression taking in to consideration over 50 ACS NSQIP risk factors to adjust for patient risk. RESULTS: A total of 82,837 patients underwent LC and/or LVHR of which 357 (0.4%) underwent simultaneous LC/LVHR. Patients who underwent LC/LVHR were more likely to have surgical site infections, suffer sepsis or septic shock, and have pulmonary complications, including pneumonia, reintubation or prolonged ventilator requirements, than LC-alone patients. No difference was noted in 30 day mortality, rates of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), renal insufficiency, or stroke. After multivariable adjustment for over 50 ACS NSQIP risk factors, concurrent LC/LVHR continued to pose a higher risk for these outcomes relative to LC only. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous LC/LVHR results in greater postoperative morbidity in terms of surgical site infections, sepsis, and pulmonary complications when compared to LC alone. In light of this increased short-term morbidity, consideration should be given toward performing LC and LVHR independently in patients requiring both procedures. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to better understand the implications of simultaneous LC/LVHR.